The plea for infants and elder people, concerning their baptisme, or, A processe of the passages between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton wherein, first is proved, that the baptising of infants of beleevers, is an ordinance of God, secondly, that the rebaptising of such, as have been formerly baptised in the apostate churches of Christians, is utterly unlawful, also, the reasons and objects to the contrarie, answered : divided into two principal heads, I. Of the first position, concerning the baptising of infants, II. Of the second position, concerning the rebaptising of elder people. Clyfton, Richard, d. 1616. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A19033 of text S1572 in the English Short Title Catalog (STC 5450). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 655 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 122 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2018 A19033 STC 5450 ESTC S1572 20214541 ocm 20214541 23838 2240957211

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.

 Early English books online text creation partnership. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A19033) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 23838) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1707:16) The plea for infants and elder people, concerning their baptisme, or, A processe of the passages between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton wherein, first is proved, that the baptising of infants of beleevers, is an ordinance of God, secondly, that the rebaptising of such, as have been formerly baptised in the apostate churches of Christians, is utterly unlawful, also, the reasons and objects to the contrarie, answered : divided into two principal heads, I. Of the first position, concerning the baptising of infants, II. Of the second position, concerning the rebaptising of elder people. Clyfton, Richard, d. 1616. [20], 226 p. By Gyles Thorp, Printed at Amsterdam : 1610. Preface signed: Richard Clifton. Signatures: *-**⁴ ***² A-2E⁴ F²(last leaf blank). Pages 70-73, 76, 77 and 80 misnumbered as 80-83, 86, 78 and 90 respectively. Errata: p. 226. "Answers STC 22875."--STC (2nd ed.). Imperfect: stained with print show-through and tightly bound with slight loss of print. Reproduction of original in the Harvard University. Library. eng Smyth, John, d. 1612. Anabaptists -- Controversial literature. Baptism -- Early works to 1800. eebo The plea for infants and elder people, concerning their baptisme, or, A processe of the passages between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton wherein, fi Clyfton, Richard, 1610 244 122116 1515 0 0 0 1 2 174.01 F The rate of 174.01 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the F category of texts with 100 or more defects per 10,000 words. 2013-05 Assigned for keying and markup 2013-05 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2013-09 Sampled and proofread 2013-09 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2014-03 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

THE PLEA FOR INFANTS AND ELDER PEOPLE , concerning their Baptisme . OR A PROCESSE OF THE PASSAGES between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton : Wherein , first is proved , That the baptising of Infants of beleevers , is an ordinance of God . Secondly , That the rebaptising of such , as have been formerly baptised in the Apostate Churches of Christians , is utterly unlawful . Also , The reasons and objections to the contrarie , answered . Divided into two principal heads .

I. Of the first Position , concerning the baptising of infants . II. Of the second Position , concerning the rebaptising of Elder people . Mat. 7. 15. 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing , but inwardly they are ravening wolves , you shal know them by their fruits . 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But there were false Prophets also among the people , even as there shall be false Teachers among you , which privily shal bring in damnable Heresies , even denying the Lord that hath bought them , & bring upon themselves swift damnation . And many shal follow their damnable wayes , by whom the way of truth shal be evil spoken of .

Printed at Amsterdam by Gyles Thorp . Anno 1610.

To all them which are called and sanctified of God the Father , and returned to Iesus Christ .

LEt it not seem strange ( deare brethren ) neyther cause any to distast the right wayes of the Lord , because from amongst vs some have departed from the fayth , and are turned after errors : For the holy Ghost hath foretold vs ▪ that even from amongst our selves , there should men arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them , Act. 20. 30. And with such , the primitiue Apostolike Churches were greatly molested , and that whylest the Apostles were living . Iohn doth also witnesse that in his tyme there were many Antichrists . they went ( sayth he ) out from us . 1. Ioh. 2. 18. 19. meaning even out of the bosome of the Church . And our Saviour sayth , many false Prophets shall arise and deceive many . Mat. 24. 11. And Peter saith , many shall follow their damnable wayes , 2 Pet. 2. 2. All which may teach vs not to be offended when the like doth befall to the Churches in our times : Seing it is incident to Gods people , not onely to be persecuted by enemies without , but also greived with false brethren , that under pretence of more sinceritie of religion , will seek to destroy the faith , being the very instruments of Satan , whom he subborneth to deceive the unstable and to corrupt their minds from the simplicitie that is in Christ . 2. Cor. 11. 3. These things being considered , it behoveth us to mind the exhortations and warnings given by the Apostles of Christ , that is , to stand fast and keep the instructions which we have been taught . 2 Thes. 2. 15. And not to beleeve every spirit , but to trie the spirits whether they be of God or no : for many false Prophets are gone into the world , 1 Ioh. 4. 1. And the rather it stands vs the more upon to take heed to our selves and be admonished by the word of the Lord , because , as the Divil on the one hand , prevayleth in these our times , by worldly arguments , of profite , pleasure and the like● , to keep many back from walking in the right wayes of God : So on the other hand , ( under glorious shewes of pretended holynes ) hath he deceaved many , and drawne them into damnable heresies , labouring to poyson the fountaines of wholsome doctrine , reveiled in these last dayes vnto his Church : And wher●● God in mercie hath preached vnto vs the Gospel ( that formerly he had ●eached to Abraham our father , and by the Apostles vnto both Iewes ●d Gentiles ) that a long time hath bene greatly obscured through the ●oggy mists of popish doctrines , now seeketh to spoile the church of Christ ●ereof altogether , by that detestable heresie of Anabaptisme , which as ● hath overspread many places , to the great annoyance of the people of God : So ( as a leprosie ) hath it at this present infected some of our owne ●ntryemen , who are not onely taynted therewith , but have revolted frō●e faith , and taken vpon them the profession thereof , and published their ●reticall opinions in our owne language . For there is lately set forth 〈…〉 rtayne Treatise of theirs , intituled , The Character of the Beast , ●c . A title as it is most blasphemous ( being understood of the baptising ●f infants ) so is the book it self ful of many dangerous errours , wherwith ●he simple may easily be deceaved . And seing the same book is sent over ●to our own country , and is spread abroad into the hands of many ▪ I have thought good also , to give warning to all that loves the Lord Iesus and ●e carefull of their own salvation , to take heed therof . And for this ●nd have published this Treatise following , contayning a Processe of the Passages between Mr. Smyth ( the author of that book ) and me , wherin ●l ( whose eies it shal please God to open ) may see the notable sleights of Sa●han by this his instrument , who first , sought to disgrace the holy Scriptures translated , and to cast them out of Gods worship , and now in his Charcter , to distroy the covenant of grace ( which of old was given to Abraham including the children with the parents , ) and to bring in a new Gospel that excludes the children of the faythfull both from the covenant and baptism the seale therof . I had no purpose of publishing these my writings , had not the occasion bene offered by Mr. Smyth in printing our former private Passages : but so having done , I could 〈…〉 no lesse , then to publish these my labours also , vnles I should have bene iniurious to the truth . Seing I had received the copie of Mr Smythes book in written hand , which he purposely sent vnto me , as a reply to my former answer , to his two Anabaptistical Positions , whereunto I had almost finished this my second answer before his book was printed . Otherwise ( if I had not bene so far interessed therein ) I should haue bene glad if this work had been taken in hand by others more sufficient then my self . But thus God having disposed to imploy me in this part of his service at this present : I shall desire the godly Reader , to accept this my small endeavours , proceeding from an hart , earnestly striving to mainteyne that faith , which was once given unto the Sainsts and to supply my weaknes with his better labours , as there shal be cause . And withall to take notice , that I have here set downe the whol Passages ( touching this controversie ) between Mr Smyth and me . First , his Positions with the Reasons annexed . 2. My answer therevnto written in private vnto him , which ( without my knowledge ) he published together with his reply , committing that against me therein , which he condemneth in Mr Barnard against himself . Parallels in the epistle to the Reader . Thirdly , the Summe of his Reply . And lastly , my Answer therevnto . So that the Reader may see how these thinges have ( from the beginning ) passed between vs . The Lord give vs to discerne the truth from falsehood , to look to our selves that we loose not the things which we have done , but that we may receive a ful reward . And now unto him that is able to keep vs that we fall not , & to present vs faultlesse before the presence of his glorie with ioye : To God onely our Saviour be glorie and Maiestie , Dominion and power , both now and ever .

Amen . Richard Clifton .
AN ANSWER TO Mr SMYTHES Epistle to the Reader , which he hath directed ,

To every one that loveth the truth in sincerity .

BY these wordes , it seemeth Mr Smyth would intimate , that his care is to mainteyne the truth , and that in sinceritie he loveth the same , whereas in deed , he hath destroyed the faith , is become an enemy to the covenant of grace , & a perverter of the right wayes ●f the Lord : and withall so confident in defence of his heresies , that he ●●es to challendge a combate with all the Separation : belike to feare men ●ith great words , and to boast with Rabsake , as if his forces were invin●ble : But what they are it wil appeare in this discourse following .

In the Epistle it self , first Mr Smyth seemeth to excuse their mutabilitie in Religion , saying : It may be thought most strange that a man should oft times change ●s religion , and it cannot be accounted a commendable qualitie in any man to make ●ny alterations , &c. this must needs be true ( and we confesse it ) if one condition be 〈…〉 itted , that the Religion which a man changeth be the truth , for otherwise to change 〈…〉 lse religion , is commendable , &c.

But Mr Smyth and his company have changed a true Religion for a ●alse , and therefore that can be no commendable qualitie in them : And ●uch inconstant persons ( as himself saith ) cannot escape the deserved imputation ●folly or weaknes of iudgement therein . Thus out of his owne mouth pro●ouncing sentence against himself : For that alteration of him & his company , ●s not from falshood to truth , but the leaving of the truth ( which formerly ●hey professed ) & a taking up of error after error : first calling into question , whether the scriptures being translated into other tongues , were not the writings of men . Differenc . pag. 10. Then casting the reading of them out of the worship of God , affirming that there is no better warrant to bring translations of Scripture into the Church , and to read them as parts and helps of worship , then to bring in expositions , paraphrasts and sermons vpon the Scripture , seing all these are equally humane in respect of the worke , equally divine in respect of the matter they handle . Differ : pag. 10. And for the same cause , separated themselves from other Churches that did read and vse the same in their publike meetings . After this , they dissolved their Church ( which before was conioyned in the fellowship of the Gospel & profession of the true fayth ) & Mr. Smyth being Pastor thereof , gave over his office , as did also the Deacons , and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptisme , and taking upon them an other , of mans invention , bringing in an other Gospel , besides that which was preached to Abraham , Gen. 12 , 3 , & 17. 7. &c. Gal. 3 , 8. And now againe , many of this new communion have separated themselves from the rest , holding the error about the incarnation ●f this new ●aptised cō●union ●ere are re●ayning as ●is reported ●t above ● . persons , ●l the rest ●e runne in ● further ●rors . of Christ . An other sort are excommunicate , namely M. Smyth & divers with him , for holding ( as it is reported by some that were of them ) that their new washed companie is no true church , and that there cannot be in a church the administration of baptisme & other ordinances of Christ , without Officers , contrarie to his former judgment , practise & writings , & yet resteth not but is inquiring after a new way of walking , ( as the same persons affirme ) breeding more errors , as is strongly suspected , and by his manuscripts partly appeares . Whereby it is manifest , that these men can not cleare themselves of instabilitie & changeablenes in Religion , but are guilty of that inconstancie that is worthy reproof and damnable .

Further he sayth , For a man of a Turke to become a Jew , of a Iew a Papist , of a Papist a Protestant , are al commendable changes &c. so that not to change religion is evil simplie : & therefore that we should fal from Puritanisme to Brownisme , and from Brownisme to true christian baptisme , is not simply evil in it self , except it be proved that we have fallen from the true religion , &c.

Here Mr. Smyth would make the world beleeve ( as it is the manner of al heretikes ) that their alterations were goings forward to further truthes , and therefore commendable . But if their true Christian baptisme , ( whereof they boast ) prove a notable heresie , ( as it is indeed , & in this Treatise is proved ) then his comparison holds not , but rather their estate is like to those in 1 Tim. 1 , 19. that put away fayth & a good conscience , and as concerning fayth , have made shipwrack . And that bring in damnable heresies . 2 Pet. 2. 1. &c. denying the covenant of grace , and the lawful use of the scriptures , &c. to bring upon themselves swift damnation , if God give them not speedy repentance .

Next M. Smyth setts down the questions controverted , and hereafter answered , affirming that this controversie is between them and the Separation , whereas he might as well have sayd , betweene them and all christian churches , that have been or are at this day : for it is not we alone that ●ndemne these their heresies , but both the ancient and moderne Chur●es , and writers in all ages , ( as with one consent ) have opposed against ●em .

But where he pretends the publishing of this controversy , to be for the ●ay of God the manifesting of the truth to our owne nation , and the destruction of ●man of sinne , he geveth vs to mynd how Satan hath bewitched his soule ● beleeve that such can be the effects of his heritical opinions . It is the ●ollicy of the Divil to propound glorious ends , to such as he seduceth , as ● Evah and others , & teacheth his Ministers to do the like , that by fayre & ●attring speeches , and shewes of good , they might more easily deceave the ●mple . And therfore seing we are forwarned that there shal be false Teachers ●mongst vs , which privily shal bring in damnable heresies , it behoveth vs ●o mynd the counsel of the Apostles , to try the spirits , 1. Ioh. 4. 1. And not ●o be caryed about with every wynd of doctrine . Ephe. 4. 14.

Now happely , ( sayth Mr. Smyth , ) some man wil wish that the controversy had 〈◊〉 with the Rabbies of the Separation , and not with Mr Clyfton , whome they ca 〈…〉 iate to be a weake man , vnable to deale in so great a controversy : wel , let the Reader take notice that though it be Mr Clyftons pen , yet it is not onely Mr Clyftons 〈…〉 se & def●nce , but his allegations & Reasons are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies thē●elves , And if they can say better , they may now speake , for by publishing answere to theire Reasons , we do chalendge al the separation in speciall to the combate .

This Challenger would fayne have the world to take notice , that he deales with an adversary that is too weak to try out this controversy with him , & so to forestall mens judgments before ever they come to the reading of my answere . And because he would not be seene to be the Author himselfe of my disgrace , he imputeth this report to the Rabbies of the Separation ( as it pleaseth him in his taunting maner to terme them ) who ( I am perswaded ) are guiltles thereof . But if any had so sayd vnto him in private , yet doth he in publishing the same , breake the bounds of love . For myne owne parte , whether any have so spoken or not , it shal not offend me , I knowe the Lord measureth his guiftes to every one as he wil. 1 Cor. 12. 8. — 11. I praise God for that I have , and do not envy , but reioyce in the graces that God bestoweth vpon others , and pray that they may vse them to his glory , and to edification . Notwithstanding though Mr Smyth thinke me to weake to incounter with him , yet the Lord assisting me , I meane not for all these his disgraceful speeches , to yeeld him the cause , or give back one foot from the defence thereof , knowing that the truth which I contend for : wil discover and convince his damnable errors : the which though he set a glorious shew vpon ( as a marchant of false wares ) by misapplying of Scriptures : yet wil the falsehood of them appeare , to al such whose eies God shal open , to discerne between the truth and lyes . Moreover if I in my weaknes , make to appeare how vnconscionably & untruly Mr Smyth dealeth against the truth : his glorious boasting and Philistine valour , will have the more disgrace , then if he had dealt with men of greater guifts : and God shall have the greater glorie , to foyl such a warlike Champion with weak and base meanes .

As for my allegations and reasons which he saith , are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies , &c. herein he both taxeth me and wrongeth them , me , as if I had bene but their pen man in my former answer ; them , in saying my reasons are their best plee , whereas he hath had neither conference with them , by speeches or writing about these matters , save onely with Mr Robinson . And therefore so to speak without triall , bewrayes but the bitternes of his spirit against them . Thus Mr Smyth preparing way for his great challendge , by pretending mine insufficiencie , calles forth the Rabbies ( as he termes them ) to speak , challendging the whol Separation to the combate : wheras a wise man would haue spared such speaches vntil he had seen the issue of his combate , already attempted : and not thus to provoke others , until he had greater likelihood of victorie . As for those reverend men whom now he calles vpon for better , if they can say better , they haue already sayd and written so much against his errors , as I am assured he wil never be able to answer , and when it pleaseth him to reply , ( if there be occasion ) I doubt not but as they have done , so the Lord will inable them to batter downe with spiritual weapons , his greatest forces , that he shal be able to raise against the truth .

And whereas Mr Smyth seemeth to insinuate , that by his answering of my reasons , he hath answered theirs , herein he is deceaved : for the Reasons in my former answer , ( be they what they are , ) I acknowledge for mine own , ( though written unto him without any purpose of publishing ) if therfore weaknes be found in them , let it be imputed vnto me , and neither to our Teachers , ( who had no hand in setting downe thereof ) nor yet to the truth it self . As for his challenging of the whole Separation , and other his intemperate speaches in his epistle , they bewray in him a malicious hart against our poore Church , ) and puft vp with too loftie a conceit of his 〈◊〉 strength . Did ever any of the Prophets or servants of God thus chal 〈…〉 ge a combate with the Lords people ? in deed such braving speeches 〈…〉 eeded from Goliath , 1 Sam. 17. 10. that defied the whol hoast of Is 〈…〉 ; and from Rabsake . 2. King . 18. 23-25 . against the Iewes : But ●as never heard that an Israelite professing the religion of God , vsed 〈◊〉 proud chalendges , as this man doth .

I pray you Mr. Smyth , wherein hath the separation offended you , or my wise wronged you , that you desyre rather to quarrel with them , then with other Churches holding the same truth in this thing , agaynst you ? To the Elders and brethren were you most welcome , and glad they were of you , so long as you walked in the fayth with them . Why is it that you ●●e become their adversary ? is it because they have rejected you , and your company for your errors , which you wilfully mayntayne ? Alas , they must ●o it , vnles they would become vnfaythful to God .

Next after this Chalendge , Mr. Smyth chargeth the separation with a 〈◊〉 constitution , ministery , worship and government , saying .

Be it knowen to all the Separation , that we account them in respect of their con 〈…〉tion , to be as very an harlot , as eyther her mother England , or her grandmother 〈◊〉 is . And although we held her a true church in our ignorance , yet now being better informed &c. we protest agaynst her as wel for her false constitution , as for her false Ministery , worship and goverment &c. the false constitution is of infants baptised .

Concerning the constitution of a Church we do not hold that any visible Church can stand onely of infants , neyther that their baptisme doth geve the being thereof 1. Seing there can be no baptising of infants , where there are not first Elder people , with whome they come vnder the covenant of God 2. Baptism is an other thing divers from the Church , Ephe. 4. 4. 5. and it maketh none to be the people of God , onely it sealeth vp to be his people , them that are so formerly by vertue of his covenant . 3. Els Turkes or Indians professing the Popish Religion being baptized , should be a true Church ( for Mr. Smyth holdeth the † † Charact. pag. 51. baptism of such to be true baptism , if so they confesse their fayth & sinns ) 4. Then circumcision should have made the Sichemites a true Church ( for that which baptism can doe now in constituting of a Church , circumcision could do then ) wherfore I say , baptism is an ordinance of Christ geven to his Church to seale vp his covenant to his people : but is not that whol essential constitution therof . And therefore our baptizing of infants ( if it were admitted to be vnlawful ) can not make the constitution of our Church to be false , much les being the commaundement of the Lord , can it so doo . And thus Mr. Smyth fayleth in the first poynt of his charge . As for the other things he chargeth vs withall , shall receave answere in their due place .

But here further he proceedeth to affirme . That no man can separate from England , as from a false Church , except he also do separate from the baptisme of Engl. &c. Wherevnto he may be answered , that it wil not follow , that they which separate from a Church standing in apostasie , or sinne , must separate from the baptism therein receaved , or yet from any other of Gods ordinances there retayned . We are commaunded to forsake the whordomes of Babylon , Apoc. 18. 4. but not to seperate from any ordinance of Christ that is found therein , save onely from the polutions thereof . Yea Mr. Smyth cannot deny , that a Church standing in Apostasy , is to be separated from , when the baptism therein received ( if it be of such as confesse their fayth and sins ) is still to be retayned , for such baptism , ( sayth he ) i● true Baptism , though administred by Antichristians , Character p. 51. 2. Those Israelits that separated from Ieroboams Church ( which stood in Apostasy ) & went to Ierusalem 2. Cor. 30. 11. did not separate from their circumcision therin receaved : No more are we from our baptisme , as afterward is proved . As for his Reason .

That the baptism of England cannot be true and to be reteayned , and the Church of England false and to be rejected &c. It is but as if he should say , the circumcision of Israell cannot be true and to be reteyned , and the Church of Israell false and to be rejected , I speake of Israell being in Apostacy . And therefore thus I answere vnto it , that baptism retayned in Rome and so in all Apostate Churches ▪ is baptism , and is not to be repeated , as in the latter part of this Treatise , is proved . And seing Mr. Smyth holdeth there Character . ●ag. 51. may be † true baptism in an Apostate Church if they confesse their fayth , doth not he crosse himself here to say , neyther can the Church of England possibly be false , except the baptism be false ? Now if true baptism may be in an apostate Church as he affirmeth , then a Church may be false ( that is apostate ) & not baptism , by his owne reasoning . Yet this man chargeth vs with contradiction , vz. to say , England hath a false constitution , Engl. hath a true baptism . We hold baptism so to be true in an apostate church , as circumcision was in the 〈…〉 ate Church of Israel , & otherwise we do not affirm . Now concerning 〈…〉 ptising of infants , Mr. Sm. thus proceedeth , saying , It seemeth to vs th● vnreasonable heresy , of all Antichristianism , for considering what baptism is : An 〈◊〉 is no more capable of baptism then is any vnreasonable , or insensible creature . ●d then addeth 3. Reasons agaynst it , 1. from his owne description baptism , saying : baptism is not the washing with water , but it is the baptism of 〈…〉 it , the confession of the mouth , and washing with water , &c.

These blasphemous speeches , against the ordinance of Christ bewrayeth ●f what spirit this man is : Gods ordinance is a most vnreasonable heresie with ●im , yea the most vnreasonable of all Antichristianisme . Thus iustifying all the ●dolatries of the Papists and their detestable heresies in comparison of ba●tising of infants . Besides his odious and blasphemous comparison , af●rming Infants no more capable of baptisme , then the vnreasonable and insensible 〈…〉 ures . So that in his judgement , a horse , yea a block may aswell be ●aptised , as the children of the Church , whom the Lord of his free grace 〈…〉ceiveth together with their parents , to be his by an everlasting covenant , Gen. 17. 7. and therefore are holy , and capable of the blessing of Christ , 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. Mark . 10. 16. as hereafter is sufficiently 〈…〉 ved . And therefore to compare these infants with vnreasonable and insensible creatures , as touching the participation of Baptisme , argueth the authour of such comparisons , to be void of spiritual sense and reason , and more to follow the corruption of his own hart in hatred against the truth , then to mind what he affirmeth .

Concerning his description of Baptisme and those Scriptures which he quoteth for proof thereof , see them answered hereafter , pag. 94. where I have shewed , 1. that the baptisme of the Spirit , is no part of that outward Ceremonie of baptisme that is administred by man , but is the inward work of the spirit in the elect of God . 2. That the confession of faith & of sinns , is no part of the Sacrament of Baptisme : seing the confession of sinns , is so often to be repeated , as we transgresse against the Lord , & likewise of faith , as we have occasion administred vnto us . And therefore baptisme , which is given to be the seale of Gods covenant to his Church , is the baptising of the faithful and their seed with water , into the name of the father , and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost . Mat. 3. 11. with Mat. 28. 19. & of this , infants are capable . neyther is their baptisme folly , ( as Mr Smyth sayth ) but it wil prove his fully to make mans confession a part of the Sacrament , which oftentymes ● hypocrical , ( as it was in S. Magus ) & to shut out of Gods covenant who● the Lord hath accepted . And it wil prove his folly to denye baptisme to infants , because they cannot performe such actions , as in other respects are required of the elder sort that are to be baptised , who also not having transgressed in like manner , therefore need not so to confesse . And it wil prove his folly , to deny that an infant can be baptised with the spirit : for so to say , is to deny , that an infant can be saved . But of these things hereafter .

His 2. Reason is taken from Iohns baptisme , framed thus .

Iohns baptisme was the baptisme of repentance . Infants have not Repentance , and therefore can not have the baptisme of Repentance .

To this Argument I answer thus , 1. That repentance is required of such as have actually transgressed , not as the proper cause of baptisme , but as a necessarie fruit of fayth , & condition of the Gospel required of them , that being of yeares are to be received into the church : whether before or since Christs coming . But of the infants of the faythful , whether of those that are newly received into the church , or of beleevers borne in the church , it is not so . Ergo &c.

2. Repentance was not required of the infants of the Iewes before they were circumcised : no more is it to be required of our infants before baptisme , these two Sacraments being the same in use .

3. If Baptisme of repentance , be understood onely of the tyme past , & not of the tyme to come , then is that a false exposition of Iohns baptisme . For as he taught that those that came to be baptised should repent : so also his baptisme did preach a continual dying to sinne , or practise of repentance ▪ al our life long , Rom. 6. 4. And therefore though children cannot repent of actual sinne , which they are not to do , they having not committed the same : yet is their baptisme the baptisme of repentance : seeing it preacheth continual mortification & repentance to the receivers thereof , which is one true use of baptisme .

His third reason is from the testimonie of Tertullian & Eusebius . The words of Tertullian , ( as Mr , Sm. himself hath englished them ) are these .

Therfore to deferre & not to hasten baptisme , is more profitable for the condition disposition & age of every person , but especially as concerning yong children , for what ▪ 〈…〉 there to bring sureties into danger for the baptising of Infants , if there be no 〈…〉 of hastening the baptising of infants . Seing the Sureties are disabled often 〈…〉 to performe theire promise , both by reason of mortalitie , and of the evil dispositi● s●●e children , when they come to yeares , for whom they promised in baptisme , &c. ● First , concerning Tertullian it is to be noted , that thus he writeth , ●n he was fallen into the opinions of the Cataphriges or Montanists , ●● so held divers errors , as Augustine and others have observed out of ● workes . And therefore being thus departed from the fayth ; Let ●e Reader judge if this man be a competent witnesse in this case . Yet ●th not this man affirme that infants were not baptised in his tyme , but ●ther the contrary , in that he makes mention of Sureties for infants : say●g , what necessitie is there to bring Sureties into danger for the baptising of infants , ●hich words do plainly argue , that the Church then used to baptise in●ts .

2. Agayne , that which he affirmeth was his owne private judgment ●d his Reasons are of no weight , as the bringing of sureties into daunger , and ●● the suerties are disabled oftentymes to performe theire promise &c. such sureties ●ot being appointed of God . 3. P. Mart. Clas. 4. ca. 8. affirmeth that ●●tullian denyed Baptism to yong men and yong widowes ; and his owne ●rdes here related , do seeme to intimate some such like thing , in saying , 〈…〉 ferre and not to hasten baptism , is more profitable for the condition , disposition and ●● of every person , And this he meaneth of others , then yong children . For ●er he speaketh of yong children , saying , especially concerning yong children . ● 4. Crispen , State of the Church , pag. 47. 48. witnesseth that Tertullian brought ● extreeme vnction after baptism , the Sygne of the Crosse , offering for the dead , and ●er the like dreames of the Montanists . Now if Tertullians judgment be ●and agaynst infants baptism , why not also for extream vnction the sygne ●f the Crosse , and the like his errors , seing all these are fruits proceeding ●om the same tree ?

But thus this adversary careth not who the witnesse is , so he wil speake in favour of his heresy , let him be Montanist , Papist or what othersoever .

But let it be further observed , that about Tertullians tyme and after , some deferred theire baptisme , vntil they thought they should dye , and so were not baptised vntil they fell into some great sicknes , as Theodosius & others . And this seemeth to be Tertullians error ; as if baptisme was for washing awaye of sinnes past , and not to come .

Concerning that which Eusebius reporteth of Athanasius his bap 〈…〉 of children in sport , I have answered , pag. 109. and set downe reasons ● prove that those children were not children of the church , but of some o● the heathen , which were instructed in the fayth of Christ by the church , but were not received into the communion of the same . These are the two Auncients that M. Smyth produceth against us , whereof neither of the● affirmeth that the church did not baptise infants in those tymes . Now to these two , I wil oppose other two Auncients amongst many others , that do testifie that infants in their tymes and before , were baptised , viz. Origin , who sayth , that the church received from the Apostles , to give baptisme to infants . lib. 5. ad Rom. And Augustine de Bap. contra Donatist . lib. 4. cap. 23. who speaking of the Baptisme of Infants , sayth , that which the whole church holdeth , neyther is ordeyned by councels , but alwayes hath been holden , we are to beleeve to be delivered by Apostolical authoritie .

The next corruption that the Separation is charged withal , is , to have a false ministerie . Now the Ministers that we have are of Pastors & Teachers , called thereunto by election of the Church , according to these Scriptures , Eph. 4 , 9. 11 , 12. Rom. 12 , 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12 , 28. Acts. 13 , 1 , 2. Revel. 1 , 20. Nehem , 8 , 1 , - 8. Mat. 23 , 2. Mal , 2 , 7. Act. 14. 23. And practise of the primitive churches . And of this Ministerie of Pastors and Teachers M. Smyth himself approveth in his Principles , pag. 18. and in his Questions , and answers , pag. 8. printed this last year , 1609. he describing the officers of the Church , devides them , first into Bishops and Deacons , then the Bishops into Pastors , or Teachers , or Elders , and withal describeth the Pastor , to be a bishop over one particular Church , excelling in the word of wisdome . The Teacher , to be a Bishop over one particular church , excelling in the word of knowledge . The Governour , to be a Bishop of one particular visible Church , excelling in wise government . Thus hath he written : and yet we having no other Ministerie , then he himself approveth , chargeth us to have a false Ministerie , not caring to crosse himself , so he may utter his bitternes against the Church of Christ .

The 3. corruption this adversarie chargeth us withal , is , false worship of reading books . This he sayth , but proves it not . I will breifly set downe our practise , that the Reader may take notice , how unjustly we are charged . 1. For prayer & giving of thanks , that is publiquely performed by our Pastor or Teacher , who invocate the name of God & praise him for his benefits ●s the spirit directs their harts to conceive and giveth utterance , & ●ithout the use of any book during that action , according to those ●ptures , Rom. 8. 26. 27. Eph. 6 , 18 , 19. Col. 4 , 2. Act. 6 , 4. Num. 6 , 23. ●4 . - 27. Nehem. 9 , 3 , - 38. Ezra . 9 , 5 , - 15. & 10. 1. Ioel. 2 , 17.

2. They read the holy scriptures , translated into our owne language , ●me two or three chapters or moe , as tyme wil serve , shewing briefly the ●eaning thereof . Which is warranted by these Scriptures . Neh. 8 , 3 , — 8. ●eut . 31 , 11. Act. 15 , 21. Col. 4 , 16. 1 Thes. 5. 27. 1 Tim. 4 , 13.

3. The Pastor or Teacher taketh some Scripture , which they ordinarily ●llow , and after the reading thereof , do expound and apply the same , by doctrine , exhortation , &c. to the further edification of the church : according to these scriptures . Luk. 4. 16. - 21. Act. 8. 35. & 13 , 15. and 26. 7. ● Tim. 4 , 13. 2 Tim. 4 , 2. And together with the preaching of the word , the Sacraments are administred after the rules of Christ , with prayer and thankesgiving , according to these Scriptures : Mat. 28 , 19. 1 Cor. 11 , 23. &c. Act. 20 , 7. &c.

4. Some of the Psalmes of David , before and after the exercise of the ●ord ( the same being first read and opened by the Pastor or Teacher , ) is ●ing of the whole church together to the praise of God , and our own edi●●cation , according to these Scriptures : Eph. 5 , 19. Col. 3 , 16. Mat 26 , 30. Act. 16 , 25. Psal. 95. & 92 , 1. & 66. 2. & 89. 1.

Lastly , each one as he is able , contributeth to the Treasurie , whereby the Officers & poor of the church , are maynteyned : according to these scriptures . 1 Tim. 5 , 17. 18. 1 Cor. 9 , 7-14 . Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 16. Luk. 2● . 1. 2 3. 4. Mat. 26 , 9. 10. 11. Act. 2 , 42. 45 , 46. & 4 , 34. 35. - 37. 1 Cor. 16. 1 , 2. ● Cor. 8 , 4 , 1● . And this is that worship and service we publikely practise , which Mr. S. calleth false worship : how truly , let the Reader now judge .

Fourthly , concerning the Goverment of our church , ( which also this adversarie taxeth ) first , the Governours that we have , are such as Christ hath appointed in his Church , viz. Pastors , Teachers , & Elders , ( and such as M. S. † † Principles . pag. 18. Questions & Answers pag. 8. affirmeth the Eldership to consist of ) the two former both teaching and ruling , the Elders imployed in the government onely , elected of the church for the overseing , governing & guiding of the same , by the rules of Christ , whose offices and authoritie of Ruling , are warranted by these scriptures . 1 Tim. ● . 5. 17. Rom. 12. 6. 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 5. with Rev. 2. 2. 14. 15. Act. 20. 28. Heb. 13 , 8. 24.

Agayn , as touching the Censures , we proceed therin after Chri●●s 〈…〉 private faults vsing private admonitions , and for publike , open reb 〈…〉cording to these Scriptures . Mat. 18. 15. — 17. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 2. Cor. 2. 6. And when the offenders continue obstinate in their sinns after due admonition and conviction by the word of God ; the Church being gathered together , the Pastor , or Teacher or one of the Elders in the name & by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ pronounceth the sentence of excommunication agaynst them , all the brethren consenting , according to these Scriptures . Mat. 18. 17. — 19. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. &c. 1. Tim. 1. 20. And if the excomunicate do repent , he is with the Churches consent received agayne into the communion therof , by some of the Governors according to these Scriptures . 2. Cor. 2. ●7 . — 11. Mat. 18. 18. — 20.

What Mr. Smyth can fault in this or in any other of our practises , he may at his leasure discover the same , if he be not already satisfied .

Now besides these false imputations , it pleaseth Mr. Smyth to vtter agaynst this Church many vncharitable and reprochfull speeches : wishing also , As the Tirant wished concerning the people of Rome , that all theire heades were joyned into one &c.

To passe by his tart and bitter speeches unbeseeming a professor of the Gospell , concerning his wish , I do certifie him thus much , that if it were granted , that the Separation had but one head , his woodden sword of mans doctrine , wil never be able to smyte it of . Wel may he cary the Tyrants mynd , but for his wish , I trust he shall fynd a like effect therof , as the Tyrant did of his , who contrary to his expectation , found the people of Rome not to have one head , but many hands to smyte of his head : So this wisher shall , fynd that the Separation hath many hands to convince his abominable errors .

And whereas he desyreth the Separation that they wil not in craftines withdrawe from the combate , as hetherto they have done in the matter of the Tr●nslation , Worship , and Presbyterie , &c. He himselfe now knoweth that he hath answere to all these things , and if any delay hath bene herein , it was not any withdrawing through craftines , as he falsely chargeth vs , but we saw him so mutable and inconstant , and his latter writings to overthrow his former , that his owne workes would be a sufficient confutation thereof : And now that there was so great occasion of answere , and that he so insulted vpon the differring therof , he hath his answere geven him . For 〈…〉 his speeches , of charging and challendging vs to the defence of ●rors , I hope he wil stay his penne henceforth from such vanitie , seing ●●●e not ashamed , or yet neglect to vndertake the defence of that truth ● professe , and to manifest that he is a defender of errors and not we , as ●e scanderously reporteth of vs .

Furthermore , Mr Smyth requires of the Separation , and of all men , not ● impute vnto them , The denying of the old Testament , the Lords day , the ●●●●stracy , and humanity of Christ . Why this request should be made , I know ●ot , vnles they would beare the world in hand , that they are not taynted ●ith these errors , which other anabaptists doo hold . Concerning the ●st of them , Mr. Sm. affirmeth that the Lord made with his people vnder ●e old Testament , a carnal covenant , denying that everlasting covenant in Christ to be geven vnto them , or circumcision to be the seale thereof : He ●so denyeth the seede of the faythfull to be within the covenant of grace , ●yther before or since Christs comming , contrary to Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. ●9 . And therefore I cannot see , but that the denying both of the old and ●ew Testament , in this respect , may justly be imputed unto him , as in this ●reatise following it will appeare .

For their denying of the Lords day , as yet we have litle to say , notwith●anding it is reported that some of their company , makes question therof .

But concerning the Magistracy , Mr. Smyth bewrayeth his vnsoundnes ● these words , But of Magistrates converted to the faith and admitted into the Church by baptism , there may questions be made , which to answere we cannot if we ●●●ld , when such things fall out , the Lord we doubt not will direct vs into the truth concerrning that matter .

Here let the Reader observe how they plead ignorance in the matter of the Christian Magistrate , if so they thought of his Authoritie , that he being of the Church , was to beare the sword , and them of the Church to obey him , as having civill power over them , and whome he might commaund in defence of Religion , & of his country to take vp armes ; then needed not he thus to speake . For by his words they geve vs to conjecture , that they think more may be yeelded to an heathen Ruler , then to a Christian Magistrate . If they be cleare in this pointe , they may so explane their myndes . Also in this pleading ignorance of the Magistracy , they seeme to tax the new Testament , not to be so playne , as Mr Smyth affirmeth , where he sayth , All the ordinances of the new Testament are plainely taught by C 〈…〉 his disciples . Character , pag. 34. Now if all things be taught in the new Testament , why then can he not answere those many questions that may be made about the Christian Magistrate , or why looks he for new direction ? wel : this I perceave , that eyther he must deny the authority of the Christian Magistrate , or be driven to confesse that the writings of the Apostles are not playne enough to discribe his office and Authoritie , without the Scriptures of the old Testament , from which if it be lawfull to reason concerning this matter of the Magistracy , then I hope it cannot be denyed , but so it is lawfull to do , for other ordinances also .

Touching the error of the Incarnation of Christ , which also Mr. Smyth desyreth may not be imputed vnto them . It is wel knowne that many of theire company holding that error about the incarnation , are separated from the rest . And Mr. Smyth him selfe ( as some amongst them have reported ) maketh a question about the first matter of Christs humane nature as if it were not a poynt of fayth to beleeve that it was of the virgin , though it be to be beleeved that the second matter was nourished in her womb . Whether his hearers do wrong him in such reports , or how he resteth satisfied , it is best knowen to himselfe . And be it , that he stand cleere of this error , yet is be taynted with the errors of general redemption and free wil , els why hath he given forth these Positions ? 1. Christs Redemption strecheth to all men . 2. Man hath not lost the facultie of willing any good thing that is shewed him . And with all added therevnto his Reasons in defence thereof .

Now let the Reader judge what cause he had to desire , that these things should not be imputed vnto them .

Lastly , Mr. Smyth taketh upon him to advertise our Church , saying : Let the Separation be advertised , that whereas they do so confidently through theire ▪ selfe-love , & self conceat , fil their mouthes with heresie and hereticks , as therby they would feare Babes , that therein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors &c.

For this his advertisment , if any have spoken otherwise then is meete , I am no Patrone of any such speeches , but if it was lawful for Iohn to call the Phariseis Generation of vipers , And Paul to say to Elimas , Oh ful of subtilty & all mischeiffe &c. then is it not simply vnlawfull , to vse such speeches , so it be for reproofe , and not for reproche . Therefore to call them hereticks and their opinions heresies , ( it being true and spoken in detestation of their errors , not of their persons ; ) I see no evil in so saying , see these places . Io. 8. 44. 2. Pet. 2. 1. 2. 1. Io. 2. 18. Act. 13. 10. Gal. 3. 1. Rev. 2. 6. 15. And if this be a fault in vs , why doth Mr. Smyth fil his mouth with Antichristian errors , so calling those truthes which we hold ? Hath he a dispensation so to speake agaynst the truth , and yet to blame vs for calling their false doctrynes , heresy ? I should rather have thought , that he ought to have advertised himselfe for these reprochful & sclanderous speaches that he hath vttered agaynst our Church , & the Teachers thereof , calling them † † Char●● Epistle the Re● Rabbies of the Separation . The greatest Rabbies . And thus speaking to the Church . Be it knowen to the Separation , that we account them in respect of their constitution as very an harlot as eyther her mother England or her Grandmother Rome . We protest agaynst her , as wel for her false constitution , as for her false Ministery , worship , and Goverment . I could wish as the Tyrant wished , Concerning the people of Rome , that all their heads were joyned into one . We desire the Separation they wil not in craftines withdrawe from the Combate . We require them , nay we charge them , yea we chalendg them to the defence of their errors . We protest agaynst them to be a false Church . They treade in the steps of all the Antichristians their Predecessors . Let them take heed , that notwithstanding their Syrenes songs , they prove not Cages full of most vgly and deformed Antichristian Hereticks . All these reprochfull speeches , if not more , hath he published in lesse then a sheete of paper , besydes , what are contayned in his Book . And yet notwithstanding all these speaches have thus passed from him , he takes vpon him to advertise vs , for that we can justifie against his doctrines & against themselves , for their obstinate defending of their errors . But where he chargeth vs to call them Heretikes , & their doctrines heresie , through self love and self conceatednes &c. If he had applyed self love and conceipt to him self , I take it he might more justly have done it , if we may judge by his words . As for selfe love and selfe conceipt , we condemne in whomsoever . And howsoever we have our infirmities , I trust he shalnot be able to tax any of vs iustly , of these imputations .

And as Mr. Smyth wisheth us not to be wyse in our owne eies , through pryde , &c. we hope the Lord wil so teach vs . And we pray the Lord to geve him a sight of his damnable heresies whereinto he is fallen , openly sinning in the publishing thereof , to the great dishonor of God , and greiffe of al the godly : and that the almighty may preserve all that are his chosen , from being poysoned with the same .

Richard Clyfton .
THE PROCESSE OF THE PASSAGES between Mr Iohn Smyth and Richard Clifton . Mr Smyth .

CERTAINE REASONS PROPOVNDED To Mr Rich. Clifton : concerning the two Propositions following . 1. That infants are not to be baptised 1. Because there is neither precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised , by Iohn or Christs Disciples : Only they that did confesse their sinnes , and confesse their Faith were baptized , Marc. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. 2. Bicause Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them : and then to baptize them : Mat. 28 , 19. Ioh. 4. 1. but infants cannot by doctryne become Christs Disciples : and so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptized . 3. Bicause if infants be baptized , the carnal seed is baptized : and so the seale of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenant apperteyneth not . Rom 9. 8. which is a profanation . 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admited into the true Church by Baptisme . 1. Bicause Churches are so to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist , as they were first erected by the Apostles : But in the constitution of Churches the Apostles received in the members by baptisme : go : So must wee doe now . 2. Bicause true baptisme is but one : but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme , and so not that one baptisme of Christ : but all members of Christ must have true baptisme . 3. Because as the false Church is rejected and the true erected : the false Ministery forsaken , and the true received : So false worship , ( and by consequent baptisme ) must ●e renounced , and the true baptisme assumed .

Richard Clifton .

AN ANSWER TO TWO ANABAPTISTICALL OPINIONS . vid 1. That Infants are not to be baptized . 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme .

ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to vndertake this busynes against him that was deere vnto me : yet being therevnto provoked by the sending to me these two Positions with certayne reasons annexed vnder the Authours owne hand : I thought it my part ( although the vnablest of many ) to contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given to the Saints . Iud. 3. And by the help of God to put a brief answer to these opinions , which by the Churches in all ages have bene and are condemned for hereticall : the practise whereof I could wish might never have befallen to any of myne owne country , especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth . And chiefly vnto him , to whose charge both I and divers others had once purposed to have committed our soules had he not besides these broached some former opinions , both erronious and offensive , wherby the truth ( for which we suffer ) is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked & many hindered in our owne country , that shall heare thereof , of whom we had great hope that they would have walked in the same faith with vs . Notwithstanding for as much as I am informed , that the authour hath promised vpon the sight of his errors to confesse the same , I do the more willingly take vpon me this labour , praying the Lord to give a good yssue , to his glory , for his mercy sake Amen .

Mr Smyth .

A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truthes , viz: 1. That Infants are not to be baptised . 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme . These two truthes are by you , Sir , in your answer , intituled , Anabaptisticall &c.

Rich: Clifton .

Sir , Whereas you iustify your two Positions to be two truthes , and so ●title your Reply , A defence of two truthes : And charge me with vsing of ●eproachfull speaches in calling them Anabaptisticall . Herevnto I answer , ●irst , that your two Positions will no more prove two truthes , then Ierobo●ns two calves proved two Gods , as in my former answer I have shewed , ●nd shall ( by Gods grace ) more fully manifest in this treatise following . Secondly , I deny to have vsed any reproach , by intituling your erronious opinions , Anabatisticall . But your self do sinne in calling evill good , and darknes light : thereby bringing vpon your self , that fearfull woe d●nounced by the Lord against such . Esa. 5. 20. If you repent not . 3. Whereas you blesse God that yo● are accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christes truth , & wish me to know that my reproach shall light vpon myne owne head , &c. I could wish you did not rejoyce in vayne , for there is a suffring for evill iustly deserved , as well as for the truth , 1 Pet. 2. 20. The Iesuites some of them have sufferred vnto death , yet had they no cause of reioycing therein , seing they suffered for their due desert . And so your opinions being termed , Anabaptisticall , for their vntruthes , can bring no true comfort vnto you in suffring for them , nor yet my reproach , ( as you call it ) any iudgement upon my head , being warranted to give falsehood her deserved titles . Gal. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 2. Gal. 4. 9.

As for Christ and his truth which you say , are by me evil spoken of : it had bene lesse sinne in you to have stayed your pen from publishing of such sclaunders , vnlesse you could have proved your Positions the truthes of Christ , which I am sure you shall never be able to doe .

Mr Smyth .

In your Preface you avouch that your are provoked to write , I mervayle you should so speak : seing your conscience telleth you did make the first quest or motion ●● Mrs Bywater &c.

Rich: Clifton .

For Answer herevnto , know you Sir , and let all men take notice that the thing which you charge me with is most vntrue , for presently after you were fallen into these grosse errors , came Mr Southworth & Mr Br●mhead two of your followers to my chamber ( as they sayd ) in kindnes to see me , and entred conference with me concerning these opinions , saying that they had heard that I had bene enclyned that way when I was in England , with some perswasive speaches to consider of this your new walking , saying also , that you were willing to conferre with me , and did wish that eyther I would come to you , or els if I were willing , you would take paynes to come to me ; to whom I answered , that I never had any thought of imbracing such opinions , neither was willing to have any conference with you thereabout , which when they heard me so to say , they further did solicite me to write with you about these points , and sayd , that you would as willingly & as frendly write with me thereof , as you did in England in our former conference concerning excommunication and other differences then betweene you & me , offring if I would not beginne , that yet I would vouchsafe to read and answer your writing ; to whom I sayd againe , that I would not write first or require your writing , ( for I thought not to have any dealing with you , ) yet being so importuned I tould them that I would be content to read it , if you sent it me , but for Answere therevnto I I promised none , onely I sayd I would consider thereof , and so do then as I thought good . This was the substance of my speaches to Mr Southworth and Mr Bromehead , and of theirs to me . Now if this had bene true , that I had provoked you by any former speaches , it is very like they would have made some relation thereof , especially requiring that you might have conference with me , neither need you to have sent me word that you would write or conferre ( if so I pleased ) and to desire either at my hands ( as these men did testifie , ) if I had before moved you thereunto .

But for witnesse hereof you produce , Mrs Bywater a gentlewoman ●at hath imbraced your errors , with whom , after I had received your po●ions , which also she sayd she had seen ) I had speach to this effect , that she ●ould be carefull over her self how she entertayned your new opinions , af●rming , that I was perswaded they were grevous errors , and prayed her ●stātly to stay a while vntil your positions might be answered , assuring her that I could by Gods help defend this truth we stand for against you , with some other words to like purpose .

Now let the indifferent reader iudge , if you have not greatly wronged ●e , to say that I did make the first request or motion of writing : nay your own act in writing first vnto me , & your own speaches in this your * * Pag. 1. book which are these : Certayne reasons propounded to Mr Rich: Clifton , concerning the two Popositions following , as also your adiuring vs to answer you , or els you wil proclayme vs subtily blind & leaders of the blind into the ditch , do witnesse the contrary . And that this busynes comes of your self , though you seek to lay it vpon my back , let your owne conscience iudge : as for myne owne part , being so provoked , I could do no lesse then answer .

2. You charge me with perverting of this scripture , Jude 3. and say , that I ●● neither to plead for Baall , nor contend for Antichristian errors :

And I answer , that these being truthes for which I contend , as have ben proved sufficiently , and shal be ( God willing ) as occasion serveth , more fully confirmed , then am I not guilty of any such imputation , but your self is become faulty in calumniating the ordinance of Christ , viz: the baptisme of infants , accounting it an Antichristian error , which I wish you well to consider of and not to adde sinne vnto sinne , both in pleading for error and in disgracing the truth and the professors thereof .

Further you say , it will not helpe me that these two truthes have bene condemned for heresie by the Churches in all ages , for if the Apostles affoard contrary to the succeeding ages that which is most auncient is the truth : I graunt if you can prove , that the Apostles age affoards contrary to the succeeding ages for the iustifieng of these your opinions that then you have good warrant of your syde for calling them truthes : but if the Churches which have condemned your positions for error , have agreed herein with the holy scriptures then I say , the brand of heresie lies iustly vpon them . And whereas you alledge that many truthes wherevnto we are come , have bene condemned for heretical , in as many ages as those truthes which you defend : I answer that not many truthes , if any which we hold , to my remembrance have bene condemned in the ancient Churches for heresies . And suppose those Churches did fayle in some things , ( as every Church is subject to erre , yet followes it not , that therfore they erred in condemning your opinions for haeresie : some things I think you wil graunt are heresies which those ancient Churches succeeding the Apostles age did condemne , as those of Arius , Eutiches , Macedonius , and the rest : and then is not their iudgement so lightly to be passed over , that no reconing is to be made of what they have done agreable to the scriptures . As for your errors we reject them not onely because the ancient Churches have so censured them , but finding them contrary to the word of God , therfore we condemne them .

3. Whereas I did feare your broaching of these and your former opinions , would be offensive , and to the hindering of the truth , this you passe over in presuming of the goodnes of your cause , saying , if any be hindred from the truth , it wil be their sinne , but if you feare ( you say ) that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground , I say , it is that which is appointed to perdition , and to perdition let it go .

Indeed if any be hindered from the truth , by the publishing of the truth , it is their sinne , Mat. 11. 6. but if you which haue stood for the truth , shall now by publishing of error , cause the truth to be the more blasphemed , & give offence to weak professors , that is your sinne , and wil be too heavie to be answered at the judgement day ; if you repent not .

And as for our Church which you blasphemously call Antichristian , know you that I do not feare the fall of it , for it is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets , Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone , Ephe. 2 , 20. which hath a sure promise that the gates of hel shall not prevayle against it . Mat. 16. 18. And therefore your Anathema cannot hurt vs , but shall rebound back agayn whence it came .

4. You say , though I haue professed to forsake myne errors vpon their discovery , and as I have practised , for which I am reproached among your brethren , yet I never profeessed my readines to be perverted from the truth , which you call heresie , and therfore if you did vndertake to write vpon this ground , you might well haue spared your paines and saved your self from so grevous a sinne , by pleading for Antichristian corruptions , &c.

The ground of my perswasion concerning your willingnes to yeeld vnto the truth , did arise partly from that perswasion which I had of your san●tification , and partly from the speaches of the messengers before named , ●ho did affirme vnto me , that if I could manifest by the word of God , ●hat it was error which you hold , you would acknowledge it : And still ●ou say if you be in error it is * * Passages ▪ page 71. ignorantly . And therefore desirous of ●our good , I did vndertake according to my small abilitie to manifest ●he truth vnto you , by such reasons as I could at that present gather for the confirmation of the same ; which , seing you make so small account of , and answer me , that I might have spared my paynes , and saved my self from sin , I am sory in that respect that I did write , yet in regard of witnessing the ●ruth and performing a duty towards a brother fallen into error , I repent ●e not , neither yet of committing any grevous sinne thereby , as you charge me withall , seing I plead for that which is of Christs , and not for Antichristian corruptions . And as for your errors so often graced by you with the title of truthes , which you say , you never professed to be perverted from , I mervayle not greatly therat , for heresie is a work of the flesh , Gal. 5. 20. that is easily and quickly imbraced , but not so left , and herein differs from the truth ; to the receiving whereof , we are hardly drawen , as both you and I had experience ; but error drincketh as a pleasant potion , Rev. 18. 3. without resistance , and bewitcheth many that they should not obey the truth , described and plainly manifest in their sight , Gal. 3. 1. the poison whereof I am sory hath so infected your soule , that you seeme to be changed into the nature thereof , and to be as confident therein as in any truth of the gospel : and though you account my praying to be for an overthrow of the Lords truth , which is in deed for the conversion of you and that deceived company with you , from your errors , ) yet will I pray stil that God may open your eyes , if you belong to him to see your grevous fall , & glorifie the truth of God , which in this your writing so greatly you have disgraced .

Now I will come to answer the Positions with the reasons thereof , and first concerning the former which is this . 1. That infants are not to be baptised . Touching this first position , that Infants are not to be baptised , I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adhe●nts was one of the first that denied the baptisme of infants , & 〈◊〉 after him Pelagius the heretique , against whome Augustine & others of the ancient fathers , have opposed and condemned for heresie , and that according to the scriptures , which by Gods grace we shall together with them also further manifest , & prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants , which first I will vntertake , and then answer the reasons to the contrary .

Mr Smyth .

Now in the next place you make a speciall preface to the first point , affirming tha● baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian , & by Pelagius &c.

Rich: Clifton .

I sayd that Auxentius the Arrian was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of infants , and then Pelagius , whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned for heresie : and you answer thus , that one heretike condemned another , contrarie to the scripture for the truth sake .

That Augustine was an heretick and condemned Auxentius for the truth contrary to the Scripture resteth for you to prove if you can . I have already proved that the denying of Baptisme to Infants , is an error , & you have not in all this your writing confuted the same as wil appeare in the answer . And here let it be observed that you acknowledge Auxentius & Pelagius to be hereticks , & so these your errors to have bene first broched by men iustly condemned for heresie , for you say , one heretick condemned another .

Further concerning the fathers by me alleadged in the 6. page of my writing , to shew the practise of Churches in baptising of Infants , you passe them over with this answer , saying , I can prove that Augustine , Cyrill , Cyprian , Origine , Nazianzene , Ambrose and many others were as grosse hereticks , ( if he be an heretick that holdeth an heresie ) as Auxentius and Pelagius , &c.

That these Fathers and others had their errors we do not deny , but that they were hereticks , and such as did obstinately defend their errors , being convinced therof by the word of God , is more I think , then you can prove : we do not say that the holding of every error makes an heretick : but when he that holds an error and persisteth obstinately therin after admonition , ● say that such a one is to be rejected , Tit. 3. 10. And though you could ●ove those fathers as grosse heretiks as Auxentius & Pelagius , as I know ●u can not in that sense as the Scripture taketh this word H●reticke , yet ●is opinion of those Catabaptists is not therby iustifed , for as an heretique ●ay hold some points hereticall , so may he some truthes . And you are to ●ove that those fathers did vnjustly condemn Auxentius and Pelagius , ●r the denying of the baptisme of Infants , or els you Answer not to the ●urpose .

As for our acknowledging of the Auncient fathers to be Antichristian , ●t is more the● you have from me or can shew that I have so affirmed : in deed ●n there tymes the churches were in declyning , and through ignorance and careles taking heede to the word , Sathan beganne to prepare way for Antichrist , but that we account them simply Antichristian as fallen into that deepe Apostacy , we doe not ; they had some Ceremonies and other observances that we approve not of , yet reteyned they many of gods ordinances wherof Paedobaptistry is one : And where as yov say it is no more to be respected 〈◊〉 the Ancient Churches then the Prelacy and read prayer in the same : we have learned by the word , to put difference betwene the things of God reteyned in Churches declyning , and the inventions of men , though you cast out both together & account vs Antichristian for the same : next you proceed to examine my Arguments from the scripture , alledged to prove that Infants are to be baptised .

1. OF THE FIRST POSITION concerning the Baptising of infants .
Rich: Clifton . Argument I.

Gen. 17. 10. God made his covenant to Abraham and to his seed : from whence I reason thus .

That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him and to all his seede , yea even to infants .

But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham , &c.

Therfore that is commanded to be sealed to vs & to our seed , yea even to our infants , for so was that to Abrhams .

The Major can not be denyed , see Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12.

The Minor is likewise as true , for the Apostle speaking of this covenant , Act. 2. 39 sayth , the promise is made to you and to your children , and to all that are a farre off , as many as the Lord our God shall call . In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham , which they that were a far of , that is the Gentiles beleeving , doe receive and were baptised into . And therfore is Abraham called the Father of many nations , Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is sayd to redeme vs from the curse of the Law , that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ , that we might receive the promise of the Spirit , see vers. 8. 9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant , ( for otherwise ABRAHAMS covenaunt should not be an everlasting covenant , Gen. 17. 7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a tyme , Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. ) it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs , and to our infants , ( els it is not the same ) & that by the commandement of God . For the abolishing of circumcision , & the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospell , doth not abrogate or disannul the commaundement of sealing the covenaunt to the beleeving parents with their infants , which was once commaunded to Abraham , but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe . And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles beleeving , so doth the seale thereof to them & to their seede , as it did to Abraham & to his seed : The outward ceremony onely changed .

Mr Smyth .

To this Argument I make answer thus : first distinguishing the two cove●nts or testaments ( for a covenant & testament is all one in the originals though ●he English words are two ) : one covenant was made with Abraham and his car●al seed and of that covenant was circumcision a seale : another covenant made with Abraham and his Spirituall seed , and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seale : for ●he carnall covenant had a carnal seale vpon the carnall seed : the Spirituall covenant had a Spirituall seale vpon the Spirituall seed . For things must be made proportionable , & circumcision which was a carnall seale , could not seale vp the Spirituall covenant to the Spirituall seed , for to say so , is to leap over the hedge , and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth . &c.

Rich: Clifton .

Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham , a carnall & a spirituall , the one with Abraham and his carnall seed , the other with him and his spirituall seed : I answer , first , that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation , which is , That God would be his God , and the God of his seed . Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was * * Gen. 17. 10. 11. R● 4. 11. sealed with circumcision , and it is the same covenant that is established by the † † 2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12. bloud of Christ vnto all the faithfull seed sealed vnder the Gospell * * Mat. 19. by baptisme in stead of circumcision . Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed , the scripture knoweth none . In this covenant is promised through Iesus Christ , remission of sinnes , iustification , life everlasting with all saving graces to all that † † Heb. 8. ● Ier. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11. beleeve . And that this is so , the Apostle doth witnesse , saying , * * Gal. 3. 17 and this I say that the covenant which was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ , the law which was 430 yere after cannot disannull . Where it is to be noted , 1. that this covenant that was given to Abraham was but one : 2. that it was in respect of Christ , & therefore was that spirituall covenant 3. that it was confirmed vnto him , which is more then a bare offer .

Secondly , I deny that God ever made any carnal covenant , eyther with Abraham , or with the Israelites , seing he made but two testament● all with his people , and both of them spirituall , the new Testament yo● graunt to be spirituall , and that the old is so , the Apostle doth witnesse , c●ling the law ( which is a part of the old Testament ) both † holy and spirit● Rom. 7. ● . 14. all . This law covenant or old Testament God gave to Israel and they di● * promise to keepe it , and so were bound to the observation of a spiritua● Exod. 19. ● . and not of a carnal covenant . Besides this first Testament was not made with Abraham , seing it can not be shewed that he or the fathers did vndertake the keeping thereof vnder penaltie of the curse , as † Israel did . Deut. 27. ●5-26 . And as for the promise of Canaan , which Abraham beleeved that his seed should inherite , it was annexed vnto that covenant made with him in Christ as saith the Apostle . that † Godlynes hath the promise of the life present , and of ● Tim. 4. that which is to come : And therefore can no more be called a carnall covenant , or be said to be sealed with circumcision then the promise of the life present vnto vs , may be called carnall , or to be sealed with baptisme And that circumcision was not given as a seale to confirme vnto Abraham and his seed onely the land of Canaan , ( as you affirme in your answere to my second argument , Reason , 1. ) but to seale vnto him and to his seed the covenant of salvatiô ; as may be gathered from that very place of Gen. 17. 8. 9. Where Moses having set downe the sume of the covenaunt that concernes Abraham and his seed , ver. 7. in vers. 8. repeates that promise of Canaan before made vnto him , Gen. 13. 15. and with all sayth , I will be their God , which is that spirituall covenaunt here againe purposely repeated ; because he would shewe that the commaundement of circumcision , which followes in the next vers . was given for a seale thereof , ver. 11. And that it is so to be vnderstood , the spirit , ( who knoweth the minde of the Lord ) so expoundeth it ; Rom. 4. 11. saying , after he received the signe of circumcision the seale of the righteousnes of fayth , &c. by which place it is evident that circumcision was a signe of the spirituall covenant made with Abraham , and not of an other different from this , called by you a carnall covenant . The covenaunt in Christ made to Abraham , was confirmed vnto him : Gal. 3. 17. and there is no mention of any other signe given vnto him but of circumcision . ergo .

Againe if God gave circumcision to be a seale to Abraham and his car● seed , as you affirme , what had the Proselites to do with this signe ? ●y were they to be circumcised , seing they were not of Abrahams carnal ●d ? this signe could not seale vnto them the land of Canaan , who had ● promise thereof ; yet were they circumcised , Exod. 12. 48 , there●e they were partakers of that covenant wherof circumcision was a signe : ●t concerning Canaan it was promised onely to Abrahams seed after the ●sh , and so you say , then must it needs follow that the Proselites were ●artakers of the spirituall covenant , and so received circumcision as a seal thereof . And thus it is manifest that circumcision was no signe of any ●carnall covenant made to Abraham as you affirme .

Also that to Abraham was made but one covenant , the very phrase of the holy Ghost intimates so much , for in speaking thereof the scripture useth the * * Gen. 17. 4. 7. Gal. 17. singular number ; neyther do we read of any moe testaments or covenants but two , the old & the new , the former given vnto Israel in the wildernes a long time after that God had made his covenant with Abraham in the Messiah to come .

Further you say , that circumcision being a carnall seale , could not seale a spirituall covenant but the seale therof must be the spirit . &c. I require of you what you meane by a carnal seale , if you mind that circumcision is carnall , because of the cutting of the foreskinne , I graunt that there was a cutting of the flesh ; or if you mean carnal because it was an external signe , who wil deny it . But what is this to the purpose , for the flesh of Christ was lanched & persed with nailes , yet for all that it was a spirituall sacrifice ; and the sacraments of the new testament , be outward and visible thinges , yet are they signes of spirituall things : and so circumcision though it was externall & by incision of the flesh , yet was it a visible signe of an invisible grace , & of that spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham . Againe , concerning your devised carnall covenant with circumcision , which you say , is a type of the spirituall covenant and spirit ; I answer , that circumcision and Canaan , typed out spirituall things promised , but were not a carnal covenaunt to type out the spirituall , which was already made with Abraham : neither doth the scripture teach us that God did make a carnal covenant with him and his seed , thereby to accept them to be his people , for that could not be by any other covenant , then onely by that in Christ , there being no reconci●ation to God † † 2 Cor. 5. 19. but in him . And although the spirrit be the * * Rom. 8. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 1. 22. & 5 5. Gal. 4. 6 Ephe. 1. 14. earnest or pledge of Gods promises in our harts , yet for the further strength● 〈◊〉 and confirming of our weak faith , the Lord both before the Law to A 〈…〉 ham , and so vnder the Law , and likewise vnder the gospel hath to his 〈◊〉 venant annexed certayne outward signes as seales thereof .

And thus you having set downe your distinction of two covena 〈…〉 Wish that they may be remembred and orderly applyed , and the argument say y 〈…〉 will appeare of no valew &c.

There can be no orderly applying of disorderly things , your distin 〈…〉 on brings all out of order , and therefore this double covenaunt being denied and not by you proved , my argument stands firme in all the parts thereof . And the maior vnderstood of that spirituall covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed , the Minor is truly assumed out of the Maior , and so is no sophisme .

Furthermore the crosse of Christ hath not abolished the covenant made vnto Abraham but confirmed it , nor yet abrogated the sealing thereof save onely changed the outward signe that therby he might put some difference externally betweene the times of Christ promised to come , and his manifestation in the flesh , and accomplishment of his promise . And as * we have 30. ● . 8. 11 — ●4 . Ron. 10. ● . 7. 8. ●er. 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 - ● . 1 Cor. 10 ● . 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. ●●k. 1. 74. the spirituall covenant and spirit , so had the faithfull vnder the law , and therefore it is false to say , that they had the carnall covenant and wee the spirituall , typed by the carnall : for although vnder the Law the Lord did traine vp his people vnder many ceremonies which were types of things to come , yet did he never ordeyne any carnall covenant with a seale therof as you devise . But let vs see your proofes for all these particulars .

First , that there are two Testaments made with Abraham , you alledge , Gal. 4 - 24. saying , Agar , that is the old Testament , and Sara that is the new , both married to Abraham . 2. There are two seeds , Ismael of Abraham and Hagar , who typed the carnall seed , and Isaac of Abraham and ▪ Sarah who typed the spirituall seed . ver. 23. 3. There are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall covenant , vpon the carnall children , Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seale of the spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed , 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. &c. First , for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnall covenant , that nothing fits your purpose ; for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles , who vrged the works of the law for iustification and taught the people that vnlesse they wer circumcised Christ could not profit them , whom after he had confuted with divers reasons , he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 ●●egorie of Abraham and his two wives , shadowing out there 〈◊〉 ●at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in ●atter of iustification , the law ingendring bondage & requiring strict ●dience , without which is no salvation ; but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2● 26. ●egall bondage , and requireth to † † Rom. 10. 6● 11. Rom. ● 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation ; ●o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law , doth shew them ● foolish they are , which by the gospel are set * * Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of ●w and legall ceremonies ; do frustrate that freedome , by subiecting ●mselves againe to the law , which could never make them † † Act. 13. 39. righteous ; ●d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman ; whereas all ●hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law & ●eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman . Now this being ●he purpose or scope of the Apostle , this allegorie setting downe the di●●rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament , & vnder the gospel or new testament , concerning iustification and salvation , doth ●either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham , or yet that the Iewes were so vnder the lawe , that also they were ●ot free by faith in Christ , for if we consider the times wherein the law was given , 430 yeres after the promise ; it will appeare that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham , or yet that it did * * Gal. 3 , 1● disannull the covenant to dispossesse his seed of that estate which they obtayned , by that promise made vnto him . And it is to be noted , that aswell vnder the ●ew testament as vnder the old , all they are in bondage with Hagars sonns that seek by the workes of the law to be iustified .

2. I answer more particularly to your proofes whereof the two former are drawen from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first , because the Apostle calls Hagar & Sarah the two testaments , vers. 24. and both ●●re married to Abraham , therefore to Abraham were made two testaments . True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments , the one of the old , the other of the new . But the Apostle applyes them , to set out thereby the different estate of them that be vnder grace from such as be vnder the lawe of works : Now to Abraham was not the lawe given ( whereof Hagar is made a type ) and therefore could not have , that co●nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision , for sure I am moe covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of , but 〈…〉 Heb. 8. ●3 . & new ; the one abrogated by Christ his comming , the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments , it may be s 〈…〉 playnely out of the text it self , for speaking of the lawe , he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth vnto bondage , making 〈…〉tion purposely of Sinai , because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountaine , whereof Hagar was a shadow , ver. 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace , sayth , but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above , is free . &c. ver. 26. — 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac . But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same , & be sayd to be two in respect of the tymes and diverse administration thereof , and then your carnall covenant cannot stand .

Certaynly the Lord made one eternal & vnchangable covenant to his Church , instructing and dispensing his benefites otherwise in the time of the Law , then now he doth under the Gospel . And in this respect , the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament , may well speak in regard of the dispensation therof , as of two . And so understand by the old Testament , that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses & the Prophets to the Fathers promising eternal life , openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law , & threatning of the curse if they did not perform it ; together with that intollerable burden of legal rites , & yoke of Moses politie : and covertly , under condition of repentance & fayth in the Messiah to come , prefigured under types , shadowes , & ceremonies : that by this meanes the Iewes as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ . And by the new Testament understand the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ & his Apostles , manifestly , without shadowes and legal rites , promising righteousnes & life to al , both Iewes & Gentils that shal beleeve in Christ already come .

And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place , this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenant , seing both these Testaments are spiritual ; & though some carnal things wer commaunded in the old testament : Yet those makes it no more a carnall covenant , then water in Baptisme , & bread & wine in the Lords supper , & the receiving of them ( which al are carnal things ) do make the new Testament carnall , they being given to signifie vnto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnall things vnder the lawe ordeyned to like vse , vnto the Iewes . 〈…〉 m this placeis , that there are two seeds Ismaell of Abra 〈…〉 carnall seed : and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah , 〈…〉 seed .

〈…〉 this type th 〈…〉 that Hagar & Ismael did shadow 〈…〉 lawe with her children , 〈…〉 bondage , and Sarah & ● , Ierusalem , and her children , which 〈◊〉 and sonnes by promise , ●nding hereby , not onely Abrahams 〈◊〉 seed 〈…〉 e vnder bondage , 〈◊〉 through the observation of the law looked for 〈…〉tion , But all o 〈…〉 s whatsoever ▪ that by pretending to observe the law , ●●pe thereby to be instified , as by applying this doctrine to the Galathians ●ppeareth . But you say , Hagar and Ismael typed the carnall seed after the flesh ● All that the Apostle sayth is this , that he that was borne of the servant 〈…〉 e after the 〈◊〉 , meaning thereby that he was not born● by promise 〈◊〉 mother that was free , as Isaac was , and so did typ●●●t ( as afore 〈◊〉 the state and condition of them that seek iustification by the works of 〈…〉 what you affirme more then this you must prove .

3. You say , there are two seales , circumcision a seale of the carnall 〈…〉 〈◊〉 carnall children ; Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a 〈◊〉 spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed , Ephe. 1. 13.

First , I deny that circumcision is the seale of any other covenant ▪ ● 〈◊〉 . ● Gal. ● Gen. ● of that † one covenaunt made with Abraham 〈…〉 of Christ , w 〈…〉 was confirmed vnto * him and to his seed therby ; a 〈…〉 spirit calleth circumcision a ‡ ‡ Gal. 4. seale of the righteousnes of faith .

And lastly , because Isaac that was borne by * * Gal. 4. promise , was circumcised , who was partaker of the covenaunt of grace , and of the righteousnes which is by faith , therefore circumcision was a signe and seale thereof .

But you will obiect , that Isaac was of Abrahams carnall seed and in that respect received circumcision , as a seale of the carnall covenant , which he also had . It is true that Isaac was borne to Abraham after the common course of nature , and therefore had he thereby this prerogative to be circumcised , which no other children had but Abrahams , vntil they or their Parents were by faith partakers of the same covenaunt made with Abraham : but it is not true that he received this signe of circumcision , as the seale of a carnall covenaunt or of the promise of Canaan onely : or that it was a seale vpon the carnal children of Abrahams onely , seing 〈…〉 Exod. 12. the beleeving Gentiles ( as before was observed ) 〈…〉 and Ismael also was circumcised that had no righ 〈…〉 And ● all such as beleeve & have received the gospel are sealed 〈…〉 rit of promise , is true ; but as the spirit doth not onely 〈…〉 promise of God in the hatte● of 〈◊〉 , but externally ●● the 〈◊〉 cheth the same . Heb. 8. 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. 15. so doth he both inwardly ● outwardly seale the s●me promise to them vnto whom it belongs . T● * spirit and circ 〈…〉 on are seales of the same covenaunt of grace & righteousnes ● Gor. 1. ● . 21. 22. ●he . 1. 13. ●erd with ●om. 4. 11. of faith .

And thus may you see , that your distinction of two seales , of two severall covenants , a carnal , and a spiritual , is but a devise of your owne invention which wil fall to the ground , when Poedobaptistry shall stand firm against 〈◊〉 strongest reasons , though you hold it to have a sandy foundati●● ▪

〈…〉 next place you answer to the scriptures by me alleadged , to prove 〈◊〉 of my argument and first to that of Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. you say , 〈◊〉 proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenaunt made with 〈…〉 all seed , and not a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with the faithful , for 〈…〉 it is the seale thereof .

〈◊〉 answered you before , that circumcision was a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham , and have proved the same by those places of Rom. 4. 11. and Gen. 17. 7-12 . although you labour to infringe the the testimony of the Apostle ; saying , that it is not the scope of the place , but this , viz. that circumcision had one specialitie in Abraham differring from all other , that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the father of all the faithful , as concerning the matter of their iustification , &c.

The words of the Apostle are so playne , as you cannot shift them off , for Paul proving that Abraham was iustified by faith , and that faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnes when he was vncircumcised , sayth , after he received the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised , Ram. 4. 9. 10. 11. Doth not the Apostle plainely affirme that circumcision was a seale of the righteousnes of faith ? which ●● Cor. 1. 30. Act. 13. 39. 2 Cor. 5. 21. righteousnes , what is it else , but the matter of Gods spirituall covenaunt made to Abraham ? for Christ the substance of this covenaunt , is this righteousnes by which Abraham and all the faithfull ‡ are iustified ; And you confesse that by circumcision Abraham was sealed vp to be the father of the faithful 〈…〉ning the matter of their iustification . Now if it did seale to Abraham the ●uall covenaunt , then is circumcision a seale of the covenannt of salva● , and not of a carnall covenaunt , as you affirme . And if circumcisi● a 〈◊〉 , Abraham of this heavenly promise , then is it so to all his 〈…〉 God put no difference in commaunding him and his seed to ●cumcised , as to say to Abraham ▪ that this sacrament , should seale vn●●im the covenaunt of grace , and to his seed a carnall covenaunt , but ●d thus to Abraham , † † Gen. 17. 9. 10. thou also shalt keep my co 〈…〉 thou and thy seed af● thee in their generations . But say you , he was sealed vp to●● the father of the faith●l , that as he was iustified by faith , so should they be , and th● 〈…〉 ltie had circumcision in Abraham differing from all other .

That Abraham had this prerogative above others to be ●●e father of the faithful , is not denyed , but to affirme that circumcision ●●s not a seale of the spirituall covenant , is false : and you answer not the Apostle , but shift it off with saying , this specialtie had circumcision in Abrahan differing frō●ther , which is no conscionable dealing , seing you cannot but 〈◊〉 , that Paul having affirmed that Abrahams faith was imputed to him 〈…〉 ●ousnes when he was vncircumcised , doth prevent this obiection , 〈…〉 Abraham was iustified being vncircumcised , to what end was he then cir 〈…〉 cised ? to which the Apostle answers , that his circumcision was not i● vayne , but was given of God , and by him received as a seale of the righ●●ousnes of his faith , so setting downe the vse of circumcision , not limitting the same as a specialty to Abrahams fatherhood , but as the proper end or vse of the sacrament it self belonging to all others that were circumcised , as well as to him .

The next scripture is Act. 2. 39. whereto you answer , that the promise is Act. 2. 3 ●ffred to the impenitent Iewes , and to their posteritie , and to the Gentiles a farre off , and that was exhibited onely to so many as yeelded obedience to the faith , charging me with adding to the text , &c.

First , I confesse the word ( made ) is not in that place , but added by the translater to make the sense more plaine , the text may thus be read , for ●● you is the promise , and to your children , yet the word ( made ) added in the translation , is no adding to the sense , as may be proved , Gen. 17. 2. 7. where in the second verse , the Lord vseth this word , ( give ) saying , & I will give my covenaunt between me and thee , and in the 7. verse , I will make or establish my covenaunt , the 〈◊〉 also in vers. 21. in the giving of the covenaunt . This word ( 〈◊〉 ) word equivalent vnto it , is vsed in Deut. 29. 14. I will make or cut o● covenaunt with you , vsing a borrowed speach which signifies 〈◊〉 〈…〉 naunt , because in old times covenants were * confirmed by 〈◊〉 Gen. 15. ● . Ier. 34. of living beasts and fowles . The same word is likewise in Gen. 15. ●● . ● . so Act. 13. 32. the words are , that touching the promise made to the fathers ● which place the word ( made ) is expressed ; so is it in Act. 26. 6. & Ac● 25. & Gal. 3. 17. And therefore though the Apostle leave it out in rehea●sing the covena 〈…〉 yet finding it in the originall graunt , and in other places , there is no ●dding to the word , if we expresse the same in our owne tongue . All ●hich frees me from your sclaunder , of adding to the text . But if the reader 〈◊〉 minde your writing , this imputation of adding will more iustly be ●●turned vpon your owne head , for you say , the promise is offred to the impenitent Iewes . I desire it may be shewed where this word offred , is in the text , and why you call those Iewes impenitent , which the holy Ghost wit 〈…〉 to be penitent .

Secondly , you not being able to answer this place of the Actes , post it ●ver with a distinction of offring and exhibiting , thereby to deceive the sim●le in putting the thing promised , ( which is offred to many by the prea●ing of the Gospell , but exhibited to the beleevers ) for the covenaunt or Gen. 17. 7 ●eut . 29. ● — 15. Gen. 17. 1. promise it self , which was once † made to Abraham and his seed ; now Peters reason was to perswade them to repentance and baptisme , because the Lord had made his promise to them and to their children : and they likewise had entred covenant with him to ‡ walk in his wayes , therefore they should amend and be baptised , & the Lord would pardon their transgressions . And note that salvation is offred by the preaching of 〈◊〉 Christ , continually to them that are within the covenaunt , as wel as to others .

But let me ask you whether that covenaunt which God made to Abraham was but onely offred , or that Abraham received it also , & so God both entred covenaunt with him and he with God ? is it not apparant that Abraham received the covenant , in that he beleeved , and was circumcised ? Rom. 4. 3. ●1. and did he not receive it as wel for his * seed , as for himself & beleeved that God would be the God of his seed ? how can you say then , it was but an offer onely . And if it was not made with the Israelites , how ●l they be blamed for the * * Hos. 2. 2● & 4. 1. 3. 2 Chro 24. 18. 19 & 30. 6-● breach thereof ? they might have bene re●ed for refusing to have received Gods covenant being offred vnto ● but not for their adulterie , never being maryed vnto the Lord . Israell ●he * * Hos. 2. ● Lords wife , & he her husband , could this be by an offer , and not ●ring the contract ? read Luke , 1. 68. - 74. but if it please you to read ● . 29. 10-15 . where the covenant was renued with Israel , that the ● , women , and children and straunger with them , entred into the cove●t and othe of the Lord , which he made with them ; it will appeare that ●is was more then a bare offer , for hereby God did establish them a people for him self .

But , say you , it was exhibited onely to so many as yelded obedience to the fayth . I answere , these Iewes whom you call impenitent , many of them did ‡ ‡ Act. 2. 4● repent and had received the covenant in Abraham their father , were circumcised and had right to the * * Rom. 9. 4● promises , were to be esteemed † † Act. 3. 25. children of the covenant , vntil by ‡ ‡ Act. 13. 45. 46. & 18. 6. Rom. 11. 2 infidelitie and impenitency they were cut off . And herein you are deceived , that because many of the Iewes through infidelitie fell away , that therfore the covenant was not made with them , it is true , that it did not profite the † † Heb. 4. ● vnbeleevers , & that was their own fault ( no more doth it now profite hypocrites in the Church , ) yet was it made with them , & they externally received it , in that they did partake of the signes therof , and professed to be Abrahams sonnes , Joh. 8. 33. The Lords supper offred , & externally received of the vnworthy , profits them not , yet they partaking but in the outward signes are held * * 1 Cor. 1● 27. guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ .

Further you say , Whereas you seeming to assume that the covenaunt was made to Abraham and his infants , it is therefore made to vs and our infants , I deny that ever the covenaunt spirituall was made that is conferd to all Abrahams Infants according to the flesh , &c.

First , you deny that the spirituall covenaunt was made , that is conferd to all Abrahams infants . But I ask you whether was it given to any of them or no ? because you say , it was not conferd to all , if to none , I pray you tell me how any of them , so dying infants were saved ? so also you say , neither is it conferd to all our infants , can you shew me which of our infants are except , if it be not conferred vnto all . That it was conferred or made on the Lords behalf , cannot be denied : but that every one to whome it is conefrred doth effectually receive it , who doth so affirme ? you runne here to the secrete counsel of God , where in , all are not † 〈◊〉 ●om : 9. 7 ● . 8 44. because they are the seed of Abraham , the which is not denyed , but 〈◊〉 the posterity of Abraham after the flesh , many were not of the * elec● ●om : 11. but this is not to the purpose , for we do not hold that every one of A●hams naturall seed is saved , nor all the posterity of beleeving paren● in the election : but this we beleeve , that God of his free grace gave his 〈…〉 venant to Abraham and to his seed , and he by fayth received the same him self and his seed indefinitely , as we also doo beleeve that God will ● our God , and the God of our seed , because he hath so promised , and therefore doo we in assurance hereof cause our Infants to be baptised according to the * commandement of Christ : if any of them comming to yeres do manifest Mat : 28. by their vnbeleef , that they are reprobate , then are we to take notice that they ‡ were not of vs , but till then we are to account them as children Io: 2. 19. of the Covenant , as well as we do those that being hypocrites , do outwardly Act. 8. 13. professe the fayth & so are baptised , as Symon Magus .

Secondly , you say , The spirituall covenant was offerred to all Abrahams seed vnder the carnall &c.

How Gods covenant was geven to Abraham and his seed , & not barely offerred , I have shewed before , so also have I answered to your carnal covenant and confesse , that the Lord vnder types & figures did teach and shadow forth vnto Israell diverse particulars of the Messiah as of his † sacrificing , Heb. 8. 5. & 9. 8. 9. ●c . & 10. ● &c. Col. ● 17. Heb. ● — 9. & ● chap. ● Cor. 10. 1. — 6. death , resurrection , Preisthood and such like , and of good things to come to his Church vnder the Gopell , and of the Kingdome of heaven , but that there was a carnal covenant or Testament made with Abraham over & besides the covenant of grace , sealed vnto him and his carnal seed by circumcision all your learning can never prove it .

You conclude That as it was offred to Abrahams seed , so to ours . This I hope then if it be proved that the spirituall covenant was not onely offerred , but geven to Abrahams carnall seed ( I meane the Israelites ) that the same covenant is given to our children , vnlesse the grace of God be lessened vnder the gospel . to prove the former , viz: that the spiritual covenant was given to the Israelites besydes that which hath bene formerly observed I will add some sew reasons moe to confirme the same .

1. Deu: 29. 10-15 . Moses speaking vnto all Israel , sayth , ye stand ●y every one of you before the Lord your God , your heads of your tribes , your ● and your officers , ▪ all the men of Israell , your children , your wives &c. that ●houldest passe into the covenaunt of the Lord thy God , and into his othe ● he maketh with thee this day , &c. neither make I this covenaunt with you ● but with him that standeth here with vs this day , as with him that is not here ● vs this day , &c. Which covenaunt is the † † Deut. 2 13. conf● with Gen 17. 1. 2. 7 19. & 2● 3. same that was made to ●raham , and renued both on Gods behalfe and the peoples . Now that ●venant that God confirmed to Abraham , with an othe is the covenant ● grace , as Luke , 1. 72. 75. conferd with Gen. 22. 16. Heb. 6. 13. 14. And his covenaunt that was made to Abraham , is the very same that Isra●l renued with the Lord , for themselves and their posterity . Deut. 19. 13. ●4 . 15. which was not barely offred , but confirmed vnto Abraham & his ●ed by the Lords oth . Yea in verse 10. 12. it is sayd , ye stand this day to passe ●r● the covenant of the Lord , and into his oth which he maketh with thee this day , for ● establish thee this day , a people unto himself , and that he may be unto thee a God as ●e hath sayd vnto thee , and hath sworne vnto thy fathers , Abraham , Isaac and Ia●ob . And this to be their God , & they to be his people , & their posteritie , was no carnall covenaunt , but the very ‡ ‡ 2 Cor. 6. 16. same that is made with vs vnder the Gospel .

2. That the Lord made with Israel his spirituall covenaunt , may also be proved , Deut. 10. 16. where Moses exhorts them to circumcise the foreskinne of their hart , and by all these exhortations of the Prophets , to repentance . Ier. 3. 14. & 4. 1. 4. & 7. 3. Hosea 10. 12. and 14. 1-7 . Ioel 2. 12. 13. Amos 5. 4. 6. Zepha . 2. 1. 2. ( which are the conditions of that spirituall covenant that the Lord requires on our part therein ) & the promises of pardon annexed therevnto . ( which is the other part of the covenant on Gods behalfe . ) Now the covenaunt of the law admits of no repentance , nor promiseth any pardon , onely the covenaunt of grace , admits thereof . If therefore they had not had the spirituall covenaunt given vnto them , wherevpon could the Prophets have grounded their exhortations , or with such reasons have perswaded them to repentaunce ? This was the ground of Peters exhortation of the Iewes to amendement of life , as before is observed out of Act. 2. 38. 39.

And by the Lords requyring of repentance at the hands of the Is 〈…〉 it is most cleere , that God required then the same thing , that now 〈◊〉 † gospel is required of vs : Ergo they were interessed in the same cove 〈…〉 Mar. 1. ● 15. that we have : And therfore not onely the outward observation of ce 〈…〉 nies was required of the Iewes , by their covenant , but also the obs 〈…〉 of the conditions of the covenant of grace , as to walke before God an● be vpright : Gen: 17. 1. to beleeve and repent : And it is a notable err 〈…〉 hold the contrarie .

3. Israel were held to be the people of God , and the Lord to be their God , and so God did ‡ account of them . Now I would know if they could ●r. 23. 2. ●ay 5. 7. ●icah . 2. 8. ● Hos. 11. ● . Deut. ● . 8. Gen. ● . 8. Ehe. 2. ● . ● . Cor. 6. ● . 17. A● c. 18. 4. be sayd to be his people , and not to be within his covenant of grace ; doth God accept of any , by a carnal covenant to be his people , and not in Christ ? do not both Iewes & Gentiles become Gods people through Christ ? and all that are not within his covenant , are sayd to be * far of and without God . But the offring onely of the Gospel or covenant , makes not a people to be Gods people , for the Gospel may be preached to them ; that are without , but then are they sayd to be Gods people , when they imbrace his covenant and not before , and such as do receive it are commanded † to separate themselves from the prophane , which wil not have the Lord to be their God : which separation , argues a difference between a people to whome the promises are offred , and such as have received them for that Gospell that converted some in a false Church , was offerred to moe yet is it received onely of the faithfull , in which respect they are sayd to be the people and Church of God . This resteth then for you to shew that God intituleth any to be his people , which have not eyther themselves or ●om. 9. 4. ● . 2. 39. ●eut . 29. their forefathers received the covenant of grace . And as Israel was called the people of God , because the ‡ covenant belonged vnto them , and they had † passed into that , & received the seale thereof wherehy they testifyed themselves and were acknowledged to be Gods people and sheep of his pasture : so are we become the people and Church of God , not because ● . Rom. 11. ●6 . the gospel is preached vnto vs , but because we have received the promise of God , and entred covenant with him for our selves and also for our children , for if the ‡ first fruicts be holy , so is the whole lumpe , and if the roote be holy , so are the branches .

4. The Apostle sayth , that the branches ; vz. the Iewes were * * Rom. 11. ●7 . 20. broken of from the roote and fatnes of the olive through vnbeleefe meaning by the roote , Abraham ●saac and Iacob their forefathers who for themselves and their seed 〈◊〉 received the covenant : Now it must necessarily follow vpon the Apo 〈…〉 wordes , that they were before , of the olive , or els could they not be 〈…〉 d to be broken of : And this breaking of , was not a ceasing to be their 〈…〉 turall seede , ( for so continew they stil ) but they were broken of from the 〈…〉 enant of grace made to Abraham and his seed , as it is apparant by this , 〈◊〉 they were broken of through vnbeleef , which hath relation to that co●enant , and not to the covenant of works . Yea and they are sayd to be * * Rom. ● 19. 20. broken of from that , wherevnto we are graffed by faith , and into which they may also be † † vers. 23. graffed in agayne , if they continew not in vnbelief . Now we are graffed into no other covenant but that of grace : And as for the Iewes they cannot againe be graffed into such a carnal covenant as you imagine , seing by your owne doctrine it is disannulled : And if they be to be graffed into an other covenant and not the same that they were in before , how can it be called a graffing in agayne ? for this phrase importeth a covenant whereof they had bene formerly partakers .

But it wil be objected , that they which are once in Christ and holy , can not be broken of , and therefore such of the Iewes as fell away cannot be sayd to be holy and of the spiritual covenant .

I Answer first , it is trew that they that are graffed in Christ , and personally holy “ “ Joh. 10. ● 27. 28. cannot be broken of : secondly , the Apostle speaking of holynes and saying if the root be holy so are the branches , meaneth not of any personal holynes , but of that right of the covenant whereby they became Gods people , which he calleth holynes that descends from Abraham to all his seed , as the sap or fatnes of the olive doth from the root ascend to all the branches ; And this holynes , or right to the spiritual covenant had all the Iewes , in regard whereof they were separate from all other nations , and called a holy nation . And in this respect are the children of those parents ( whereof the one of them beleeveth ) called holy . 1. Cor: 7. 14. not that personall holines descendeth from the parent to the childe ( for that cannot passe from one to an other ) but because through the fayth of the father beleeving that the promise of salvation is made to him and his seed , the children have now tytle and right to the same covenant by the free and large promise of the grace of God , and so many as are elected are saved ( though dying in theire infancy , ) by the same covenant .

5. The Apostle affirmeth Act. 15. 11. that both the fathers under the law , as well as we that are under the gospel , are under the same j 〈…〉ing and sanctifying grace of Christ , saying , wee beleeve through the grace o● Lord Jesus Christ to be saved as they , meaning their fathers , vers. 10. where 〈…〉 on I conclude , that their fathers being under the same grace , were und● the same covenant with us , although this grace was not so fully revealed and fulfilled as it is now * to us ; for there is no partitipation of the gra● Jo. 7. 39. of justification and regeneration , but in this spiritual covenant ; therefore to them was given this spirituall covenaunt , and they did receive it as well as we , though amongst them some particular persons did by their personal vnbeleif , cut themselves of from the grace of God , as now some do with us , which neyther then , nor now , can make the covenant given to our Exod. 20. Ps. 89. 28 ● . Gen. 3. 15 ● 4. 4. 26. ● 6. 5. & ●eb . 11. 4. &c. Heb. 11. ● . ● Heb. 11. ● . 14. 15. ● . forefathers , to be † void to their posteritie .

6. The spiritual covenant that was given to Abraham and his seed , was before given to “ Adam , and the fathers to the time of Abraham ; & they received it by faith , ( for there is but one covenant of salvation both before & after Christ , & one maner of receiving it , which is by faith : ) & Abraham to whom was promised the land of Canaan , did notwithstanding look for a * citie having a foundation whose builder and maker is God . And of these fathers before Abraham his time , doth the Apostle witnesse that they all died in faith , ‘ * saw the promises ( that is the things promised ) a farr off , ( though they received them not as then fulfilled , ) and beleeved and received thankefully and confessed that they were stangers and pilgrimes on the earth , for they that say such things declare plainly that thoy seek a country , that is an heavenly . And in the first epistle to the Corinthes chap. 10. 1. &c. the Apostle speaking of the fathers which were of Abrahams seed , sayth , I would not have you ignorant , that all our fathers were under the clowd , were all baptized unto Moses , did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spirituall drink , for they drunk of the spiritual rock that followed , & the rock was Christ . By which scriptures it appeares that the spiritual covenant was given unto them , & that they received it by faith . Heb. 11. ● . Mat. 17. ● . 2 Cor. ● . 19. Rev. 1 ● & 8. 3. Heb. 13. 15 ● 1 Tim. 2. ● . Heb. 13. ● Eph. 2. ● .

7. If the fathers under the law had not bene within the covenant of grace , all their worship offered unto God could not have been acceptable , seing out of Christ , * God is not pleased with any person , or with any worship ; therfore is he sayd to be the Lamb slayn from the begining of the world , & the onely “ Mediator between God and man , by whom we have accesse unto the Father , and † through whom all our sacrifices and worship are pleasing unto God .

Lastly , it must needs be that the Iewes had the covenant of grace , seing the Apostle sayth † ‘ that the Gentiles shal be coinheritors ( meaning with the Iewes ) ● of the same body , and partakrrs of the promises in Christ by the Gospel : for if the ●wes had not formerly bene a body & inheritors of the promises in Christ , ●ow could the Gentiles be sayd to be coinheritors with them and of the ●ame body , see also Ephes. 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the Iewes were called the * * Mat. 8 ▪ 12. children of the kingdome , and of of the “ “ Act. 3. 25. covenant , and unto whom the † † Act. ● 32. promise was made .

And now it being proved that this spirituall covenant apperteyned to the Israelites , and the conditions therof required at their hands , I hope you will grant as much to the faythfull and their seed under the Gospel , or els shew vs where and when the hand of Gods grace was shortened , but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be lesse bountiful now , then he was to the Iewes : and therefore as the children of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circumcision : so are the children now that descends from beleeving parents * * 1 Cor. 7. 14. holy , and have right to the covenant “ “ Mat. 19 ▪ 14. and kingdome of God , and consequently to baptisme the seal thereof .

But you say , Infants wanting actuall faith , cannot truely be sayd the children of Abraham .

I answer , that actuall faith is required of such of Abrahams children , as Here no● that actua● faith in al● this treatis● is put for t● actual us● faith . are grown to yeares . And therfore you must proove that infants wanting actuall faith cannot be the children of Abraham , and then must you prove that they are not Christs , for if they be Christs they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29.

But are that they are , in secret to the Lord ; whatsoever they are .

Christ hath sayd playnely , “ “ Mar. ● 14. that of such is the Kingdome of God . And the promise is * * Act. 2. 3. made to the beleevers and their seede . And you leave them in secrete to the Lord , thus shutting your eies against the cleare light of the truth .

The Scriptures following , ( viz: Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9. compared with Gen. 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most playnly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham , ) you leave vnanswered .

Next folow your reasons against poedobaptistrie , the first wherof is this . As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful , so must it be with the children of Abraham , Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first beleeved actually , and being sealed with the spirit of promise , afterward received the signe of circumcision : Ergo the children of Abraham , the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise , and then receive the baptisme of water .

This Argument which you alledge against Paedobaptistrie the very 〈◊〉 serves to confirm it , for thus we reason for it observing your termes .

As it was with Abraham the father of the faythful , so must it be with th● children of Abraham .

But Abraham first beleeved and being sealed with the spirit of promise , afterward received the signe of circumcision , he and his children .

Ergo , the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve● and be sealed with the spirit of promise , and then receive baptisme of water , they and their children .

Here let the reader consider , yf you by this your owne Argument have not yeelded the cause ; for this is that which we stand for , viz: that , As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his children the beleeving Gentiles . Now Abraham beleeved that God would be his God and the God of his seed . Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the † seale thereof , he himself , and all his males , yea Isaac of eight dayes old . ●om. 4. 3 ● Gen. 17. ● — 14. ● — 27. ● 21. 4. Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeeve , and then receive the seale thereof which is Baptisme , themselves and their children . But if your meaning be this , that as Abraham beleeved first & after was circumcised ; so every one of Abrahams seed must first actually beleeve and then be baptised , then I must intreat you to shew me when and where this difference was put between the seed of Abraham which descended from him by the course of nature , & his seed that are of the Gentiles , that the former being infants , might notwithstanding first receive the seal before they did actually beleeve : And that the other , viz: the infants of the Gentiles must first beleeve and after receive the signe : surely before the comming of Christ the Lord put no such difference , but that such of the Gentiles as did turne to the faith , “ their infants were circumcised , as well as ●xod . 12. the infants of the Iewes . After Christs comming the Apostle witnesseth , that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the Iewes , for he sayth Ephe. 3. 6 * the Gentiles are coinheritors also ( meaning with the Iewes ) and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel . And therefore the Apostle did not doubt to “ baptise the households with the beleeving parents . Act. 16. ● . 33. Act. 10. ● . I wil answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter , * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not . God hath purifyed the Gentiles , and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham , therfore yt is an iniury offered , to pollute , that is , to reject from the cove●ant , our children , whom the Lord hath received . Your second ●s this .

As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admit●d into the Church of the old testament : so in the new testament , the spirituall children ●ust be spiritually circumcised , and then be admitted by baptisme into the Church ●f the new testament . But the first was signified by the type , Ergo the second is ●rified in the truth .

First , If this Argument should hold proportion , then it would folow , that as circumcision was a seale of the covenant , so should baptisme be a ●eale likewise , for it is brought in here to answer circumcision , as the dore into the Church : But you deny * * Chara● pag. 9 Baptisme to be a seale of the covenant .

2. I answere that the carnall children of the Israelites were not admitted to be members of the Church of the old testament , by circumcision : for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day , & “ “ Gen. 17 the covenant apperteyned unto them , and therfore were they circumcised , for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong .

Also to the Majors consequent , I answer , that they which enter into the Lords covenant be they beleevers or their Infants , we are to hold them † † 1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk ● 15. Ier. 1. ● spiritually circumcised , and therefore to be partakers of baptisme .

Concerning your assumption , as * * Mat. 3. 8. Act. ● 12. 37. repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoyned to the Church of the new Testament : so was it of “ “ Gen. 17 ● Esra . 6. ● Abraham , and of them that were Gentiles , and to be adioyned to the Church , of the old Testament , And therefore this manner of admitting members into the Church being morall vnder the law so continueth to be vnder the Gospell . And the † “ Deut. 1● 4. ● . 6. Ier ● Deut. 30. 6. Circumcision of the hart was commanded and promised then to the Israelites and their seed as wel as now it is to us , and not onely to them that adjoyned to the Church but continually to all the members of the same . And therfore it is no● true that theirs was the type onely and ours the truth : seeing the things signifyed by Circumcision were required of the circumcised ; as the thing signified by baptisme is also required of vs ; and a like enterance into the Church vnder both Testaments .

The third is this ; As in the old Testament carnal infants were carnally beg●tten and borne by the mortall seed of generation by their carnal parents , and then ●ere carnally circumcised , & received into the carnal covenant : so in the new Testament spiritual Infants new borne babes in Christ must be spiritually begotten and 〈◊〉 the immortall seed of regeneration by spirituall parents , and then being spirit 〈…〉 circumcised , they shal by baptisme with water be received into the new Testament ▪ But the first was signified by type , Ergo the second was verified in the truth .

This reason is a like to the former and hath answer already . This I add further that circumcision though it was a cuttyng of the foreskinne of the flesh , yet was it an holy action † sealing vnto the beleevers and theire Rom. 4. 11. seed , the righteousnes of faith .

2 I deny that the seed of Abraham after the flesh was by circumcision received into a carnall covenant ; the covenant is spiritual vnto which Gen. 17. 7 ● Act. 7. 8. ● . 4. 11. they were sealed * by circumcision , as before I have proved : for had they bene received into a carnall covenant ; then should the Church of the old Testament be also carnall : for according to the nature of the covenant so must the Church be ; and GOD must be a carnall GOD , and delited with carnall things , contrary to Psal. 50. 8. 13. Esay . 1. 13. 14. But the Lord required of his people the Israelites more then outward or carnal service and that which stood in ceremonies types and shadowes ; Lev. 19. 2 even † holynes , the circumcision of the hart , * repentance , “ “ Deut. 10. the service of the hart and soule . And that the Lord did principally require ●6 . Jer. 4. 4. ● Hos. 14. 2 ●el 2. 12. ●3 . Ps. 4. 4 ● Deut. 10. ● . 6. 4. 5. ●sa. 1. 11 ▪ ● & 58. 2 ●4 . 5. Ps. ●0 . 8. — 13. spirituall worship of them , appears by his † rejection of their ceremoniall worship when it was offerred vp without the spirituall , and by exhorting to the spiritual ; as Psal. 50. 14. 15. to offer praise and to call vpon him . and Psal. 4. 5. to offer the sacrifice of righteousnes , and in Hoseah . 14. 2. to pray for pardon , and to render vp the calves of their lips , And consequently faith in Christ ; without * * Heb. 11. 6 which , all their worship was vnsavory to God . the Psal. discribeth the true members of the Church and dwellers in the Lords † † Ps. 15. 1. ●2 . 3. &c. & Ps. 24. 3. 4. ● . Tabernacle not by an outward observacion of legall ceremonies , but of their spirituall obedience . The Lord sayth “ “ Prov. 23 ● . ● Esa. 29. ●3 . my sonn give me thy hart , and reproveth † hipocrisie . By all which testimonies it is manifest , that the members of the old Church were received into a further covenant with the Lord , then into a bare carnal covenant which hath carnal conditions onely , as before is proved .

The fourth is this , If the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the new Testament must not be baptised , because that as circumcision is abolished which was the singe or seal ; so the infant is abolished which is the subiect of the signe or seal . And a proportionable infant introduced , which is one regenerate by the spirit and by the word : But the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised : Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the new Testament to be baptised .

The consequent of the major wil not follow , the reason proves it not : For although circumcision be abolished in that there was somewhat 〈◊〉 ●t was typical , as the circumcising of the males onely , whereby they were directed vnto Christ by whom our corrupt nature is clensed : yet was ●t not abolished as it was a seale of the covenant , but the outward ceremo●ie onely changed : no more is the carnal infant of the beleeving parents abolished or made vncaple of the seal of Gods covenant : for the children of Christians † † Gal. 3. 29 are Abrahams seed , I say , not in respect of the flesh , but by grace of the covenant comprehending the whole seed of the faithful ; and therefore have right as well to the signe of the covenant as had the carnall sede of Abraham .

Towching your proportionable infant ( as you term him ) it is to be obser●ed that in the old Church it was required of al that were to be adioyned thervnto that they should * * Exod. 12 48. Ezr. 6 21. separate from the filthines of the heathen to seek the Lord as now it is vnder the gospel . And therefore it wil not follow that circumcision was a type onely of the time to come ? the fift is this .

As in the old Testament when the male appeared the eight day their was a paynful circumcising and mortifying of the foreskin when the party was received into the covenant actually : so in the new testament when the Lord Iesus Christ ( typed by the male ) appointeth that when there is a painful circumcising & mortifying of the superfluous fore ●kin of the hart , the party so qualifyed should be received into the new testament actually : But the first was signifyed by the type : Ergo , the second is verified in the truth .

First , the covenant to the infants of the Iewes was actually sealed by circumcision , but this cannot properly be said a receiving into the covenant , ( wherin they were before comprehended with their fathers , ) but a confirming therof to the parties circumcised . And this appeareth to be so by the Lords threatning to * * Gen. 1● 14. cut of from his people the vncircumcised male-child . Can he be cut of that was not of his people , or for the refusing circumcision to be be sayd to have broken the Lords covenant ?

2. Your simile holds not proportion , for you say , the party circumcised was by circumcision actually received into the covenant , then by your reason ( if you will make it proportionable ) the parties that are to be received into the new Testament , must be received therin by the mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of his hart ; or els you must shew some ceremony folowing circumcision , by which the Iewish children were received into the covenant that must type out baptisme by which , say you , the partie so qualified should be received into the new Testament actually , or els shew a reason why this ceremonie of baptisme is added to the truth ( as you expound it ) and nothing added to the type to shadowe out baptisme ? this is not proportioable that there must be a ceremonie added to the truth in receving in of members , into the Church now since the comming of Christ , and not any to the type in receiving in of members into the Church before his coming .

Lastly if you wil keep proportion , you must compare together circumcision and baptisme , both which do lead to the circumcision of the hart , & are the seales of one and the same covenant , the one appointed for the old Church before Christ , the other for the Church under the Gospel , & then wil your Argument fall out against your self . And thus I have shewed both the weaknes of your answer , & of your reasons grounded therevpon .

Argument . II.

Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumcision belonged to faithful Abraham and his seed , yea to such as were but infants , then doth baptisme also appertayne to all beleevers and to their seed being infants . But the first is true , Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the second .

The consequent wil follow , seing baptisme commeth in place of circumcision sealing up unto us and to our seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham and to his seed , Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner ( if not more ample ) then to the Israelites , for of them onely were the males circumcised , but by baptisme , are both males and females sealed . And this must follow necessarily , or els the covenant by the comming of Iesus Christ should be more restreyned , then it was under the law , who came to ratify and confirm it wholly , as the Apostle sayth , 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him , yea and Amen , &c. For God gave it with the seale thereof , to Abraham and his infants : and if Christ should give it unto us onely and not to our infants , this were to lessen and infringe the covenant , and not to confirm all , but to take away part of that which God before had given .

Mr Smyth .

I answer that this argument is built vpon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant , and seale , and seed : and there is manifest violence committed upon the scripture by perverting and wresting it to false consequents : first therfore I deny the consequence , and I give reasons of my denyall . &c.

The former Argument is proved to stand upon a true ground and so ●all it be manifested that there is no mistaking , eyther of the covenant , seale or seed in this reason , nor yet any violence offred to this scripture , by wresting it to false consequences as you affirme . The consequence you deny , but desprove it not , to your reasons I wil answer particularly , which in number are three .

Your first reason because , that circumcision did not appertaine to Abraham & his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant but of the externall temporary covenant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moses . &c. I have already proved the contrary , both out of Gen: 17. 7. 9. where it is added as a signe vnto that everlasting covenant , and also out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith . Furthermore , circumcision did signify the † † Deut. ● 16. Ier. ● Act. 7. 5● inward circumcision of the hart ; which was not required of them in respect of the promise of Canaan , ( the same being required vnder the Gospel , ) nor yet of the law , ( for it admitts of no repentance , ) but as a condition of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and his seede in Christ : also the proselites & Ismael were circumcised , that had no promise of Canaan , nor right to one foot of inheritance in it , for * * Ios. 14. ● 16. 17. 18 ▪ 19. 21. c . Canaan was devided by lot to the 12. Tribes , and in every tribe to the several families : and therefore their circumcision did eyther seale vnto them the spirituall covenant , or none at all , as before is observed .

Againe , if by the male circumcised ; Christ was typed , as you have affirmed before in your fift reason in your answere to my former Argument , then circumcision was a signe of the spiritual covenant : ( For Christ is that which was promised ) . And if the infant circumcised was a type of him , it must nedes followe that circumcision was asigne of that covenant whereof the child circumcised was the subject , but the infant in becomming a type of Christ , became in this respect , a subiect of the spiritual covenant , and therfore his circumcision a seale thereof , for the type and truth must have relation to the same thing or covenant .

Lastly , Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God , to confirm the promises unto the fathers . Rom. 15. 8. Also I deny that circumcision was first given as a seale of obedience to the law of Moses , seing the law was not given when circumcision was ordeyned , but * * Gal. 3. 1● 430. yeares after : the thing to be sealed is to go before the seale , or els it is preposterous , and the seale without fruit . Neyther was it given to be a seale of a carnall promise : in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace , God togither with it promised unto him and his seed the Land of Canaan : but he never appointed circumcision to be the seale thereof ; els when Israel possessed that land , circumcision should have ceassed , as all Sacraments shall do , when the promises , whereof they be seales , shal be fully accomplished : and circumcision should have bene of no force to them that had no right to Canaan , which yet were circumcised .

Your second reason , because the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the new Testament , &c.

I answer , they do thus occupy the place of Abraham , that as he did , so Act. 2. 39 do * they receive the covenant to them , and their children , who through the free promise of God received by the faith of the parents , have entrance into the covenant together with them : and in this regard parents are , & so may be called “ fathers of their children , being the meanes whereby they Act. 2. 39 come to this prerogative , And this is not to supply that particular of Abrahams fatherhood , which was extraordinarie .

Your third reason is , because the infants of the faithful doe not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham , but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh , &c.

First , how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham , I have shewed , & here , deny that the children of Abraham according to the flesh onely as you mean , were types of the infants of the faithfull ; seing the children of the Proselytes were the children of the faithful : and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh , yea some infants circumcised , should be types , ( as the carnal seed of Abraham ) and other infants circumcised as well as they , ( to wit ) the children of the Proselytes ) should be no types : for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh . And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self , nor you with the truth .

Secondly , I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful ? Paul sayth , * that all our fathers were under the clowd , were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat , 1 Cor. 10. ● 5. & drank the same spirituall drink &c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes , cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended , and after the enumeration of many particulars , the Apostle sayth , all these through faith obteyned good report . Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful , & if infants of the faithful , then were they types of themselves .

3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham , as Isaac , Iacob , &c. were the true children of Abraham , Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh , & * * Rom. ● 16. 17. 19 ▪ 20. 23. ● conferd w● Gen. 17. ● 9. 13. Jo● 44. sonnes of the promise of life , so to be reputed , as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of belee●ers .

But say you , If you wil make true consequents , you must reason from the type to the truth , and not from the type to the type , neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do , &c.

And I answer you , neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed . But as for my confounding of the covenants and seales , that is your bare affirmation , and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham , & for your carnal and spirituall infants , is answered before .

Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument , and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof . And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed , then you undertake to prove the contrary , saying , That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh , Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands , commeth in place of circumcision made with hands , Collos. 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11.

By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart , and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promised the † † Deut. 1● 16. & 30. circumcision of the hart , and the hart of their seed , as before is shewed , and they had the grace together with the outward signe , & therefore your reason is insufficient , and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning .

Towching the place of the Romaines , 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced Rom. 2● the Iewes of syn , vers. 17. — 24. they might object , what , doth our circumcision nothing profit us , that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles ? yea sayth he , if thou keep the law , els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision : vers. 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law , before circumcision transgressing the law , vers. 26 , 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites , & the inward and outward circumcision , sheweth who is a true Iew ( not before men ) but before God , viz: he that is one within , wherein is no guyle , And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation , which is not onely outward but of the hart : this is the Apostles meaning , and not to teach , that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh , &c. as you affirm .

That other place , Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the ●2 . 11. former , for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel , in this verse he denyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh , ( which was specially urged ) seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death , and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge , seal , and witnes , of our inward renuing , or regeneration ; therefore having baptisme to confirme these graces vnto them , need not the use of outward circumcision . And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught ●●e . 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works , verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians , shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes , by nature corrupt , but also after an especiall manner , strangers , & without God , &c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes . And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures .

And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise , which is the spirituall seale to succeed in place therof . Ephe. 1. 13. 14.

Although circumcision was set in the flesh , yet was it not a seale of the flesh , but of the * spirituall covenant : and the holy spirit of promise succeedes Rom. 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it : for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them , that heavenly covenant of salvation , as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly : as in Abraham , Isaac , Iacob and the rest : yea , the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision , for they being converted were after circumcised : Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “ assured by the ●om . 4. ● . 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise . But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision , you quote Ephes. 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged ; for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes , because they were called by the same gospel , which they imbraced by fayth , and sealed up by the same spirit , which is the earnest of our inheritance : And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision . Againe the spirit being invisible , is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant .

Further you say , I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new te●stament though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal . I say therefore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water , and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible , so is the seale of the new Testament , spiritual , and yet visible , and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit , as Cornelius company was , Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water , as Peter there teacheth . This visible seale of the new testament is confession , as in the ●d testament circumcision was their confession , and baptisme is not a seale , but a manifestation of the seale .

First , you deny a principle of religion , and that which formerly you held , for in your book of Difference , &c. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptisme seales of the covenant : these are your words . The publishing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the seales is onely one concrete action &c. for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seales , otherwise breaking of bread and baptising are but putting of seales to a blank . And thus unstable are you in your wayes .

2. What if baptisme be not called a seale ? yet if it can be proved by scripture that it is a seale , we ought so to receive it . The sacraments given of God unto the Israelites were called seales , as † † Rom. 4. & 15. 8. circumcision by the Apostle is called , a seale of the righteousnes of faith . And when God made with Abraham his covenant to be his God and the God of his seed , he gave him * * Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1● circumcision a signe thereof , which did confirme unto him and to his seed that which God did promise , as before the Lord had done to Noah to whom he gave the “ “ Gen. 9. 9-17 . rayn-bowe as a signe of his promise , that the world should be no more destroyed with water : so the Passeover is called a signe , Exod. 13. 9. Now if circumcision be a signe and seale of Gods covenant , as the Apostle testifieth , then it must needs be granted that baptisme succeeding circumcision is also a seale of the Lords covenant , though the very word ( seale ) be not expressely set downe in the scripture . And this the Apostle intimates , Act. 2. 39. where he exhorteth the beleevers to be baptised every one in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes , for the promise is to you and to your children . The Lord commanding his “ “ Mat. 2. 19. Gospel to be preached to all nations , commanded them also to be baptised , confirming by this outward signe , his covenant to all the beleeving Gentiles and their seed , as he had done to Abraham and his seed the same covenant by circumcision . * Paul , † Cornelius , “ Lydia and the Gaylor , after they beleeved and had ●ct . 9. 17 received the covenant were baptised , which confirmed unto them the free * forgivenes of all their synnes by the death of Christ . And this is plainly Act. 10. taught us by Peter 1. Epistle 3 , 21. where he sayth , that baptisme now also saveth us : Baptisme cannot be sayd to save , as any cause thereof , Act. 16. ● 31. ●●k. 3. 3. ●ct . 2. 38. ●● . 6. 3. ●al. 3. 16 ●om. 7. 11 Mar. 16. but in this respect , that it witnesseth and sealeth unto us from God , our salvation , that which circumcision did type out to come , the same doth baptisme now signifie to be fulfilled in Christ the true † seed , of Abraham . And as by “ circumcisiion the righteousnes of faith was sealed : so by Baptisme salvation is sealed , as Christ sayth * he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved .

Againe , Rom. 6. 3. Paul sayth , all we that have been baptized into Iesus Christ have beene baptized into his death . In which words the Apostle giveth vs to understand , that by baptisme , the benefits of the death of Christ , are on the Lords behalf confirmed unto us . And if this be not the signification of baptisme , let it be shewed out of the word what els is minded by these phrases , baptised into the death of Christ , and buried with him , by baptisme into his death ?

Thus have I shewed that baptisme is a seal of the new Testament , which you deny , affirming a new kind of seale thereof , viz: Confession , & say , the seale of the spirit , must go before baptisme . Which two in my understanding differ farre one from another , for confeession , is the act of man , as the Apostle sayth , * with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation , & proveth sometime to be Rom. 10. ● Act. 8. 13 hypocriticall , as that of Symon Magus was : But the baptisme of the holy Ghost is an action of God , and is eyther an internall work of the spirit , as Mat. 3. 11. or els external , by some visible signes and extraordinary guifts , Act. 1. 8. & 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44. - 47. This latter now ceasseth ; being then given of God , for the further confirming of the Gospel in the Churches newly planted , until the faith of Christ was fully established amongst the Gentiles , and therefore is no ordinary seale of the new Testament given by Christ to be continued unto the end of the world , though I confesse those extraordinary giftes of the spirit , miracles & works done by the Apostles and other of the servants of Christ , have still their use in the Church to confirme the truth of God by them published .

And as for mens confession of the faith , that can be no seale of the ●ew Testament ; because it is imperfect , and oftentimes hypocriticall , many falling away from the truth which formerly they professed , as Demas , Nicholas the Deacon , and those mentioned in the first epistle of Iohn , chap. 2. 19. Now that which must seale Gods covenant unto us , for the confirmation of our faith must be certayne and perfect , and that from God , because it is he that promiseth salvation to all that beleeve , therefore it is he that onely can give assurance of his owne covenant , And as ●or our confession , it is but an outward testification of the grace of God bestowed upon us , it can no more be a seale of the new Testament , then the profession of the Iewes was of the old . And as you require of me ●here in all the scripture baptisme is called a seale ? so more justly may I demand of you where in all the new Testament that confession is called a seale . Besides if confession be a seale of the new Testament , then a man may be par taker of the scale , that is not of the Church , as they that confesse their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints .

3. That the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water , &c. Vnderstanding it as you do ( of confession ) then I graunt , that such as were never of the Church , ar first to make confession of their faith , & to testify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptised . Act. 8. 37. 38. but neyther is such confession required of their infants , neyther is it a seale of the new Testament , as before I have proved . Otherwise understanding the seale of the spirit , as the Apostle doth , Rom. 8 , 15. 16. & Ephe. 1 , 13. 14. so goeth it before and together with Baptisme in all the elect of God whether infants or of yeares .

As for that sealing with the spirit , of Cornelius company , which you instance , Act. 10. 47. whereby you seeme to understand , confession , you cannot but know , that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words , was the extraordinary geving of the spirit , wherewith he and the rest were indued , and not onely that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true beleever , as by the text is plainly to be seen , which sayth , that they of the circumcision were astonied as many as came with Peter , because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost , For they heard them speak with tongues . And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth , as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them , even as upon us at the beginning . Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them , viz: there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre , and it sat vpon each of them , and they were filled with the holy Ghost , and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance . This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinarie , ( for he came not so upon all that were baptised . Act. 8. 36 , 37. & 16. 14. 15. 33 , ) seing * the multitude was astonished ●ct . 2. 6. ● . — 12. wondred all and marveyled . Therefore that comming of the spirit upon Cornelius and his company , was extraordinary : for Peter sayth , The holy Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning : also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them , & baptisme ; for he seing them partakers of the spirit , sayth , can any man forbid water , that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we ?

This visible seale seale of the new Testament , ( say you ) is confession , as in the old Testament , circumcision was their confession .

That confession , is not the seale of the new Testament I have already proved . And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old Testament , thus farre may be granted , that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles , and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance , and so is baptisme now to us , a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pagans , but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our baptisme ; Act. 19. ● . Rom. 10 10. King . 18 ● . Exo. 19. ● . Psa. 107. ● . 21. 31. Esa. 29. 13. ●e Dan. ch. 9 Exo. 12. ●8 . Act. ● . 27. &c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth : even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God , and his truth not onely by circumcisision , but also † with words to his praise . And I make no question , but the Proselytes before they were “ circumcised made confession of their faith .

Baptisme is not a seale , but a manifestation of the seale .

I pray you Sir , of what seale is baptisme the manifestation ? Confession you say , is the visible seale of the new testament . Doth it manifest our confession ? it needs not , for that is visible . If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace , it is true , but thereby we are assured of Gods promise , and so is the visible seale thereof .

Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to confirme the consequence of my Argument : the first whereof is , Collos. 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme commeth in the rome of circumcision , this you deny so to be construed , and say :

That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne , and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision , &c.

That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcision was the seale , I wil further manifest & prove both out of this place of the Collossians , and also by other reasons . First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Gospel , proveth that the Church stands no need therof , seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ : and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvation , he answereth , that neyther needed they to be circumcised , because they were spiritually circumcised . And whereas the Collossions might have objected , that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised , yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof , which if we want , our state is not so good as their was : yea sayth Paul that it is , for in stead of outward circumcision , you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children , under the Gospel , the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed : this is the meaning of the Apostle , and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme succeedeth circumcision : Now I wil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant .

First , the sacraments of the new Testament have the same end & scope in respect of the thing signified , with the sacraments under the law . For as Paul attributed the same vertue , efficacy , and effect of our baptisme & the Lords supper * * 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers : so doth he ascribe to the beleevers under the gospel , the efficacy of the † † Cor. ● Pascall lambe , “ “ Col. 2. 1● 12. and circumcision ; therfore in respect of the thing signed , there is no difference , the same Christ , was the Lambe * * Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world . Also the same instrument and meanes of application , the same † † Rom. 4 , 16. &c. faith , end and effect , one and the same righteousnes of faith , the same “ “ Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham , the same spirituall circumcision of the hart , both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel : so that in all these things there is no difference ; which plainely argues , that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments .

2 , This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and baptisme together in their special vses and ends . There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptisme , viz: to * be signes of the covenant ●o. 4. 11. ● . &c. Gal ●6 . Mar. ● . 16. con●d with ●om. 4. 11 Deut. 10. ● . & 30. 6 ●it . 3. 5. ●er. 4. 4. ●l. 2. 11. ●uk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 ● . 6. 4. 6. ●om. 2. 29. ●hil. 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 ● . Exo. 12. ● . Act. 8. ● . & 16. ● . 33. ●at. 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 ●2 . 1 Cor. ●2 . 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ : both of the sacraments of † regeneration , “ requiring repentance and mortification , both signifying that we are corrupt , and by the blood of Christ , to be clensed , by both of them such as were * without , were received into the communion of the Church . And by both of them Gods people were † discerned from other prophane companies : And neither of them might be iterated . By which proportion and agrement we may see , that the one followes the other .

Lastly , as circumcision was given as a signe of the covenant , when the Lord chose Abraham and his seed to be his people : so baptisme was given together with the publishing of this covenant to the Gentiles , when circumcision was to ceasse , the partition wall removed , and both Iewes and Gentiles were made alike partakers of the covenant and of baptisme the signe thereof . Which argueth that the mind of the Lord was to give to his Church , Baptisme , to confirme unto it , those things which before he had witnessed to Abraham by circumcision . And thus I have proved Baptisme to succeed Circumcision , and so answered your mistaking of that place of the Collos. 2. 11. 12.

Againe you say that I would insinuate a restraint in the new Testament if baptisme be not due to infants ; seing circumcision was due to infants in the old testament , whereunto you answer many wayes , saying ,

1. Seing Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision , this allegation is nothing to the purpose . 2. seing baptisme is both to male and female it is larger then circumcision which was onely vpon the male 3. Seing baptisme is both to Jew and Gentile , therfore more large then circumcision , but these things are almost nothing to the purpose : but now I say more pertinently , that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ , is now as large as ever it was , for it was never made with Abraham and all his carnall children , but onely with Abraham and the faithful , and so that continueth in the same tenure stil , and it is inlarged now since Christs comming onely in respect of the clearer and more vniversall publication of it , &c.

Concerning the first particular of your answer , I have already proved Baptisme to succeed circumcision , & then my allegation is to purpose you ●nnot deny . To the second , I answer , that though baptisme be both to ●ale and female , and circumcision onely to the male , yet is not the seal●g of the covenant so large under the gospel as under the law , if infants ●e excluded from it : for though women were not circumcised , yet were ●hey comprehended in the covenant with the males , and their state was as ● they had been circumcised . Gen. 34. 14. And though baptisme be ●o women , yet denying it to children , it makes a restraynt : for to place ●omen in the stead of children is not an inlarging , but a change .

To the third particular of your answer , that baptisme is both of Iewe and ●entile , and therefore more large . I answer , so was circumcision to Iewe and Gentile , for all the Gentiles might have been circumcised , if they had pro●ssed the faith : therefore it wil folow that you do restrayn the seale of Gods covenant by denying it to infants . But these things , you say , are almost ●thing to the purpose : therefore to your second answer , that you say , is more ●rtinent , viz: that God never made the spiritual covenant with Abraham and al ●is carnall seed , but onely with Abraham and the faithful . It is certaine that God made his covenant with Abraham and his seed , Gen. 17. 7. and to that seed of his to whom was promised and given the land of Canaan , to that * * Gen. 17 8. seed did God promise to be their God : but to Abrahams natural seed was promised and given the land of Canaan , Ergo to them did God promise to be their God & so made with them his covenant of grace in Christ then to come . The same may be seen by the † † Deut. ● 10. — 15 ; renuing of this covenant , as formerly hath bene shewed .

I affirme , that circumcision was never a seale of Gods covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ , &c.

I have proved the contrarie before , and have also shewed that the confession “ pag. 12. of beleevers under the Gospel is not the seale of the new Testament , then is it not so large as circumcision : for that infants were circumcised , but Confession is onely of them that are growne to yeares . As for your opposing of true beleevers , to the carnal Israelites circumcised , it is not a iust and equall opposition , for actuall beleevers are onely of persons growne to yeares , but the circumcised were not onely of such , but also their infants . And thus you lessen both the covenant and seale thereof , if things be taken in their due proportion , though you pretend the contrary , deceived by your owne devised definitions and distinctions .

Lastly , to 2 Cor. 1. 20. you answer , saying , this place is strayned to the ●or. 1. 20 proving thereof ; for the meaning of it is that unto the faithful , all the Lords promises are verified , but his promise was never , that all their carnall seed should have baptisme as a seale of life and salvation , but that all beleevers should have the spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seale .

You grant that the meaning of this scripture is that all the Lords promises are verified to the faithfull , and further then this I do not streyne it : but do affirme , that this promise of life in Christ , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed * was made to faithful Abraham and his seed : which promise Gen. 17. 7. he received that he should be the father of circumcision , and the father of all that beleeve , not being circumcised , Rom. 4. 12. 11. But where you say the promise was never that their carnal seed should have baptisme as a seale of life . I answer , that those whom you call carnal seed , being the infants of the faithful , are a † holy seed , in respect of that title and right which they have Cor. 7. 14 Pet. 2. 9. 〈◊〉 . 11. 16 to the covenant received by their parents , though they be carnall , inasmuch as they are begotten and born of them after the common course of nature . And therefore being holy , and children of the covenant , have also a right to Baptisme , as hath beene , and shal be further proved in the residew of the arguments following . Here also out of your answer you set downe five arguments against Poedobaptistrie .

1. If all the carnall infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it , then they never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant . But all the carnall infants were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it , seing Abrahams children according to his actuall faith were onely under it . Rom. 4. 11. Ergo , &c.

I answer , unto the major , that to be under the everlasting covenant , is to be considered two wayes , 1. according to the Lords externall dispensation , thereof , who of his free grace “ maketh his everlasting covenant Act. 2. 39 with the faithful and their seed . 2. according to Gods secret election ; in the former sense , all the carnall infants of Abraham were , and all the infants of the faithful are , under the covenant . * For if the root be holy , so Rom. 11. ● . Gen. 17. 7 ● 11. 12. ●at. 28. 19 are the branches : And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant , through the free grace and large promise of God : so have they † to the seal thereof , which is administred by the commandement of God , according to the outward dispensation of his covenant , and not after his secret election , according to which election , neyther all the carnall infants of Abraham , or all the seed of the faithfull , or yet all that make * * 1 Io. ● visible profession of their faith and stand members of true Churches , are under the covenant , save onely the elect . But thus to vnderstand , to be vnder the actuall possession of it , as it is proper onely to the true children of Abraham , so the certaine knowledge thereof † † 2 Tim ▪ 19. belongs onely to God . And thus you see the majors consequent , in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow .

Your second is this , If Baptisme doth not succeed circumcision , then Baptisme doth not perteyne to carnall infants . But Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision , because the seale of the spirit is correspondent to the typicall seale of the flesh , and Baptisme with water is onely the manifestation of the seale . Ergo , &c.

The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true , for though baptisme should not succeed circumcision , yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God . But I deny the minor , and do affirme that Baptisme doth succeed circumcision , as I have formerly proved . The reason of your assumption is also before disproved , for the spirit as you vnderstand it , for our confession , is not correspondent to circumcision , seing infants are excluded .

Your third is this , If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants ( then by your proportion ) baptisme doth not seale up the everlasting covenant to the faithful & their carnal infants . But circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants . Ergo , &c.

The Assumption is false being rightly vnderstood , viz: in respect of their outward standing ; and the contrarie is proved before , to wit , that circumcision did seale up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed . Gen. 17. 7. &c.

Your fourth is this , If beleeving Parents do not stand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants , then though they be baptised themselves yet their children shall not . But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants , for no man is the father of the faithfull , as Abraham was , and he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnall infants ▪ Ergo , &c.

For conveighing of the everlasting covenant , this is that which we say , that it is conveighed to the children , by the free grace and disposing of the Lord , who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their seed ,

And although the beleeving parents stand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations ; yet stand they in Abrahams rowme in this , that as * God did conveigh his everlasting covenant by Abraham beleeving ● . 17. 7 ● . 2. 39 ● . 7. 14 ● . 11. 9. . to his seed : so dooth the Lord conveigh † his covenant , to the children of beleevers : for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull , To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their seed ; and thus entred Abrahams carnall seed , ( as you call them ) into the everlasting covenat , as before is proved . And be it that all their seed are not within Gods election , ( yet leaving secret things to the Lord ) we are to beleeve the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely , and not to put difference , before the time , that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham . Amongest them that confesse Iesus Christ , and “ are members ●oh . 2. of the visible Church many depart away , yet we account them children of the covenant vntill their hypocrisie be discovered : and so in like manner are we to esteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy , vntill the contrary ●or. 7. appeare .

Your fift argument is this : If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham : but onely occupy the place of carnal children , then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized , yet the infants shall not which cannot beleeve actually .

But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham : seing the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham , Joh. ● . 39. which infants cannot do . Ergo , &c.

First , it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onely occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderstand it ; for they are also the † children ●ct . 3. 32 ●at . ● . of the covenant , and of the “ kingdome . Secondly , the consequent of the major ( according to the true meaning of the termes therein used ) is also denyed , the contrary is proved before , viz: that infants are to be baptised though they have not the actuall use of fayth . To the minor I answer , that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the Act. 2. 29 ●t . 29. ● 15. true children of Abraham , for to * them is the promise , and in that respect children of Abraham , as hath been sayd .

Your reason drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children , is not truely gathered from that scripture , for Christ there proveth , that the Iewes living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be , seing they did not the deeds of Abraham : and he speaketh to men of yeares , of whom the practise of ●●ith is required . Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires ●o such works , is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes. 3. 6. that because children cannot work , therefore they must not eat . And such is ●our absurd reasoning from this place . Now when children of beleevers do come to yeares to manifest their infidelitie by their works , we are accordingly to iudge of them , after the example of Christ , and not before . Thus much to your five reasons , whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptised .

Argument III.

Marc. 10. 13. 14. & Mat. 19. 13. 14.

They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging , and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive .

But the infants of beleeving parents are of the kingdom of God . Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging , and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptisme , seing they are capable of it .

The major Proposition I think will not be denyed , it is written , 1 Cor. 3 , 21. 22. All things are yours , Rom. 9. 4.

The assumption is Mat. 19. 13. — 17. For of such is the kingdome of God , meaning that his kingdome stood not onely of such as being of yeares that beleeved , but also of their infants . And this he declareth not onely in this saying , but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their comming unto him : also by commaunding to suffer them to come , and by putting his hands vpon them , and blessing them . Mat. 19. 13. 14. 15. For would Christ have blessed them that were not of his kingdome ? or do not the blessings apperteyne onely to the children of the kingdom , even to the seed of Abraham , Gal. 3. 8. 18.

If it be objected that children are not capable of baptisme , I answer , they are as capable thereof , as the infants of Israel were of circumcision , being both partakers of the same promises with them , and in all respects as capable of the outward seales of the covenant as they were . And therefore the infants of beleevers are to be baptised .

M. Smyth .

To this Argument of yours I make answer diversly : First you have not proved that the visible Church and all the ordinances thereof perteyne to infants of the faithful : for the infants of the Iewes that were presented to Christ were not infants of beleevers &c.

Rich: Clifton .

You answer , ( you say ) diversly , but yet your answer would have been more direct and playne to my understanding if you had denyed eyther proposition or distinguished ; in stead whereof you demannd divers questions ; deny the sequele of the conclusion , and pretend absurdities to follow ; notwithstanding I will answer to your particulars .

And first , where you say , I have not proved that the visible Church , and all the ordinances thereof perteyned to infants , &c. I have proved that which I vndertook , viz: both the parts of my argument , and you deny neyther , but say I have not proved the conclusion , which if the Argument be in mood and figure must necessarily follow upon true premisses ,

Next you say , the infants that were presented to Christ , were not infants of beleevers for ought that I see , &c.

Neyther have you any likelihood to judge them to be infants of any others ●at . 10. ● . Mat. ● . 13. 14. that were not either of the Iewes or Proselytes : for would Christ receive the infants of the vnbeleeving Gentiles , and to say of them , of such is the kingdome of God ? therefore it cannot be that they were the children of unbeleevers , unlesse we shall imagine that Christ did practise contrary to the course ● hath set downe for the receiving of them , into his covenant that are without , also this was in * * Mar. ● 1. Iudah by the far syde of Iorden whether the people resorted unto him again † † Mar● 10. Mat ▪ 1. after he was come out of Gallily , And though the text mencion not who they were that brought the infants to Christ , nor ●hose they were ( as it was not needful for vs to know ) yet by the circumstance of the place and persons comming then vnto him , it cannot otherwise be thought , but that they were of the children of the Iewes or proselytes ; and as for your likelihood to the contrary , it is no likelihood at all , seing the Disciples fayled in many things : “ “ Luk. 9. 54. 55. they also besought him to send the Cananitish away , yet he received her . Now the cause why the Disciples would have had the Canaanite sent away , was for that she cried after * Mat. 1● 22. 23. 2● them , and it may be this was the reason why the disciples rebuked them that brought the infants , because they troubled them , or it may be they thought infants uncapable of knowledge and so could not profit by the word preached , but this matters not , for by Christs reproving of them , it is manifest that they erred in so doing : & that they ought not to have forbidden children to have bene brought vnto him .

You say , it may be they were the children of some of the Romane souldiers or some Ca●anish persons .

So it may be the parents of these infants were proselytes and most likely they were Iewes : but what is this to the purpose ; answer to the argugument , for this is but to seek shifts when you cannot find a sufficient answer . But suppose ( say you ) they were children of the Jewes how is it prooved that their parents were beleevers , seing the Iewes for the most part were stiffenecked and uncircumcised in hart .

Although some of the Iewes wer stiffenecked , yet how is it proved that these were the infants of such ? seing many of the “ “ Ioh. 7. ● people beleeved in him : nay rather the contrary appeares by * * Mar● 10. 1. 13. their comming to heare Christ and the bringing of their infants unto him , that they were not of those that were stiffenecked , for would they have sought to Christ to blesse their children if they had dispised him ? And although the parents of these infants might be such as yet were not fully instructed that the Messiah was come whom they looked for , ( the contrarie is more probable ) yet did they professe the Lord to be their God whom they ought to worship , & therefore were in externall account , beleevers and members of the Church .

If they had been the children of beleeving Iewes that were baptised by John ●● Christs disciples ▪ &c

Whether these Infants or their Parents were baptised by Iohn or Chr. disciples the scripture mentioneth not , neither is it greatly material for us to know , els the spirit had reveyled it : that they were blessed of Christ ther is no question . But say you , if they were baptised what need was there to bring them to Christ , except i● were for popish confirmation . The Scripture sets down the end why , viz. that † Christ should lay his hands on them , and pray for ●uk . 18. ● . Mat. ● , 13. Gen. 48. ● — 20. Mar. 7. ● . Luk. 4. ● . Act. 9. 17. Act. 8. ● — 19. Act. 19. ●6 . them , or blesse them . The laying hands on the partie blessed , was practised by the * fathers , when they would pray for , or blesse their children . Christ used it in “ working of miracles , for they that brought the deaf man prayed him to put his hands upon him : all they that had sick of diverse diseases brought them unto him , and he layed his hands on every of them and healed them . Also Christs disciples practised this laying on of hands & praying , not onely in † curing the diseased , but also * upon them that were baptised . And Paul “ layed his hands upon those twelve at Ephesus who wer baptised with Iohns Baptisme .

If the Apostles might lay their hands upon them that were already baptised and pray for them , ( and this I hope was no popish confirmation ) might not our Saviour do this to these Infants if they were baptised , but it must be a needlesse thing to bring them unto him thus to be blessed ? And though you say , I cannot from hence conclude Baptisme , yet from hence I do conclude that Christ performed that action to Infants , that his disciples did afterward unto such as were baptised , viz. laying on of hands and prayer : & likewise I can conclude that Christ admitted of Infants to come to him , and that he prayed for them , And “ he prayes not for the world . ●oh. 17. 9. M●r. 10. And that also he pronounceth , that † of such is the kingdome of God . And therfore whether Baptisme can be denyed to such let the godly reader judge .

I avouch constantly against you that eyther they were not the children of the Iewes , or they were not the Infants of beleeving Iewes , or if their parents beleeved , yet it followeth not tha● those Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised : for Christ doth not say of these , but of such is the kingdome of God .

Although you do so constantly avouch against me , yet it is but your stout denyal , without any reason or probabilitie to the contrary . That these Infants which were brought to Christ were of the Iewes , I have shewed my reasons before .

But not beleeving ( say you ) I answer , how dare you deny them to be professors ? ( of the hart we are no judge ) stood they not members of the visible church ? and are they not so long to be accounted for beleevers ? nay , they came to hear Christ , and by presenting their children unto him , and desiring him to pray , testifyed their fayth in him , and † † 1 Cor. 1● 7. charitie binds us to esteem of such in the better part .

If their parents beleeved , yet it followeth not that therefore these Infants were of the kingdome of God , or to be baptised &c.

It doth follow that these infants were of the kingdome of God , in that Christ prayed for them Mar. 10. 16. conferred with Mar. 19. 13. but he * * Joh. 17 , ● prayed not for them that are not of his kingdome .

Yea , Christ sayth not of these , ( say you ) but of such .

And do you not think in your conscience that Christ in these words ( of such ) included those infants ? would he include others like to them & exdude them ? As concerning that place of Mat. 18. 3. 6. which you alledge to crosse my interpretation of these words , it gaynes you nothing : for the disciples coming to Christ and asking who is the greatest in the kingdome of heaven , he teaching them humblenes , called a little child ( not a man of years ) and set him in the midest of them saying , except ye be converted & become as little children , ye shal not enter into the kingdome of heaven , using the same word in this place for little children , Mat. 18. 3. that is in Mark . 10. 15. In Mat. 18. 6. for ( little ones ) is used another word , that wil as wel agree to men of yeares , so they be humble , as to children . And in verse the third Christ doth not deny children to be of the kingdome of God , but teacheth his disciples by a simile to be humble mynded as little children , or els they could not enter into the kingdome of God , † † Esa , 66. 3● Jam. 4. 6. 10. 1 Pet. ● . 5. 6. who regards the lowly , and giveth grace to such . And this doth rather confirm my exposition , in teaching none can enter into the kingdome , but such as shal be like to infants .

Besides , how can you prove that by the kingdome of God Christ understandeth the visible Church of the new Testament ?

First for answer to this question , I wil send you to Mr. Smyth in his * * printed A. 1609. Paralels , Censures and Observations , pag. 22. who sayth , That the true visible Church is CHRISTS sheepfold , his kingdome , &c. Also pag. 15. of the same book , The true Church in the scripture is called the howse of God , the Temple of God the howsehould of faith and the kingdome of heaven , of Christ and of God . And in 17. pag. of the same book these are your words they that are not of a constituted Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome , and pag. 16. you say , that the visible Church is the onely kingdome of Christ , & that therefore they who are not members of Christs true visible Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome , the like is affirmed in pag. 18. 19. considering therefore what you have written , I marvel you demaund this question , for by your owne words you insinuate that the kingdome of Christ or of God , is the onely visible Church , in that you say , they are not of Christs kingdome that are not members of a true constituted Church , and then must it needs follow that by kingdome of God in this place , is understood the visible Church Rev. 18. 4 Luk. 19. ● . 12. Act. 3. Mat. 5. ● . Gen. 17. ● . Psal. 73. ● . Psal. 147 ● . Rom. 9. Esa. 28. ●6 . & 51. 3 ● . chap. 54 ●s . 132. 13 ● — 17. Ps. 128. 1 - ● . Ps. 1-3 ● 112. 1. 2 & 119. 1 ● . 92. 13 & 4. 4. 5. ●at. 5. 1 — ● . Eph. 5. 25 of the new Testament , seing you say , it is the onely kingdome of Christ . but I do not consent unto you herein , for there be many of the kingdome of God , that are no members of a true constituted visible Church , as * Gods people in Babylon , and those seven thousand in Israel that never bowed their knee to Baall . The kingdome of God extends more largely , ( though invisibly ) then to the visible Church .

2. To your question , I answer , that the visible † Church of the new Testament is the kingdome of God : and so to understand it in this place of Ma●k 10. 14. 15. is nothing repugnant to the circumstance and scope thereof , although the kingdome of glorie is also intended , both which are but one , yet diversly considered . And he that hath right to the one part hath right also to the other : and therefore Christ saying , of such is the kindome of God he meaneth his whol kingdome of grace and glorie .

Or how can you prove that Christ blessed none but members of the visible Church ?

First , I never did affirme that Christ blesseth none but the members of the visible Church , and therefore you have no reason to require the proof thereof at my hands . 2. If your question be of Gods general blessings , then I answer , that the Lord causeth “ the sunne to shine upon the iust and uniust , and the rayne to fall vpon the good and evil ; all nations and people are partakers of many temporall blessings . But if you speak of spirituall blessings and of those that are purchased by Christs death then I say , * such blessings apperteyne to the Church , and to the † true members thereof whether visible or invisible , because “ Christ is given onely to his Church , 〈◊〉 * * 1 Cor. ● 2 Cor. 1. ● 21. 22. whom all the promises of God are yea and in him , Amen .

Or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham , apperteyneth onely to the members of the visible Church , &c.

And I ask you , why you put me to the proof of it , seing I never held any such thing . Nay , I deny that the blessing of God reacheth no further then to the members of the visible Church , for the Churches † † King . 18. Rev. 4. members are many invisible , but that the blessing of Abraham perteyneth to the visible Church , I hope you wil not deny , see Ephe. 2. 11-22 . & 3. 6 - 19. & 4. 8 . -14 . 2 Cor. 4. 9. Col. 1. 3-6 . 1 Thes. 1. 2. - 10. in all which places & in divers others , it doth appeare that these visible Churches had received the blessing of Abraham .

Or that from this particular of Christs praying for infants , Mar. 10. 13. baptising of infants to follow .

My argument from this place of Mat. 10. 13. 14. to prove that baptisme belongs to the infants of beleevers , you have already , and have not answered it , why require you it againe . I have proved that infants are of the Kingdome of God , as also that the holy things of God , as baptisme , &c. belong to all the members of this kingdome : But further to satisfie your desire , thus I prove baptisme to belong to infants , from this particular of Christs praying for them :

For whom Christ prayed , they were of his everlasting covenant , for he prayed for them Ioh. 17. 10. 20. which were given him , and not for the world .

But Christ prayed for these infants , Mat. 19. 13.

Therefore these infants were of his everlasting covenant , and so consequently baptisme the signe thereof belonged vnto them , seing God both in making “‘ “‘ Gen. 17 7 . -10 . this covenant with Abraham , gave to him and to his seed together with it circumcision the seale thereof . And also in commanding the † † Mat. 2● 19. publishing of the same covenant to all nations did withall command baptisme to be administred .

Againe , those whom Christ blesseth , he blesseth with the blessing of Abraham , Gal. 3. 14. conferd with vers. 8. 16. 9.

But Christ blesseth these infants : Mar. 10. 16.

Therefore Christ blesseth them with the blessing of Abraham , and so consequently these infants were capable of baptisme , because the Lord hath ioyned together the blessing or covenant , and the signe or seale thereof , as before hath bene shewed .

Or how can you prove that Christ obtayned for them , & prayed for remission of sinnes , the holy Ghost , fayth , everlasting life , for many were brought to Christ for releife of bodily infirmities .

And I demande of you againe , for what other things should Christ pray for these Infants , but for spirituall graces ; there is no mention that they were brought for the curing of any bodily infirmitie in them , and if they had been diseased it is like the Apostles would not have hindered their Mat : 19. ● . comming to Christ , & the end of their † bringing of their infants to him was to put his hands vpon them and to pray . The reason that Christ yeeldeth why they should suffer little children to come to him , ( because of such is the kingdome of God ) doth argue of what nature the things were he prayed for . Againe , where Christ prayed for the curing of any corporall disease , Mat : 8. 4. 15. & ● . 28. 29. ● . Mat : 8. ●6 . it is recorded with what * infirmitie they that he prayed for , were troubled ; that so the miracle might be knowen , which was the end of his doing of great works . The “ Centurion requiring Christ for his servant , shewed his disease : but those that brought the infants , mention no corporall infirmity , for which they should desire him to pray for them .

Thus you having made all these questions , you proceed to a second answer saying ,

I deny that it followeth because Christ blessed some of the infants of the Iewes or Gentiles vpon speciall intreatie , therefore that it may hence be concluded , that generally the covenant and the seal of the covenant ( as you call baptisme ) doth apperteyne to them , for there is not the same reason of all infants as of some specially blessed , as Iohn Baptist , Ieremy , Sampson .

I marvel greatly , that you will thus shift off : doth not my reason prove , that the covenant and seal therof apperteyneth to the infants of the faithfull , seing of such is the kingdome of God ? Doth Christ say these infants are blessed onely , because they alone are of the kingdom of God ? Nay , sayth he not of such ( including other infants also ) is the kingdome of God ? And dooth not the reason which our Saviour useth here , why these infants should come to him inferre so much ? for they that brought them , being stayed , he reasons thus against his disciples why they ought not to hinder them , because of such ( as these are , ) is the Kingdome of God , meaning , not all infants , but the infants of beleevers as these were .

But in that you say , there is not the same reason of all infants , as of some spe●●lly blessed , &c.

Neyther doo we reason for such speciall blessings or callings , as were ●iven to John Baptist , Jeremy or Sampson , but for the right of the covenant ●o appertayne to all the seed of the faithfull : for although God do out of ●he seede of beleevers chose some whome he wil imploy to speciall service a●ove others , and therefore doth bestowe on them more then ordinary ●iftes , yet this hinders not the rest of the infants of the faythfull from ●heir right to Gods covenant or common salvation .

Neyther indeed can you prove , that these infants which were blessed of Christ , were blessed with any extraordinary blessings or callings , for no ●●ch things is recorded of them , therefore to compare them & their bles●nge with these three extraordinarie servants of God , John Baptist Ieremy ●d Sampson , is not to make an equall comparison .

Thirdly , If Baptisme doth appertaine to infants because Christ blesseth some parti●ular infants , and because Christ saith the Kingdome of God appertaines to such , then the lords supper also .

I answer , that doth not follow ; the ordinances of Christ belong to the members of the Church and they are to partake of them as they are capable .

The infantes of the Iewes could receive circumcision at eight dayes of age , but could not eat the passeover : so likewise the children of Christians are capable of Baptisme the first day of their birth , but not of the Lords ●pper because the Lord Iesus , of such as participates therof , requires † † 1. Cor. 11 26-31 . to examine themselves , to shew forth the Lords death &c. which children cannot performe in regard of their yeares . And therefore it wil not follow that if infants are to be baptised , therefore to receive the Lords supper . And though you would prevent this answer , by saying . They must have it ( meaning the Lords supper ) as sone as they can eat it ; I grant as much , as sone as they can eate it , as the Lord hath * * 1. Cor. 11 27. commanded ,

They cannot confesse their sinnes and faith , and so cannot be baptised .

To this objection sufficient answer is given already , and further occasion of answer wil follow .

4. I would know , why the Apostles put infants back , and why Christ did not command them to be baptised , &c.

Why would you know that which is not written ? that the Apostles did not well in putting them back , Christ his rebuking of them , doth manifest : What may be coniectured hath bene noted before . And as fo● Christ his not commanding them to be baptised , I answer , Christ performed that which they required of him , the text doth not mention that they came to desire baptisme , and therefore there was no cause that he should command them to be baptised .

Next you labour to weaken such proves as I brought from the scriptures to confirme my Argument withall , saying .

You see by that which hath bene answered , that both your maior and minor ar weak , and the scriptures alledged by you do not confirme them , for the place , 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours , that is theirs that actually beleeve and are baptized , &c.

My major and minor are so weak , that you can disprove neyther of them . As touching your answer to this scripture , 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply it Cor. 3. 21 ●2 . onely to them that actually beleeve , which the text sayth not , the Apostles meaning in this place is , that all such helpes as the Lord Iesus hath appointed for the benefit of his people are theirs , whether they be men of yeares , or infants for he speakes to the whol Church inclusively whereof the children are members , † as hath bene proved . But you say , I must prove Mat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 ● that infants have the use of all . I have answered that they are to have the use of so many of Gods ordinances , as they in regard of their yeares and knowledge are able to partake of . But not satisfyed herewith , you demand further saying ,

Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of salvation , &c.

I answer , that all the members of the Church are capable and partakers Eph. 5. 25 ●6 . 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12. of all the meanes of their * salvation , which is Iesus Christ , yea children , † els can they not be saved . But as concerning the outward ordinances of the Church , as the ministerie of the word , Sacraments and such like , though they be necessarie in their due place , yet the use of them is not at all tymes and of all persons required ; the Israelites borne in the wildernes were not circumcised by the space of fortye yeares , neyther was the Passeover commanded to infantes , to offer sacrifice or the like , ( though † † D●● . 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. ● . Mar. 10. these were necessarily required of them that were growne to yeares ; ) so that tyme and age doth priveledge some from the practise of those things which otherwise they are bound to observe ;

The next Scripture is , Rom. 9. 4. wherein you except against the Kom. 9. word ( appertayneth ) and say . It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning ●f the Apostle . For your excepting against the word , ( appertayneth ) saying , it is ● into the text , you seeme to contend , before you be provoked , I onely quo●ed that place of Rom. 9. 4. and did not set downe the wordes . And therefore to strive about a word added in the translation , is to strive against your owne shadow , I defend no words added , whereby the text is misconstrued . But although no verbe be expressed in the original , yet gramatical construction requires some verbe to be vnderstood ▪ as this verbe ( is , ) or appertain●th , or some such like , and if ( is ) be vnderstood , it is the same , in sense with ( appertayneth ) .

But you say , Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnall Israelites were actually within the covenent of grace &c.

Paul intends to set downe the dignitie and prerogative of the people which he had chosen to him selfe to be his inheritance , and to shew that Gods word is true , although Israel be cast of , he performeth his promise to so many of them as he had chosen in his secrete counsel . And this is all that the Apostle intendeth . To your carnal covenant , and to the offer of the spiritual , I have answered before .

Lastly , whereas I did affirme that infants vnder the Gospel were as capable of baptisme , as children vnder the lawe , you answer . That baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Testament , as Circumcision was the seale of the old Testament , and that infantes of the old Testament were capable absolutely , seing that to be circumcised , there was nothing requyred , but a foreskin apt to be cut of : but to baptisme in the new Testament , there is required actual fayth , repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47.

That † † pag. 37. Baptisme is the seale of the new Testament is proved before , & also that circumcision was * * pag. 12. a seale of the same spiritual covenant to the Israelites , and that our infants are as capable of baptisme , as the Iewes were of circumcision , your reasons alledged to the contrary are of no force for the difference you put between the two sacraments of circumcision and baptisme , is but a florish , for as the profession of actual fayth , and repentance is ●zra . 6. 21. ●ter 8. 17. required of all them that are of yeares to baptisme , so † was it of the proselytes , to circumcision . And if you would compare Infants with Infants , and men of yeares with such like , then shall you see , that there is no more required of our infantes that are to be baptised , then of the children of the Iewes and proselites ; nor lesse looked for of men of yeares vnder the old Testament , then now vnder the new . As for the scriptures that you alledg , they witnes what is required of the elder sort to be received into the visible Church , and not of infants . Out of this your answer you collect 5 arguments against Paedobaptistry , the first is this .

They that are not members of the visible Church , have no title to the holy things of God , and therefore are vncapable of them : and so of baptisme .

Infantes of the faythful are not actually members of the visible Church : for these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of these infantes were beleeving Iewes , or if they were beleevers their infantes were already baptized with their parents according to your doctrine , and so Christ cannot intend baptisme to appertayne to them , but the rest of the ordinances . Ergo &c.

I deny the minor , the reason proves it not , & do affirm , that the infants of the faythful are members of the same Church with their parents , & have right to the holy things therof ; as may thus be shewed : first Abrahams house was a visible Church of God , the infantes of Abraham and of his servantes are Gen. 17. ●2 . sayd to “ be born in his house : wherevpon I conclude that they were part of Abrahams family : for in that very place the holy Ghost distinguisheth between such as were borne in the house and bought with mony , as between them that were by their birth of the family ; & of those that being bought , were received into his house .

Secondly ; the children of belevers be eyther members of the Church Ephe. 2. 12. and within the covenant , or els without , if without , then are † they aliants from the comon welth of Israel , strangers from the covenants of promise , without Christ , without hope , and without God in this world : for this the Apostle sets downe to be the state of them that are without : but thus Christ did not esteme of infantes , ( who sayd “ suffer litle children to come to me , for of such is the kingdome “ “ Marc. 10 13. 14. of God , nor Pau , † † 1 Cor. 7. ●4 . that sayd , but now are they holy , speaking of the children of belevers . Concerning the parents of these children that were brought to Christ , which you say , cannot be proved belevers by these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. I have shewed before what I thought of them . But if they ●re baptised , say you , Christ cannot intend baptisme vnto them .

Who labours to prove that Christ in blessing them did intend Baptisme vnto them . This I sayd that such as are of the Kingdome of God , and capable of the blessing of Christ are not to be denyed baptisme . And that infantes are such , I have proved from these scriptures . Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. And therefore baptisme not to be denyed them .

2. If the Apostles by putting back infantes presented to Christ declare playnely that infants were not to be brought to be baptised by Christ the infantes were not to be baptised by Christ nor commanded to be baptised by him . But the first is true , Ergo &c.

The assumption is denyed , for if the children were not brought to be baptised , how can the Apostles putting them back signifie that infants are not to be baptized ? the bringers of them did expresse their mind wherefore they brought them . Agayne if the Apostles by putting the infants back did erre , and by Christ are thereof rebuked , what can you conclude from their example , but this , not to judge them vnworthy of Christ and of his ordinances , whome he approveth & receiveth . The Scripture speakes not one word , that they did put them back , as judging them vnfit for baptisme .

3. If the persons presenting Infants to be blessed and prayed for , do not desire baptisme for them , then they knew no such custome used by Christ to baptise them . But the first is true , Ergo &c.

Whether they knew any such custome or not , it is not to the purpose , Christ did as occasion was offerred , he satisfyed them according to their desire .

4. If Christ receiving infants , praying for them , bl●ssing them , doth neyther baptise them , nor commaund his disciples to baptise them , then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptised , or els he forgat his duetie , in not teaching baptisme of Infants upon so iust an occasion . But Christ did neyther baptise them , nor command his disciples to baptise them , neyther did he forget his dutie , &c. Ergo.

I answer , the consequent followes not . Christ his pleasure was not against that † † Gen. 17. 1● general commandement given first to Abraham for the setting of the seale unto his covenant , to all the faithful and their seed . Also , Christ performed as much as they intreated for at his hands , and though he taught not all things at one time , yet was it no forgetting of his dutie , ●eing in due time he taught all things .

5. They that are not actually possessed of the promises or covenant , are not actually to be invested with baptisme . Infants are not actually possessed in the co●●nant seing they performe not the condition , viz. confession of their sinnes and their faith actually , Ergo , &c.

If you mean ( by actually possessed ) such a state , right or possession , as the Lord of his free grace hath infeoffed his people withall , by vertue of the ●en. 17. 9. ●1. Act. 39. 1 Cor. 14. graunt of his covenant to Abraham , I deny the minor , and say , that infants of beleevers are † children of the covenant and of the kingdome , and actually possessed thereof . As concerning the reason annexed to the minor it is answered before , that the Lord requires the actuall vse of faith and repentance of them that are of yeares , and not of infants . And thus much for confirmation of my third reason .

Argument IIII.

1 Cor. 7. 14. If the children of beleeving parents be holy , then are they within the covenant of Abraham , and so consequently have right to the seale thereof .

But the first is true , 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo , the second .

Touching the former proposition . I take it , that none will affirme holynes in any that are not of the covenant , for in that respect Israel was called an holy nation . Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. and all others vncleane , Act. 11. 3. and 10. 15. that were without . If infants be within the covenant , then cannot the seale be denyed to such , seing the Lord hath joyned the promise and seale together , Gen. 17. 10. which no man may or ought to separate , Mat. 19. 6.

What can be objected against the assumption , I see not , seing the Apostle playnly affirmes ; but now are your children holy . Vnlesse it may be sayd , as of some I have heard , that as the vnbeleeving wife is sanctified to the husband , so are the children viz: to the use of their Father : but this to affirme is a great abusing of the scripture . For the Apostle in that place answering an obiection that the faithfull is defiled by the societie of the unfaithful : proveth that the faithful husband may with good conscience use the vessel of his unfaithful wife , by an Argument from the effects , namely , because their children , which are borne of them , are accounted holy , or within the promise , God having sayd to all the faithful , I will be thy God , and the God of thy seed . As for that other strange exposition , that the Children of a beleeving father are no otherwise sanctified them the unbeleeving wife is unto her husband , viz: to their fathers use onely , that can not stand with the meaning & purpose of the Apostle . For so much may be sayd of an unbeleeving servant , that he is for the vse of his master to do him service : if children be no more holy then so , then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father , neither is the objection removed by this answer .

If it be further pressed that the unbeleeving wife is sayd to be holy , as well as the children , yet is she not within the covenant . I answer that she indeed is not holy , as be her children , for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant , and therefore she is sayd to be sanctified to her husband , the Apostle respecting their mariage , which though it was contracted before eyther party beleeved , yet stands firme and not desolved when eyther of them is called to the faith , so that the beleeving husband may lawfully use her as his wife , if she be content to dwel with him , 1 Cor. 7. 12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or separated to such use to their father , as the wife is to her husband . And therefore are the children called holy , because they are the seed of a beleeving father .

Mr. Smyth .

I answer , first denying your maiors consequent : Seing that all the nation of the Jewes were holy , and yet not within the covenant of Abraham . I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ : that they were not all within that covenant is playne , Rom. 9. 6. all they are not Israel which are of Israel : verse , 7. neyther are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham , ver. 12. God revealed , that the elder should serve the younger , Act. 7. 51. yee have alwayes resisted the holy Ghost , as your forefathers haue done so do you : &c.

Rich: Clifton .

This is a strange opinion of yours , that a people of God can be holy , & be without the covenant in Christ . Is there a people called out and separated from the world to offer sacrifices and to worship God , which may be called and are a holy people considered out of Christ ? The covenant made with Abraham , and his seed in Christ to come ( which Abraham received ) caused that the Israelites were called * a holy nation or a holy people , Exod. 19. Rom. 11. ● . H●b. 4. 2. Rom. 11. ●6 . collectiuely , being separate from the nations to be the house & kingdome of God . And although † many of the Iewes by vnbeleefe cut of themselves from the priveledges of Abraham : yet considering the rest of that people as his seed , and the generall face of that Church in the true constitution therof , they were holy as the Apostle sayth , “ if the root be holy so ar the branches , and if the first frutes be holy , so is the whole lumpe . As it is one thing to consider of a Church in respect of the whole , as it is one body of Christ ; and another thing , to consider thereof , according to every particular member : so is it one thing to call a people , holy , respecting theire covenant in Christ into which they have solemnely entred . Deu. 29. 10. - 15. and promised to be Gods people : and another , to consider thereof according to the personal holynes of every particuler member : the Church hath the denomination of holines , of the former , & not of the latter , ( though this also be required ) for the personall holines of any particular members , causeth not the whol multitude to be called a holy people , ( els might many assemblies be called holy , for that there may be and are some particular persons in the same indued with personall holynes ) but their joynt entering into Gods covenant and felowship in the same : & therefore let divers holy persons come together to serve the Lord entermingled with an Antichristian assembly , that congregation , shall not be called holy , because there Philip. 1. 2 Cor. 6. ●6 . 17. is not a separation of the cleane from the vncleane , and a joyning together of the godly in one body or “ felowship of the Gospel , neyther can you ever prove that any people or congregation is called holy , with whom the Lord hath not made his covenant of salvation . But let vs see how you reason .

All the nation of the Iewes ( say you ) were holy , yet not within the covenant of Abraham &c.

You reason not ad idem , for in saying that all the nation of the Iewes were called holy , here you speak of them , as they were a people separated from other nations , and had * * Deut. 10 , -15. entred covenant with God to be his people , as he with them to be their God , in which respect they were called , holy , but in saying , that all were not with in the covenant , you intend it of some particular members of the body of that people , being considered a part from the whole , and so the Scriptures by you alledged do import .

For neyther Paul to the Romanes . cha. 9. 6. nor Steven in the Act. cha. 7. 51. do speake of the whole nation , but of particular persons who by their vnbeleiffe and evil workes , did manyfest themselves to be no true Israelites .

Concerning that place of rom. 9. 6. the Apostle speaking of the rejection Rom. 9. ● of the Iewes ( which might there vpon charge God that if he did reject them he kept not promise with their fathers , ) labours to remove all such Calumnies , saying , it cannot be that the word of God should take none effect & proveth withal , that the promise is not cut of , though the Iewes for their vnbeleife be rejected , seing the promise is sure to the elect . The Apostle thus speaking , not of the body of the people , but of some particulars that sel away , is falsly alledged , to prove , that all the nation of the Iewes were not within the covenant of salvation . And that some of them that were of Israel , were not true Israelites , who wil deny , but that many of them discovered themselves to be no true sonnes of Abraham ? yet this proves not that the whol Church in respect of the visible face of it , was not within the covenant .

But you will reply , that you sayd , that they were not all within the covenant , and I answer agayn , if you reason not concerning the face of that people of Israel , but of Gods secret election , and reprobation , it is not to the purpose , for so disputing , you answer not the Argument . And so may you reason against the visible Church under the Gospel , that not all therein , are within the covenant , because * * Luk. 1● 25. 26. 27 1. Ioh. 2. 19 many prove hypocrites . And so by your reasoning neither the Church of the new Testament nor of the old , in respect of the generall face thereof , are under the covenant of grace which is the thing controverted , and not the state of particular persons . As towchting that place of Act. 7. 51. Steven spake to the Ie●es there present to accuse him , but in so speaking did not accuse the whole body of the church vnder the old Testament , but those his persecuters , and there forefathers who also persecuted the Prophets before them , brake Gods covenant and * so manifested themselves to be of their father the Divil . ●oh. 8. 44.

Now to reason thus , from the example of those wicked Iewes , and to say , many of the Iewes brake the covenant and became rebellious ( for al did not ) therefore the body of the people was never within the covenant , is to conclude upon a false ground .

If it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secret election and not of mans knowledg , I answer the twelft verse is pl●yne of that which was reveled vnto the church , and yet Esau was holy and circumcised , being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ .

The place I have expounded before , and have shewed that the Apostle handles there no such thing as you do gather .

As for the reveyling of this division of the son●s of Isaac which you say was to the church ; indeed thus much was reveiled to Rebecca , Gen. 25. 23. it was told her that two nations are in thy wombe and two maner of people sho●ld be devided out of thy bowels , and the one people should be mightier then the other , & the Elder shall serve the yonger , meaning that they that should descend of the Elder brother , should serve them that came of the yonger ▪ see the blessing of Isaac to his two sonns . Gen. 27. 27. 28. 29 , 39. 40 : Abdi . 10. but that the personal reprobation of Esau was revealed then to Rebecca or to the church , doth not appear in these words before rehersed : can any say that none of Esau his posterty was in Gods secret election ? & if this scripture wil not warrant any so to judg , then neyther would it warrant Rebecca so to apply it to her sonne being so generally spoken .

The personal rejection eyther of Ismael or Esau was not reveled , vntil by their evil workes they manyfested themselues , and therefore these children being borne in the church , as Esau was in Iacobs house , were to be reputed holy , to be circumcised and held of the covenant , vntil there wickednes threw them out .

That the whole church of the Jewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ , but onely vnder the offer of it , I use these reasons , first , the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament . Fayth and 〈…〉 tance is the condition and obedience of the matter and members of the new Testa 〈…〉 : Mar. 1. 15. Ergo , fayth and repentance is not the condition or obedience of 〈◊〉 matter or members of the old Testament .

Your proposition is not true , you exclude fayth and repentance from ●he members of the old Testament , as if by their covenant they were not ●ound to beleev and obey his commandements , which is contrary to these ●criptures . Gen. 17 , 1. 6. Rom. 4. 3. 13. Heb. 11. 17. Iam. 2. 21. - 23. Deu. 19. 9-20 . & 10. 12. 13. 20. That repentance was required of the Iewes , not onely the prophets often exhorting of them to repentance , do witnes , as before is observed : but also in that their repètance † † Iud. 2. ● 1 Sam. 7. 3● Ezr. ca. 1● Neh. cap. ● Deut. 9. 10. Esa. 1● 16. 17. turned away Gods anger from them : and the conditional * * Esa. 1. 1● Jer. 3. 22. Hos. 6. 1. ● 3. & 14 ● Ioel. 2. 13 promises of pardon if they did repent : Also Gods threatning of judgments against them if they repented not .

And that fayth was also required of them , see al these scriptures . Psal. ●8 . 5. 6. 7. 22. 2 Chro. 20. 20. Esa. 53. 1. and 7. 9. Hab. 2. 4. Act. 26. 6. 7. Heb. 11. 13. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4.

And thus you see that that condition and obedience of the members of the new Testament , which you say , is fayth and repentance , was also the condition and obedience of the members of the old Test .

The reason of the maior is evident &c. seeing that as the ministerie , worship & goverment of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature , then the ministerie worship and goverment of the new Testament is : so the condition , viz. the matter and forme of the Church of the old Testament was of an other nature , then the constitution , that is , the matter and forme of the new Testament , &c. Heb. 7. 16. Gal , 5. 3.

I answer first , that it is not simply true , that the ministerie & worship of the church of the old Test . is of another nature from that of the Gospel . For although in their worship and ministerie were many things typical & ceremonial : yet withal God required of them spiritual worship & obedience , without which their “ “ Esa. 1. 12. - 15. G● 4. 5 ceremonial was abhominable . Also , if preaching of the word and prayer &c. be of a spiritual nature , then was their ministerie and worship more then carnal . The prophet † † Esa. 56. 1● complaynes of neglect of teaching in the Preists , which argueth that they were bound by their calling to instruct the people . Malachy sayth * * Mal. 2. ● 6. 7. The Priests lips shal preserve knowledge &c. they shall seek the law at his mouth , for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts : and this was by office , for the Lord sayth , My covenant was with Levi of life and peace , &c. the law of truth was in his mouth . And in Ieremy the Lord complaynes of the Preists , saying , they that should minister the law ●ow me not : promising unto the people if they repent : that he would give them “ Pastors according to his owne hart , which should feed them with ●●r. 3. 15. ●eh . 8. ● Act. 13. ●● Act. 15. ● knowledg and understanding . And in Nehemiah it is written , that the Priests and Levites † read in the book of the law and gave the sense , and caused the people to understand the reading , and this by their office . Lev. 10. 11. The Iewes had the * lectures of the law and Prophets in their Synagogues . And “ Moses had them of old tyme in every citie that did preach him .

Thus we see that the opening of the law and preaching of the scriptures Lev. 9. 22 ● . Num. ● 23. - 27. ● . 9. 4 13 ● & 10. 1. ●●h. 8. 6. ●l . 1. 14. ● 2. 16. 17. was a part of the ministerie of the Priests and Levites , and of their publick worship on the sabboth . Also the Priests † gave thanks unto God for the people , blessed them and prayed . The Temple was called the howse af prayer , Math. 21. 13. also they had certaine howres of meeting at the Temple , which were called howres of prayer . Act. 3. 1. And they were commanded spiritual sacrifices , as Ps. 4. 5. & . 50. 14. 15. 23. as formerly is observed .

Concerning the goverment of the Church of the old Testament : which was by the Priests and Levites , Elders , I know no great difference in nature of th●t church , and of this under the Gospel .

The former was governed ecclesiastically by the Priests & Elders : Mat. 26. 47. Luk. 22. 66 , Act. 23. 14. and 6. 12. and 13. 15. & 18. 8. 2 Chro. 19. 8. And so the churches of the New Testament are to be governed by the Mat. 18. ●5 . 16. 17. ● Cor. 5. 3. - 5 ● Exo. 19 , 6. ● Exod 22. ●1. Lev. 14 ● . & 11. 44 ●●d 20. 7. ● Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 11. 16 ● Deu. 4. 20 & 5. 2. Psa. ●0 . 3. 4. Deu. 14. 2. Rom. 11. ●-19 , 23. ● 27. ministers and Elders . Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thes. 5. 12. Hebr. 13 , 8. The censures ecclesiastical under the old Testament , were admonition & casting out of the Synagogue : Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. & 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel . Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5.

Secondly , for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament , which you say , was of another nature then that of the new .

I answer , that former church was of an heavenly constitution , a † kingdome of Preists and a “ holy nation , the people * saincts , as wel as the members of the church of the new Testament . And this people being separate from al other nations , & called out to be the Lords “ peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them : and so became the people , church and kingdome of God , as in renuing of their covenant is manifest . Deut. 29. 9-15 . Exod. 14. 8. They were † natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by fayth on Christ then to come , in whom they beleeved , 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation . Gal. 3. ●6 . Luk. 1 , 68-75 . This old church by their constitution admitted of no prophane person to be a member therof , but such as professed holynes . They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con 〈…〉 their syn , Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch. & 5. 5. Num. 14. 40. & to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged . Num. 5. 7.

Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be considered and compared in the matter and forme thereof , with that of the ●d , and there wil be no such difference in substance between them , as you pretend , the matter of them both being holy and living stones : and the forme , an holy uniting together in the covenant of God , to walk in al his commandements , els could not the Gentiles be made one body , and co●heriters with the Iewes , Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promises in Christ , if the constitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not spiritual .

Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament , 〈◊〉 onely a carnal holynes , viz. the circumcision of the foreskin . &c.

I have already proved , that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holynes , Lev. 11. 44. saying , I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and ●e holy , for I am holy . Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after Gods example , who neither is carnally holy , or yet delites in carnal holynes without the spiritual . Psal. 50. 7-23 . Esa , 1. 11-20 . & chap. 50.

And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not onely the truth , but your self : for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal , & holynes carnal : yet in your Differenc● pag. 10. book of Differences , you say , that the Septuagint Translation was agree 〈…〉 synn , for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles . So by your own confession , Israel had the covenant of grace , els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles , what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant ? can not your hearers mynd how unstable a leader they follow .

Wel , let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant , the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer , that the Apostle , by the law of carnal commandement , intendeth not thereby to teach that the constitution of the old church was carnal , but sheweth the diversitie of Christs priesthood from Aarons , understanding by carnal commandement , those frayl and transitorie things , which the † law commanded ●… . 24. 1. ●sa. 61. 1. ● . 45. 7. in the consecration of the Levitical Preists : so called in respect of Christ his anoynting , which was “ spiritual .

Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for justification , exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. &c. to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath mad● ●… . 5. 3. us free &c. testifying to every man , that if he be circumcised , he is bound to keep the whole law . Noting circumcision especially , because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification . And he reasoneth against it , not as it was in it self by the ordinance of God : but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it , which made circumcision a part of their salvation . And he that so esteemes of it as a work to justifie , must also ( sayth Paul ) keep al the rest of the commandements . For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances , the whole observation therof , Deut. 27. ●6 . Gal. 3. ●… . Rom. 3. 20. ●al. 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promise no * life . And because no man can be “ justifyed by the works of the law , therfore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end , And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them , and calleth them † beggerly rudiments . And now if a papist or any other should contend , that a man is justified by Baptisme , as by a work wrought , we might so speak to them , as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians , that if you receive baptisme to be made righteous thereby , ex opere operato , you are bound to keep the whole law : for baptisme being made a work to justifie , is perverted .

And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision , in this place as a work urged to justification , the very next verse , viz. ver , 4. sheweth , wherein he sayth , ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are iustified by the law .

And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth .

2. The type , shadow , figure , similitude of a thing , is not the truth , the substance the thing it self : true is nature and reason . The constitution , viz. the matter & forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type &c. the constitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Test . is the truth &c. Heb. 10. 1. & 9. 19. 23.

I answer , first , to your Major , that one and the same thing may both be the type and the truth ; for Isaac was a type of the faythful , as your self doth affirme ; yet was he also faythful , and so was both the type and the truth . Secondly to your Minor , the constitution , viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type &c. of the church of the new Testament , in that sense as you take matter and forme : for the matter of that former Ch. ●as not to be ceremonially , but truly holy , as before I have proved , and these † † Deu. 2● 9. & 14. ● Esa. 5. 4. ● 15. & 24. 3. 4. 5. Es● 58. 2 , - 7. ● 14. Deu. ● 12 , 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further confirme . Their * * Deu. 2● 10 , - 13. “ Gal. 3. ● co●enant was to be the Lords people , & is the same that we are entred into , els could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise through fayth , if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed . Also Peter affirmes it to be the same , Act. 2. 39.

If then the Lord required of Israel true holynes , and made no other co●enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people , but that everlasting covenant , and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Testament , ( true holynes of the members , and communion in the covenant and Gospel ) then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this , but even the same with the church under the new Test . I speak of the substance of this covenant , and not of the outward administration thereof , which was divers , & wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter .

Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption , Heb. 10 , ● In the former , Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle sheweth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect , because they were yearly renued ; & proveth also that Christs sacrifice is one and perpetual : & here it must be minded , that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new , & not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their constitution no spiritual promise , but onely carnal & typical things . Heb. 9 , ●● 23. In that other scripture , Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed , between the legal sacrifices and purifyings , & the purging of synne by the blood of Iesus Christ , between the old Testament and the new &c , and so shewing how the truth answereth unto the type , concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sinnes of many , by the sacrifice of himself . And this is that which the Apostle intendeth , and not to shew that the constitution of the old church was the tipe of the constitution of the new .

3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected ▪ ● produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament , was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Test●● . Iustification and fayth , and sanctification and repentance , were not effected , performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament . Heb , 9. 9. Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo &c. Deut. 29. ● . Ier. 13. ● . ● Luk. 1. ● 74. 1 pet ●● . 9. 10. ● . 2. 12. ● 22. Gen. 17. 7 ●om. 4. 11 ●a . 26. & ● . Heb. 4. 2 ● 11. 30. - ● . Cor. 10. 3 ● Ezech. 18 ● . 32. Ioel. ● 3. ●b . 9. 9. ●● . 2. 15

The assumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before : for the members of that church might have and had fayth , repentance , justification & sanctification , seeing the † Lord was their God in that standing , & he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ : & therfore it must follow , that they were partakers of fayth , justification , &c. in that their communion . Again , as the covenant was geven to Abraham , so was “ it to his seed : but to Abraham it was geven † for justification , therefore to his seed : I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test . Also , I have proved * before , that God required of the Israelites , “ fayth and repentance , and that they did repent & beleev , & so consequently justification & sanctification were effected & accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof , and required in the constitution : Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument , yet this I will further add , that the Apostle having described the partes of the Tabernacle &c. in ver. 9. sheweth the use of those things to be a figure for the present , preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ , in whom they beleeved the same to be fulfilled .

And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh , were such as by Moses were given to that church , long after the constitution thereof .

In that other scripture , Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reasons not about the constitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether justification was required therein , but having to deal against the false teachers that taught , the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law , affirmeth the contrary in these two verses , saying , we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law , but by the fayth of Jesus Ch. &c. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by fayth without works ; doth not deny the church before the comming of Christ to be justified by fayth : but teacheth that both that church , and this under the Gospel were saved not by works , but by the free promise of God in Christ received by fayth . And thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire .

4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members , presupposed not ●●th and repentance to the members , and so not real or true holynes : But the old Test . ●e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the ●hurch of the old Test . Heb , 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. &c.

First concerning the major , The old Testament though it brought not perfection , yet did it require fayth in Christ to come . 2. Touching your ●inor , first I require what you mean by the old Testament , whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator , if the former , then is your minor false , for those books conteyn as wel Gospel as law , the promise made unto the fathers in Christ , to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance , aswell before Christs incarnation as since . But i● you ●ind it † † Rom. ● Heb. 10. of the law onely & administration of Moses , it is true , that perfection and life came not by the law , nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law : but withal you must know that the Iewes were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ , as * * pa. 23. ● “ Gen. 3. ● & 12. 3. ● 17. 7. 21. Esa. 1. ● & 7. 14. ● 9. 6 Gen. ● 10. Num● 24. 17. G● 3. 8. 14 . before is proved .

3 For the church of the old Testament , it could bring or publish life to the members thereof , seing it had the promises “ of the Gospel , and so presupposed fayth , repentance & true holynes as you speak .

To the scriptures , first to Heb. 7. 19. I answer , that the law indeed , maketh nothing perfect , nor could give lyfe , but I have told you againe and againe , that the law was not that proper & onely form of the Iewish church , but the covenant in Christ received by Abraham .

Concerning Gal. 3. 21. The Apostle teacheth that if the law could have given life , righteousnes should have bene by the law , & this who denyeth : but with al you ought to observe that he sayth , the law is not against the promises : & these † † Luk. 1. 69. - 74. Rom. 9. Ephe. 2. ● & 3. 6. promises were geven to the old church : as wel as the law was given , & thereby they might have & had life under the old Testament .

5 That which was a schoolmaster onely to teach Christ did not presuppose that the schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ , which is onely done by fayth ●d repentance : The law or old testament was a schoolmaster onely to teach Christ Gal. 3. 24. Rom. 10. 3. 4. Ergo &c.

The major is not simply true , for a scholler may have learned somethings by his schoolmaster , and yet continue vnder him stil to be further instructed . And so the lawe might lead them to Christ ( lawe being taken in that Place for al the ordinances of Moses ) and they by fayth put on Christ to come .

But I answer to the minor , That the lawe was a schoolemaster to teach Christ , I say it was , that they might be made righteous by fayth : but can a schoolmaster teach Christ without teaching fayth in Christ ? & if they were taught fayth , did they not learne fayth ? The Apostle Gal. 3. 24 ▪ setts downe the use ●d . 3. 24. of the lawe or legal oeconomy , 1. That the Iewes thereby might be kept as it were by a garison , shut up unto the fayth which after should be revealed . verse . 23. Secondly , that they might be instructed of righteousnes and salvation by Christ , vers. 24. for during the legal oeconomy their hope was nourished by the Prophets , which prophesied of Christs comming .

Also by the ceremonies and sacrifices they were instructed ; by circumcision that Christ should be borne of the seed of Abraham , that by his death and spirit should † circumcise their harts : by the paschal lamb they were taught ● Col. 2. 11. ●2 . ● Ioh. 1. 29. that Christ as * an innocent lamb , should be slayne to take away their sins : and by the other sacrifices , and sprinkling of blood , and washings ; was signified the offering up of Christ to come , & the applycation of his death to the purging of them from al their syns , whereof they were partakers by fayth . Thirdly , this Argument may thus be returned upon you : That which was a schoolmaster to teach Christ doth presuppose that the schollers should learn Christ , and put him one by fayth and repentance : But the law or old Testament was a schoolmaster to teach Christ . Therefore the law or old Testament did presuppose that the schollers should learne Christ , and put him on by fayth &c.

Touching the other scripture Rom. 10. 3 : 4. The Apostle there layeth out Rom. 10. 3. 4. the blind zeale of the Iewes , that being ignorant of the righteousnes of God which is by fayth , sought to establish their owne righteousnes which is of works , and submitted not to the righteousnes of God , this he reproves in them : and then vers. 4. setts downe the reason of their ignorance of the righteousnes of fayth , because they did dispise the end of the law which is Christ , so called , because the * * Mat. 5. ●7 . Col 2. ●4 . Mat. 3 ●5 . 1 Pet. 2 ●2 . Heb. 7. 26. 27. Gal. ● . 13. 1 Pet. 1. 19 : 22. 23. T it 3. 5. Ioh. 3. 5. law is fulfilled onely in him .

Thus you may see the Apostle speaks not against the constitution of that former church , but against the corruption of some members of the same .

6. That which was hidden , & kept secret was a mysterie and not reveyled , the ●embers of the old testament in their constitution were not indued withal . Fayth or ●bedience to the Gospel was a mysterie and not reveyled , but kept secret from the begin 〈…〉 g. Gal. 3. 23. Rom. 16. 25. Ergo &c

There is a fallacy in your setting down of this word Fayth , you conclude Gal. 2. 23 . that which is not in the propositions , or els your Argument is not to the purpose . For Fayth , in the second proposition according to the meaning of the Apostle . Gal. 3. 23. which you cyte for proof thereof , is not put for the gift of fayth , which is given to al true beleevers whereby they are justified , as in Gal. 2. 16. 20. and 3 , 6. 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 14. but for the things beleeved , or fulfilling of the promises of God : for in the tyme of the law was sayth , els the former church could not have been saved , seeing the prophet sayth , † † Hab. 2. ● the iust shal live by fayth , & the Gospel was preached to them , ( without * * Rom. 10 ▪ 14-17 . which they could not beleev , ) yea to “ “ Gal. 3. 8. Abraham . And though the things promised were not fulfilled during the tyme of the old Testament : yet had had Iewes † † Heb. 11. 33. 1 Cor. 4. fayth in Christ promised , and thereby were saved .

If you reply , that the church of the old Testamant was not indued with fayth in her constitution . I answer , that there can be no church to God * * Ephes. 2. 20-22 . 12 ▪ 19. Lev. 2● 12. 2 Cor. 6● 16. founded without the everlasting covenant in Christ , by “ “ Gen. 1● . 7 . which Abraham & his seed became the people of God , and therefore indued with fayth in their constitution .

Concerning , Rom. 16. 25. By mysterie , the Apostle meaneth the calling Rom. 16. ●● of the Gentiles which now is opened and published among al nations . And if it be understood of the Gospel or preaching of Christ , as some doe , yet was it called a mysterie : partly in respect of the nations to whom it was not reveyled before the comming of Christ , as ver. 26. Also to the Iewes , in respect of † † 1 Pet 1. 10-12 . Luk. 10. 24. the things promised ; but the promise of salvation was preached to Adam , to Abraham , and to the whole church , and was no mystery kept secret from the beginning of the world , but in al tymes and ages revealed to the Lords people , and by them received

7. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ : There is condemnation to them that are under the law , for it is the ministerie of death or condemnation , 2 Cor. 3. 7. Ergo , the law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ , or they that are under the law are not in Christ , and so the members of the church of the old testament : are not truly holy .

Surely this reasoning of yours makes me doubt , that you reason against your own knowledge , for how can you be ignorant that the church of the Iewes was not under the law as it is the ministerie of death , I mean in respect of their constitution ? There is indeed condemnation to them that are under the law , that is , which by the works thereof † seek justification ; ●l. 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. ●or. 3. 7. and so were some members of the old church under the law , as the Pharisees that * sought to justifie themselves , as now they ar that do the like : but to hold , that the whole church was under condemnation , & without faith in Christ , is an error to be abhord .

That scripture , 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing : for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death , compareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law , shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that continued not in al things to fulfil it : then much more the ministration of righteousnes shal exceed in glorie , which bringeth salvation to them that beleev . This is the meaning of the Apost: and not to shew that Israel was under condemnation , seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ . And as they , so wee under the Gospel have the law to accuse & condemn us , if we transgresse it , but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Christ are freed from the curse of the law ; so were the Iewes also . Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur ▪ eyther before or since Christ , but to the “ faythlesse and disobedient both ●s 1 Tim. 1. ● . 10. under the old Testament and under the Gospel .

Finally ( you say ) the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iustification by fayth in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth , teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iustification . Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it .

That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the disputation of Paul concerning justification , is a notable error . For where Paul reasoneth against such as mainteyned justification by the works of the law , he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holynes , for albeit some of the Iewes fel into this error , to hold justification by works of the law , yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then , as wel as now . And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification , yet fayth in Christ could effect it , which I have proved that the old church had , in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ .

For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could ●ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution : wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament i● the matter or constitution of it , was not really holy , but onely typically &c.

I have shewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes , not to make them holy , and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given , and therefore your bould defence against al men , that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically ; hath in it more boldnes then truth : the contrary is proved † † pag. 23. &c. before . And therefore your inference is false , fiz . that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant . &c. but onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham , and afterward assumed written & ●mplified by Moses . Ioh. 7. 19-23 . with Heb. 8. 8. 9.

That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed , see pag. 20. &c. concerning these scriptures ; in the former , Christ charging Iohn . 7. 19-23 . the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabboth day , proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practise , reasoning thus , if you may circumcise on the Sabboth and not break the law , then why may not I as lawfully heal a man : this is that Ch. intendeth . now because it is sayd ver. 22. that Moses gave them circumcision , &c. it seemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test . were given , first to Abraham , and afterward assumed & written by Moses , but tha● cannot be proved by this place : For circumcision was a signe of the promise in Christ , not of the law , as before is proved .

In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apostle sheweth that Christ is the Heb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Priests , and ther fore his ministerie more excellent then theirs : this first hee proveth , because this covenant was established upon better promises , and then he sheweth the excellency of it compared with the former : And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of Ieremy . Now concerning the first Testam . it was made with the church , when the Lord gave his law in Sinai & the people did covenant with him , saying , Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do , of Abraham we do not finde that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse , as Israel did , Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law , the covenant of works or old Testament , was not first made with him , and after examplified by Moses , but ●xo . 19. 5 & 24. 3. Lev. 34. ● D●u . 5. ● . Heb. 9. ● . 23. it was † made with Israel : as further also may be shewed by the description thereof , in Heb. 9. 1-10 . which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme.

Agayn , the Apostle * sayth , when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law , he toke the blood of calves and of goates and sprinckled al the people , saying , this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you &c. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministerie of Moses . And Paul sayth , that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham , & his seed in respect of Christ : Now if the law had been geven to Abraham , the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of tyme had been of no force . And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs .

Next followes your answer to my objections , wherein stil you afferme , That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy , but tipically , & that their holynes was this , that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted , they were trained or schooled to Christ , &c.

What is here sayd , is answered elswhere , & here I deny that the Iewes holines was onely typical , though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Christ , whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace .

Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Israel was called a holy ●od , 19. 6 people , you answer thus : I say that eyther the meaning is , that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes , or that they by atteyning the end of the law should attayne true holynes in Christ : so that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holynes of the eternal covenant , which God made with Abraham .

It seems you are not fully resolved of the meaning of this scripture . Ex. 19. 6. ye shal be to me a kingdome of preists & a holy nation . This being minded Exo. 20. 1. &c. Deut. ●3 . 8. 1 Pet. 1. 5 of the people or nation they could not be called a kingdome of Preists in respect of a typical preisthood which was proper to † Aaron and his sonns , but in respect of their spiritual priesthood in Christ as the Apostle sayth , * ye are made a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices , which place doth wel expound this of Exodus 19. 6. that the Lord doth intend to cal them holy in regard that he had chosen them for himself , and had received them into his covenant to be his people . For to be preists to offer up spiritual sacrifices , must needs be in Christ . therfore truly holy .

Again you say , that they by attayning the end of the law should attain true holynes in Christ , which if you grant , then must this holynes be in respect of the eternal covenant , out of which neither Christ nor true holynes can be attayned unto .

Thirdly , ceremonial holines without true holynes the † † Esa. 1. 11-16 . Ps● 50. 16. 17. Lord regardes not : it were to approve of hipocrisy , which he hateth : & therefore in that they are called holy it must be understood of true holynes as also , Deut. 7. 6. & 14. 2. Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. & 19. 2. And thus you see this place is to my purpose , unlesse you can shew me that a people can attayne Christ and true holynes and be without the covenant of grace .

So that infants though they be under the offer of the covenant made with Abrah. i● respect of Christ , yet shal not baptisme be administred upon them , because that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually seased upon the external covenant : & therefore none in the new Testament shal be baptised but those that ●e actually possessed of the covenant of the new Testament .

First it is proved * * pa. 12. 13. before , that circumcision was a seal of the covenant of salvation . Secondly , you are to explayn what you mean , by actually seased upon the external covenant : for actual possession of Canaan , the Israelites had not of a long tyme after Abrahams death , otherwise then by fayth , whereof you say , Infants are not capable . If children were circumcised , & were ney ther seased upon Canaan by possessing it , nor by actual fayth , how were they seased upon the external covenant ? The law was not then given , what were they seased on , and how ?

Thirdly , the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel are “ “ Act. 2. 39. 1 Cor. 7. 14. possessed of the covenant of grace , by the vertue of the free giving thereof to the faythful and their seed , therefore to be baptised .

Fourthly , If Infants be but onely under the offer of the covenant , then they dying in their infancy are without the covenant of salvation , and so perish , so farr as we can judg : for to be under the offer onely , you wil not say that thereby they can be saved . Againe , if they be not in Christ and so within the covenant , they are under condemnation . Rom. 8. 1.

But actual possession ( you say ) is by obedience to the fayth . This is true beingrightly applyed : But you must know that there is a general giving and applying of the promise on Gods part to his people , and there is a more special and particuler applying of the same , by the ministerie of the word and spirit : The former was to Abraham when God made his † covenant with Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 Rom. 4. ● . 12. him and his seed : The other is to al that receive the word & keep it wherof Luk. 11. 28. Act. 2. 21. Iam. 1. 21. This actual poss●ssion ( to use your phrase ) belonges to such as by their yeares are capable to understand , and it is a continual applying of that which was given in general to the faythful and their seed . And of such are those places of Rom. 10. 17. Gal. 3. 2. 14. to be understood . And this the Lord requires according to the dispensation Mat. 13. ●4 . 11. Heb. 4. 2. Rev. 2. 7. ● Rom. 11. ●8 . ● Rom. 10. 14-17 . 21. of the covenant , both under the old and new Testament , that al they that are his people capable of understanding should † hear his word and yeeld obedience to the fayth . For although God love the children for the “ fathers sake ; & respect his promise , yet wil he have them as they come to yeares , to practise fayth and obedience , unto which end the † preaching of the word is given unto us .

Secondly , I answer concerning the consequent of your maiors consequent , that it shal not follow , that because children are under the covenant , that therefore they shal have the outward signe and seal thereof , for under the law the females were actually under the covenant of the old Testament , yet were not signed with the seal . And before the law was given , al that were actually under the covenant until the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seal thereof .

It must follow , that if children be under the covenant that they must hav● the outward signe or seale , because the † Lord hath so commanded , joyning Gen. 17. ●-11 . Mat. 28. 19. * Mat. 19. ●6 . “ Gen. 34. 24. the seal to his covenant which man may not * separate . For your reasons to the contrary , they are of no weight . First concerning the females under the law , though they were not circumcised , yet were “ they accounted of the circumcised . And for the ceremonie it self they were never capable of it yong nor old , the like you wil not say of children under the Gos . 2. For the fathers before the institution of circumcision , they might be under the covenant & without the seal , because the L. did so dispence with those times : but you must prove that the state of children under the new Test . is alike to the condition of those fathers before Abr. or of the women under the law , & then wil it follow that they shal not be sealed at al , for these that you instance were not . It is one thing when God hath commaunded the signe and adjoyned it to his covenant to be received : & another when he commanded no such thing . They are to receive the seal , to whom the covenant with the seal is given ; as it was to Abraham and now is unto us . And therefore the signe may not be denyed to whom the covenant belongs . But to infringe this truth you say , The Lord in chosing the male onely to be circumcised , thereby purposed to teach in a type , that onely the male , ( that is one that is in Christ ) should be sealed with the spirit of promise under the new Testament .

That circumcision so signifieth as you set downe , you are to prove , in that it was sett upon the male , it did type out Christ , that promised seed through whom our corruption is purged , as before is observed . And if circumcision be such a type , ( as you here afferme ) how can you exclude children under the new Test ? they are Christs and in the covenant , † † Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7. capable of the spirit or new berth , & therefore to be sealed .

If it be obiected that before the law there was no seal appointed , I say , hereby it appeareth that to be under the covenant was not the cause of ●ytle to the seal : but the expresse commandement of God . &c.

But to be under the covenant after the seal was thereunto annexed is sufficient cause of tytle to the seal , except you wil disjoyn those things that God hath coupled together :

In the next place you answer to the Assumption of my Argument wher first you desire of me to expound unto you what is this holynes which the Apostle mentioneth , 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I say under the covenant , then you demand what it is to be under the covenant , and so you proceed from question to question , as if you could not find out a direct answere without such interrogatories .

To your first demaund , I answered before & shewed that this holynes in 1 Cor. 7. 14 : is in respect of the covenant , that children of the believing fathers are called holy , by the Apost. Then what it is to be under the covenant , happely you wil say , to be iustified by the imputation of the righteousnes of C. righteousnes .

Although thus to answer be true , yet is it not al that we are to answer to this demande . For to be under the covenant is to be considered 2. manner of wayes . 1. according to the L. solemne dispensation of his covenant with his people , & their admittance thereinto , after which manner it was made with Abraham and his seed . And thus the covenant was established to * * Gen , 17. 21. Act. 39. Deu● 15. them that were unborne at the tyme of the promise making , being then in the loynes of Abraham . Secondly men are sayd to be under the covenant after a more special and hidden manner . And so al the elect whether known by the confession of their fayth , or lying hidden 〈◊〉 ●om. 4. 4. ●at. 8. 12. ●zo . 14. 6. Rom. 11. ●-2● . Esa. 29. 13 Luk. 13. ●-27 . ●at. 8. 12. in the confused assemblies of the world , are within the cov . of salvation , but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within , who is without , some wee may judge to be within , in respect of their outward standing , which in the Lords sight are without , and some without whom the Lord accepteth : but after that external and solemn making and receiving of the covenant of life , we are to repute † al that makes profession of their fayth , with their seed to be under the covenant , and * branches of the olive tree until they fal away . And of these that are thus under the covenant , there be many “ hypocrites which are not partakers of salvation in Christ .

Then I demand which of these three , viz. to be holy , to be under the covenant , to have Christs righteousnes imputed , is first in nature : happely you wil say , first they are under the covenant , secondly , iustified , 3. sanctified or holy .

I perceive you would draw us by your supposed answer , from that generall holynes apperteyning to the whole church of God , by reason of the covenant of salvation made with them , to the sincere holynes of perticular persons , which is not found to be in al that are visible members of the ch. Heb. 4. 1. ● . Rom. 11. ●0 . For this we say , that a people that are entred covenant with God , are in regard thereof , holy ; because they are separate from the world unto God , and so are to be esteemed of us , as they to whome is promised Christ with al his blessings , whereof they are partakers , if by † unbeleef they hinder not themselves of that holynes of the olive whereinto they were planted , & in this sense are we to understand that place of the Apostle . 1 Cor. 7. 14.

Then I proceed and demand , when do Infants come under the covenant , when they are conceyved or when they are born , or when the parents are converted being born already . It wil be answered that Infants begotten of faythful parents come under the covenant in their conception , and such as are borne come under the covenant when their parentes are regenerate . Hereby it appeareth , that the covenant is conveighed to the children by generation & by filial relation .

Thus I answer as formerly I have done , that the covenant belonges to the parents and their seed , through the free grace & gift of God , the Lord binding himself by promise to be God to the faythful and to their children , which though they be borne according to the course of nature & are in the covenant , yet is their so being within it , not by vertue of their carnal berth simply considered ; but by vertue of Gods promise . Indeed this we say , to be borne of beleeving parents is a declaration of the childrens being in Gods covenant , & that they come under the covenant when their “ Act. ● 14. 15. 33● parents do * first beleev , whether they be borne already , or to be borne : I mean such parents as were before strangers to the covenant .

Hereunto adde , if it be true that some say , that children under the goverment of the faythful also are under the covenant , that the covenant is conveighed also , by pupilship ● adoption , & so of servants under beleeving masters &c.

God making his covenant with beleevers , includeth their families , as in Gen. 17. 7. with verse 9 , - 13. where the Lord establishing his covenant with Abraham , included his whole houshould , borne in his howse or bought with money ; for he commanded al to be circumcised . So Zacheus manifesting his fayth and repentance , Christ sayd , † † Luk. 1● 8. 9. this day is salvation come unto this howse : see also Act. 16. 30 , 31 , 33. and Ier. 31. 1. And thus do we affirme hereof , according to the scriptures . You say ,

Why may not at the infants borne under one king , if his subiects be al his servants ●d vassals be by that relation brought under the covenant , and so be accounted iustifyed and sanctified .

God hath established his covenant to the beleevers and their seed , not to a king and his subjects , and therefore this relation wil not stand with the condition of the covenant .

The relation of a King and a subiect is as neer as the relation of a master and a servant or an adopted child .

The relation of a king and subjects , be it never so near , maketh not t● the purpose : seing we are to mynd with whom God maketh his covenant , who tyeth not himself to civil relations , but freely accepteth the beleever and his family , and further then this relation , the scripture doth not warrant us to apply Gods covenant .

And then I demaund ( say you ) seeing the relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal , then any relation of adoption or servitude , why the wife shal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage ? happely it wil be sayd , that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted because of her unbeleef , and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of fayth .

It is true that neyther the wife nor servants if they refuse , can be admitted because of their unbeleef , but the case is not alike of men and women growen to years , as of infants borne in the church , the former eyther consent or refuse actually , infants do not refuse , and therefore being the seed of the saythful are to be admitted to Baptisme .

But it wil be sayd , that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed onely , I say , it was made ( by your confession ) with him and his adopted infants ▪ &c.

We say as the scripture teacheth us , that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed , the faythful & their children : Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby , the whole family of the faythful , if they refused nor , as before is proved .

And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant , and those that are further off , why shal not these that are nearer as his wife ?

I have answered before , her unbeleef hinders her , to be one flesh , makes them not one in the covenant , which is by grace not by mariage .

But you wil say , because infants do not refuse the covenant , they may be admitted to baptisme , &c. but wives refusing , may not . I further insist , that as infants do not resist , so they do not consent , and that al the children , servants and wives , that do not resist may be admitted , though they cannot make declaration of their fayth . &c. &c.

We do not make the infants not refusing , the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant ; but the Lords dispensation and commandement : in children there can be neither actual consent or resisting , the one of which Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3 , 1. ●am , 2. 18. ●2 . 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares : who also are to † live by their own fayth : also * confession is of such required , so is it not of infants .

Then I say there is no reason why fayth and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification &c. more then of an other , except God be an accepter of persons .

To this I have answered before , and again do answer , that there is one and the same way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers , they receiving the covenant after the same manner that he did , beleeving that God is their God and the God of their seed . Also fayth and repentance , is required not onely of such as are of yeares , and to enter into the Lords covenant , but of al that are in the covenant , ( they being the condition thereof on our part ▪ to be performed ) continually : and therefore we must know , that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise , and not any act of theirs : fayth receiveth grace , but causeth it not , and repentance is the fruit thereof , required of every one , as they are of understanding .

And further , the covenant is onely with Abraham and his seed , not with adopted children &c. and therefore fayth and repentance must necessarily be had , and so ●y cannot be baptised til they shew their fayth . &c.

I have proved already , that God in saying , I wil establish my covenant be●en me and thee and thy seed , included Abrahams family ; or els shew unto ●e , wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision , if they ●ere not with him in the covenant . Agayn , fayth and repentance is required of the elder sort , not of infants , Ergo &c. As for partaking of the covenant actually , how children are thereof capable , I have proved oft ynough : and therefore it needs no further answer .

And whereas it may be justly objected against you : that if infants be denyed to be within the covenant , they cannot be saved , you labour to remove this exception , saying : we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be ●verted , but leave the secret of them to the Lord

Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or against your opinions : is the condition of infants such a secret that God hath not manifested his wil concerning them ? Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants , when he was to circumcise them ? Gen. 17. 12.

And doth not † † Mar. 10. 14. Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them , manifest unto us , how we ought to account of the infants of beleevers ? The prophet Malachy sayth , * * Mal. 2. 1. did not he make one , seeking a seed of God ? Act. 2. 39. the promise is to children , as Peter there witnesseth , and Ier. 31 , 1. God promiseth to be the God of al the families of Israel , and children are a part of the familie , 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy . Now if God had given you eyes , these scriptures † Gen. 17 &c. Deu● 29. 10. - 15. might teach you that the state of the children of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend . Moses shewed the state of children under the old T. & you say , “ “ Caracter , pag. 6. 3. the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of al affaires &c. as the old . How is it then that the state of children is now more secrete then , formerly it was ? Thus you might see your speeches contradictory , if your right eye were not blynded .

Secondly , I desire you to prove unto me by scripture , that in this place , 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes signifieth true sanctification . &c.

And I desire you to prove unto me , that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified ? you keep not to the state of the question , that place is to be understood of the general holines pertayning to the ● & every member thereof in respect of the covenant , & your demand is of Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded , and is to be understood of the general face of that church , which was called holy , because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people . in Exod. 32. 9. & 33. 3. the Lord cals them a stifnecked people , in regard of personal sinnes , which he found to be in some of them , not in all , the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part , whereof they repenting , the Lord forgave them . The personal sinns of some members do not disposses the face of the church of holynes , ●he labouring to reforme such faulty members . Concerning the holynes of children , & of the unbeleeving wife , before is shewed .

Finally , you say , God hath sayd to al the faythful , I wil be thy God , and the God of thy seed . I deny it utterly , God sayd that onely to Abraham , Gen. 17. 7. and wheth●r you expound it literally or spiritually , I avouch confidently against you and al men , that the meaning of it is not , that God made his covenant with the faithful man or faithful woman , and their infoo●●s begotten of their bodies : but that literally the meaning is , I wil be God unto thee Abraham , and thy seed according to the flesh , to give them the land of Canaan , Gen. 17. 8. and spiritually the meaning is , I will give unto Abraham the father of the faithful and al that are his spiritual seed , everlasting life .

You deny a manifest truth , as it is your manner to establish your heresies . I have proved already that the spiritual covenant is given to the faithful and their seed , as it was to Abraham and his seed , and further confirm it thus . 1. That promise that was made to Abraham † is the same that belongs Gal. 3. 14. to al the faythful , and therefore as God did apply it to Abraham , saying ▪ I wil be thy God and the God of thy seed : so is it to be applyed to every beleever : as Gen. 17. 19. God speaking of Isaac sayd of him , as before of Abraham that he would establish his covenant with him and with his seed . And Act. 2. 39. the same promise was applyed to the Iewes that were present Ex. 39. 45 ●ev . 26. 12 Deut. 29. ● . ▪ 15. Jer. ●1. 1. 33. Ps. 44. 15. Hos ● . 10. & 2. ●3 . Heb. 8. ● - 10. 2 Cor. ● 16. Rev. ●1. 3. Gen. ●2 . 3. at Peters preaching , and to their children , and this application are the words following to have . ( And to as manie as the Lord God shal cal , ) viz. to so many , and their seed . Secondly , if the covenant was not made to the faythful and their seed , then are not the faythful partakers of the same covenant with Abraham , for it was to Abraham and his seed , and so by your ▪ doctrine we have not the same covenant and gospel that was preached to Abraham , and consequently no promise of salvation . Thirdly , that this promise , I wil be thy God and the God of thy seed , is made to al the faythful and their seed . see these † scriptures quoted in the margine . Lastly the applying of this promise to Abraham and his seed , doth teach us so to apply it to every faythful man and his seed : the Apostle thus applies the like promise in Heb. 13. 5. for comfort to al the faythful , that God in particuler had made to Ioshuah ▪ in Iosh ▪ 1. 5. which was this , I will not leave ▪ thee nor forsake thee . And David did so apply it to himself . Psalm. 118. 6. whose examples teaches how to apply Gods promises .

Concerning your exposition of this promise , I wil be thy God &c. applying it onely to Abraham , you pervert thereby the Lords meaning : he made his everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed , Gen ▪ 17. ●7 . promised also unto him and his seed the land of Canaan , Genes. 17. 8. adjoyning this promise of Canaan , to that everlasting covenant , with this copulative ( and ) . the everlasting covenant being common to Abraham , with al the faythful and their seed : but this promise of Canaan proper to such of his seed , as according to the course of nature should proceed out of his loynes , and therefore it cannot be , that this covenant and the promise of Canaan should be one and the same , as you expound it . Besides God made this promise to Abraham concerning Canaan and confirmed the same unto him . Gen. 15. 7. - 18. therteen yeares at the least before circumcision was commanded . Gen. 15. 14. and 16. 2. 3. 4. 16. compared with Gen. 17. 1. 10. 23-26 . and that solemne establishing of that everlasting covenant with Abraham : Gen. 17. 7. at which tyme indeed this promise of Canaan was agayn renued . Also it is further to be noted , that Canaan was to Abraham and his seed a type , and as it were a sacrament of the promise of the heavenly country , which they sought after : Heb. 4. 8. - 11. and 11. 9. 10. 13. - 16. 39. for els had their possessing of it made them in no better estate then the Canaanites before them , nay not in so good an estate as divers other peoples , which injoyed their countries more quietly , then they did Canaan .

And shew me ( say you ) that God said to every faithfull man and woman &c. that he wil be God unto them and their seed . I have shewed it before , that so ▪ the promise is to be applyed , & so did Lidia & the gaylor apply it , as by the sealing of their families with baptisme together with themselves appeareth . And concerning women the Apostle saith , in Ch. * * Gal. 3. 2● ye are al one , there is neither ▪ Iew nor Grecian , there is neither bond nor free , there is neither male nor female , wherby ▪ it appears that God in giving his cov hath no respect of sex , be they male or female , al is one in C. & therfore P. administred the seal to Lidia , being a woman & to her familie , as wel as to Stephanus & the gaylor . You say , It is false doctrine to saie that the covenant doth passe unto the infants of the faithful because of their fathers faith &c. How the covenant passeth to the infants of the faythful by the free gift of God is shewed before : pag. 77. one mans fayth cannot conveigh the covenant of iustification to another , nor one 〈◊〉 sinne cut off another from the covenant , but the soul that sinneth shal die .

Although that one mans fayth cannot by any natural operation or qualitie ( as a medicine doth health to the bodie ) conveigh the covenant to an other , nor actually apply justification to the sowl of an other in that sense ▪ as the Apostle speaketh thereof Gal. 2. 20. yet according to the Lords dispensation of his covenant , the promise is received by the fayth of the Parents to themselves and their seed , as it was by Abraham , Gen. 17. 7. 23. Heb. 11. 17. Rom. 4. 11. And this would be no mysterie unto you , if you did distinguish between the outward manner of Gods dispensation of his covenant ( under which al the faythfull and their seed are comprehended and accounted Gods people ) and the inward and hidden application of the things promised , whereof none yong nor old are partakers , save † the Mat. 3 , 11 ▪ ●● . 3. 5. 7. 8 ●● . 11. 7. elect , no not the aged , though they be held for saincts in the sight of men .

As for one mans sinne to cut off another , we hold it not in that sense as you mean , yet in some sense it is not altogether untrue ; for did not such of Corahs children as departed not from their fathers synne perish with him , Numb. 16. 27. - 32. ? and God sayth I wil visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children of them that hate him , in justice withdrawing his grace from the seed of the wicked : but that the personal synne of one shall cutt off an other , as the prophet meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not .

Neyther wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham , was an everlasting covenant , for berith gnolam in the original , doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance , but a covenant that continueth his proper tyme. &c.

I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting tyme , as in these places : Psal. 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal. 145. 13. Esa. 45. 17. and so in divers other places . Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting vid to be God to Abraham and his seed after him , and therfore gnolam must needs be understood for ever , unles you wil say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tym● , for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting . And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words , I am the God of thy father , the God of Abraham ▪ &c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant . And though gnolam do sometymes signifie a tyme that hath an end , as it doth in the type , ●t it noteth tyme everlasting in the truth of those types , and therefore ●s Canaan called an everlasting possession . Gen. 17. 8.

But be it granted ( say you ) that the covenant made with Abraham , Gen. 17. 7. ● the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ , what then ? ● it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful , whether Iewes or Gen● beleeving actually , as Abraham the father did , therfore it is made with the faith●●an , &c. and with his children begotten of his bodie , &c. I denie it utterly .

Yes , it † † Act. 2. 3● wil and must follow , els are not the faithful partakers of Abra●ms covenant , for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed , and the belee●ers onely to themselves , then is it not the same neither in the giving nor ●●iving thereof , as before is proved . And if you graunt Abrahams in●●s , as Isaac &c. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant ●ade with him in Christ ( for to deny it by any colour of scripture you ●an not ) then must the same account be made of al other infants of belee●ers , seing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed , ●● the same fayth that Abraham did to him and his .

Because the seed is but one , to whome the promises were made , viz. Christ , or the 〈…〉 al beleevers .

The words of the Apostle are these , * * Gal. 3. 1● . but to thy seed , as of one , which is Christ . Some understand by seed , the church , Christ mistically , as 1 Cor. 12. 12. ga●hered of Iewes and Gentiles , which grow together in one body in Christ , of the seed of Abraham , as ver. 18. According to which exposition both ●ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise ●ade unto them that are partakers of salvation , yea infants , els are * * Eph. 5. 2● 26. they ●ot sanctified by Christs death . But if by seed , be understood the redeeming ●eed , which is C. it is he in whom both the elder people & infants ar blessed .

But you to prove that by one , onely actuall beleevers is to be minded , ●edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted , that Paul intendes not to shew ●hat none are in Christ , save onely actual beleevers , ( for that were to con●mne al infants ) but he speaking to the church , and such of them as were ●apable of instruction , and having exhorted them not to faynt because of ●is troubles , prayeth the Lord , that they may be strengthned with his spirit , that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith , that is bring forth the fruits of the spirit , testifiing their fayth , and so continue constant . Now it is to be observed , that Rom. 8. 9. 11 ● Joh. 3. 24. Christ dwelleth in al his , by his spirit , and thereby joyneth them unto him , and so in infants , els are they † † Rom. 8. 9. not Christs , & this should you have minded as wel as the other , and haue knowen , that actuall beleeving and the practise of other Christian duties , is the work of the spirit , as the act of reasoning is of the soule , in the elder sort , required of them , and not of infants , as oft inough hath bene shewed . But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle , you thus obiect .

1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one seed , & the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten , which is an other seed , &c. then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many , and that is directly against the Apastle , Gal. 3. 16.

I answer , that the covenant is made with the faithful , and their seed as of one kind , God of his free grace estating the beleevers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life , both of them becomming * spiritual or Rom. 7. 4. ●ct . 2. 39. ●zech 16. ● . 21. ●sal. 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. ●phe . 2. 14 ● holy seed , and sonnes of God , by vertue thereof : and not two contrarie seedes , as you would pretend : and therefore the Apostle is not contrarie to that we affirme , for as he sayth , the seed is one ; so say we , whether , Christ our Saviour be thereby understood , or the Churches united into † one , or all beleevers , who together with their children are after a spiritual maner the sonnes of God .

Therefore that one seed is of persons actually beleeving , &c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed , Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actually : infants do not beleeve actually : Ergo , &c.

Your conclusion ariseth from false premisses , which are answered before ; to the former Proposition of this argument , I answer , that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeve , but in no place of the scripture is added , of them onely that actually beleeve , which you do insinuate , & therefore there lyeth deceipt in your proposition . God promised his blessing to Abrahams seed , which comprehends his infants “ & to blesse the house of Israel & not only the elder sort . That promise of blessing the families , Gen. 12. 3. & 28. Ps. 115. ●2 . 14. Act. 31. 25. Esa. 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth children , for they ar of the family .

Againe , Abrahams covenant was onely to Abrahams one seed , that is to all beleevers : Infants do not actually beleeve , Ergo , &c.

This Argument is the same in effect with the former , the maior in your understanding is false : the faithful and their children in respect of the covenant , are but of one seed . Children though they cannot actually beleeve , yet are they accounted of the beleevers , and partakers of the promise with their parents .

Again , They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham : Infants cannot do the works of Abraham , Ergo , &c.

The Proposition is false in your understanding , Paul saith , if any would ; not ●●k he should not eate , 2 Thes. 3. 10. intendeth not this against children no ●ore doth our Saviour Christ , when he sayth , if you were Abrahams chil●ren , ye would do the works of Abraham . Ioh. 8. 39. but both places are to ●e understood of such as be of yeres , not of infants , which are not come ●o that streng●h to work good or evil .

Againe , I reason thus , They that are not under the everlasting covenant made ●●th Abraham shall not be baptised : infants are not under the everlasting covenant ● Abraham , Ergo , &c.

The minor is false : Infants are under the everlasting covenant , as be●ore is proved , and therefore to be baptised . This your reason implies ●e condemnation of infants , for if they be not under the covenant of Abraham , there is for them no promise of salvation .

Argument V.

1. Cor. 10. 1. 2. If the infants of the Israelites were baptised in the cloud and in the sea as well as their parents , what letteth the infants of beleeving parents vnder the Gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme as well as they ?

The former the Apostle affirmes 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. and therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from this priveledge that the Iewes children had . And if the former baptisme of the Iewes was a type of our baptisme , them must there be an agreement between the type and the thing typed , which is not , if our children be not baptised aswell as theirs .

The depriving of our children of the Sacrament , is to shorten the Lords bountie towards his people of the new Testament ; that being denyed to their children which God gave to his people and to their infants under the law , is to ●eny them ( in regard of their seed , ) the like assurance and comfort which the Israelites had of theirs . And so to make our estate worse and more uncomfortable then theirs was . And yet the Prophets prophecied of the grace that should come to us , and did inquire & search after the same , 1 Pet. 1. 10.

Glad tydings were preached to Abraham and his seed , to infants of eight dayes old . Gal. 3. 8. And this before Christ came in the flesh , and therefore much more he being come , is joyful tydings , brought unto us & our infants . And so are we to beleeve that the grace of God is not lessened eyther towards us or our children , but inlarged by his comming .

M. Smyth .

To this Argument I make answer , by framing the like Argument . If their infants did eat the same spiritual meat and drink , which the parents eat : then why may not our infants being able to eat and drink , eat & drink the Lords Supper , the former the Apostle affermeth 1 Cor. 1. 2. Therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from that priviledge &c.

R. Clyfton .

This is not to answer the Arg , for first our infants must come to such abilitie as that they can * * 1 Cor. 11. ●6 . 25. 28. ●9 . shew forth the Lords death ; do it in remembrance of him : and can examine themselves and discerne the Lords body . before they receive the Lords Supper , which conditions were not required of all that did eat Man , and drink of the rock .

2. The proportion holdes not , for Man , and water , were not onely given to Israel to be to them a sacrament : but also served for their ordinarie corporal food , and so is not the bread and wyne in the Lords supper .

3. If things be compared alike , our sacraments to their ordinarie sacraments , no such consequence can be gathered as you intend : for the infants of Israel were circumcised , but did not eat the passeover , until they were able to go to that place which God had appointed for the eating thereof , and to eat it according to the Lords ordinance : and so much we wil graunt for the Lords supper , that they are to eat it , that can eat it according to Christs institution .

4. If infants in partaking of those former Sacraments , were in them partakers of Chr , why shal not our infants also in the use of the sacrament of baptisme be held partakers of the things signified , seeing ( as you say , those sacraments were types of ours ) the truth must be answerable to the type .

Againe , I answer more properly thus , that there shal be a proportion between the type and the truth , that baptisme of the cloud and the sea , and our baptisme . viz , that as yong and old carnal Israelites were baptised in the cloud and sea : so yong and ●●l spiritual Israelites shal be baptised by the baptisme of repentance &c.

First , I deny that the Israelites considered as they were accounted worthy to partake of the sacraments were carnal , but † † Ex. 19. 1. Pet. 2. spiritual and holy .

2. Vnder the type you have yong and old in yeares : so if you would keep Proportion must be the like under the truth . But this you deny , and make two sorts of beleevers yong and old . Now I ask you whom you cal yong and old Israelites , and if any that beleeves may defer his baptisme ; until he be old in fayth ? And if this be * * Act. 8. 12. 36. 37 & 9. 18. & 10. 47. 4. & 16. 15. 33. not lawful , and none but young beleevers be baptised , how wil your proportion stand between the type , & the thing signified ? 3. Their baptisme in the cloud and sea did preach unto them repentance , as wel as our baptisme doth unto us , and in this there is a similitude between them : but that our outward baptisme , is the truth of that former baptisme in the sea and cloud , to the Israelites , I desire it may be proved .

Lastly , I would know , whom you mean , by spiritual fathers and their spiritual children ? Before you called Abraham the father of the faythful and al beleevers his children . But thus to make up a proportion between your type and truth , you are driven to acknowledge other spiritual fathers , besides Abraham : which being so , you must grant that they are then so called in respect of their children to whom the covenant is conveighed by Gods free grace together with them : For if the children come into the covenant by their own fayth , and enter as did their parents , then are they Abrahams children , not theirs , according as the scripture speaketh . Rom. 4. 11. that he shal be the father of them that beleev .

Further I say ▪ that our infants shal have a priviledge far greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that tipical baptisme . For they by it were onely baptised into Moses , and the law , that by it they might learn Moses , and in Moses the truth in Christ as it were under a vaile : but our infants under the Gospel shal have the daylie institution and education of faithful parents &c.

The Apostle sayth in 1. Cor. 10. 2. that al the Israelites were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea . But sayth not as you say , into the law , those sacraments were seales unto them of the covenant of salvation , not of the law , which then was not given . Secondly , to be baptised unto Moses may thus be understood , viz. that they were baptised , Moses being their guid , or minister by whom they were instructed in the wayes of God . Thirdly , the baptisme of the Israelites howsoever it might be typicall in some respect , yet did it signifie unto them true things , whereof they were partakers . Deu. 6. 6. & 11. 18. ● . Gen. 18. Lastly , the infants under the law and before , † had their dayly education by faythful parents , as wel as ours have under the Gospel : so that in this respect , there is no such material difference , as you pretend .

Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud and sea , was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract : but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete , that is , the baptisme of the cloud did type out our baptisme in the three partes thereof , viz. 1. the baptisme of the spirit , 2. the declaration of fayth and repentance , the antecedent of the baptisme with water , 3. the outward washing with water , a manifestation of the foresaid particulers &c.

Here you set us down types & things typed , but no proofs thereof , I know that the Sacraments of the new Testament , did succeed the Sacraments of the old , confirming to us the same spirituall thinges that theirs did to them . But how these did type forth ours in the concrete ( as you speak ) I conceive not : our sacraments are external as wel as theirs , and administred by * man , who neither doth nor can administer the spirit . 1. For Mat. 3. ●1. the baptisme of the spirit , “ “ Deu. 10. ● . & 30. 6. ● Cor. 10. 4. Heb. 11. ●9 . 30. 39. ●sa. 1. 16. they were partakers thereof , and † manifested their fayth and repentance as we do . 2. concerning the declaration of fayth and repentance to be a part of the sacrament of baptisme , I see no warrant ; seeing it is more general then the sacrament it self , and is an imperfect work in man , and sometymes hypocritical , and therefore cannot be a part of the seal of Gods covenant that shal confirme fayth . Also this were to teach , that the assurance and pledge of mans salvation depends upon himself , if the declaration of his fayth and repentance , be held a part of the sacrament . Again , fayth and repentance is that condition of the covenant that is required on our part , and therefore not a part of the seal thereof . Besides , that which is often to be repeated cannot be a part of baptisme , confession of synne and fayth is so often to be repeated as there shal be occasion . Ergo &c. 3. The outward washing with water , being administred to the faythfull or their ●ed in the name of the Father &c. is that sacrament of baptisme which was “ “ Mat. 3. ● administred by Iohn , and is administred by the ministers of the Gospel .

Furthermore , whereas I sayd that to deprive children of baptisme ●● to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people , you answer .

That Gods bounty is as large everie way to our infants as to theirs , for Gods 〈…〉 tie of actual exhibiting and sealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham & 〈◊〉 his carnal infants , was never extant in the old Testament : neither were their parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it up 〈…〉 their infants .

You confesse the Lord to be as bountiful towards our infants as to●ards the infants of the Iewes , indeed , neither comfortable to theirs or ours . Not to theirs , because ( say you ) the everlasting covenant was never exhibited and sealed to Abraham , and al his carnal seed . I have † † pag. 12. 13. before shewed that the covenant was sealed up to Abraham and his infants . And that it was exhibited and sealed to him and to al the faithful : see Gen. 17. 7. - 13. Rom. 4. 11. Hebr. 11. 13. - 39. but not to al , ( say you , ) externally , it was given to all and sealed by circumcision , though internally it was not , no more is it to all that stand members of the visible church of the new Testament . Secondly , if the parents had ●o comfort in circumcising of their infants in respect of the promise in Christ to be unto their infants , they had none at al in that action , for out of Christ is no true comfort : and so you make circumcision an idle signe , which indeed did preach unto them , ( howsoever you think therof , ) Christ the promised seed , * * Col. 2. 11. in whom they were circumcised .

And circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then , as he is preached ●●w to infants . Your doctrine casteth infants out of Gods everlasting covenant , both under the old and new Testament , and so Christ to them is not preached at al. But what is it that now preacheth Christ to infants more plainely then circumcision did to the Iewes infants , if not baptisme ? How be it you make a question , how the preaching of Christ could profit infants eyther then in types or now in truth . And you say , neither do I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infants any thing at that instant , but afterward to learn that which circumcision taught him viz. the circumcision of the hart . And if you say , that infants baptised are to be instructed . I answer , that in the new Testament by baptisme we manifest what we have , namelie , the inward baptisme , whereas in the old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not , but ought to have viz. the inward circumcision of the ha●… &c.

First , the preaching of Christ by circumcising and baptising of infants did then and doth now profite their parents by seeing the covenant confirmed to their seed . And although the infants themselves know not the use thereof , til afterward , yet it makes not the Lords ordinance , to be any more unlawful , then † Christs washing Peters feet , because Peter understood ●oh. 13. 7. it not . Yt sufficeth that the Lord commandeth the thing to be done , and that children be * taught the use thereof , as they shal be capable . Deu. 6. 20.

Secondly , concerning that difference you make between baptisme and circumcision , afferming that by the former , wee manifest what we have &c. and by the other , they learned what they had not . It is not true that you say of the circumcised , that they had not inward circumcision , for God did promise it to them and their children . Deut. 30. 6. as wel as to us . And here let it be minded , that you confesse , that the Israelites ought to have had inward circumcision , if they ought to have had it , it was by their constitution or everlasting cov . of God made with them . For otherwise how ought they have had it ? then how wil you prove that their covenant was carnal which required inward circumcision ? the truth agrees with it self .

Argument 6.

Math. 28. 19. If Christ gave a commandement for the publishing of his covenant and administration of baptisme the seal thereof to al nations : then are the beleeving Gentiles and their infants to receive the same . But the first is true , Mat. 28. 19. Ergo the latter also is true . Act. 13. 48. & 16. 14. 15. 32. 33.

It wil be objected against the Major , that it followes not , that the infants are any more bound to receive baptisme , then they are bound whilest they are infants to receive the word , but the word they cannot receive . Ergo. I answer that the commandement is general to al nations , and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circumcise him self , and al his familie , yea the infants , he should grevously have rebelled against God : so whosoever of the Gentiles shal not beleev and be baptised both himself and his seed , shal have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ : seeing he cutts himself and his seed from the covenant of God . Genes. 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant ( which notwithstanding they are bound unto , as they shall come to yeares of discretion ) yet are they capable of the seal , as before is shewed , and therefore by vertue of this generall commandement , Mat. 28 , 19. are to be baptised .

M. Smyth .

The errors of this Argument I wil discover in order , first I deny that baptisme is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament . Secondly , I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ . Thirdly , Baptisme therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision , &c. Fourthly , I deny that although Abraham had a speciall commandement , did circumcise his male infants , therefore Christians upon this generall commandement Mat. 28. 19. shal baptise their infants . Fiftly , I say rather the contrarie is hence proved , &c.

R. Clyfton .

This is a ready course in answering , if it might be admitted of to denye one thing after another without shewing any reason to the contrary . As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors , of three of them I have spoken before more particularly , the fourth is now to be answered unto , concerning the baptising of infants upon the general commandement of Christ , Mat. 28. 19. which you deny to have warrant from that scripture : I prove it thus .

If there was a commandement given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children , then is this , Mat. 28. 10. a comandement and faithfully described in the institution of baptisme , as the person , condition and tyme of circumcision . But for paedobaptisme there is no expresse description of the person , condition or tyme of their baptisme , &c.

I answer to the consequent of the Major , that our Saviour hath † reveled ● . 17. 6. ●14 . 26. ● . ● . ● . to his church the whole will of his father , which is conteyned in the Scriptures , not onely in the writings of the Apostles , but also of the prophets , which hee hath for that end , commanded us to search Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter to take heed unto , 2 Pet. 1. 19. and Paul commends to be profitable to teach , to convince , to correct , and to instruct in righteousnes , &c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods wil must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles , that the prophets be excluded , but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth . For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption : so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expresly then the writings of the Apostles . But to come to the point . I answer , that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner , which before had been written , and were stil to continue , as example , the sealing of the covenant , the persons yong and old that were to be signed , and such like , what needs a new repetition hereof , when the Lord purposed not to disannul them : so much as was to be altered , concerning the outward signe , Christ omitted not to declare . And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaithfulnes , if he in expresse words had not commanded infants to be baptised , seing under the old Testament they had the signe of the covenant .

Again , the Apostles writings do plainly ynough declare unto us that infants are to be baptised , as both from that commandement of Christ , Mat , 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles in baptising of families , and by other reasons hath been shewed .

And concerning , the tyme of baptising , I see no reason why you should cavil about it , more then about the tyme of administring the Lords Supper , which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day , nor tyme of the day for the administring thereof , as Moses did of the passeover .

And the scriptures which you cite do shew that bap ▪ is to be administred when men enter into Gods covenant , and children entring in at the same tyme with their parents , are to be baptised at the same tyme with them , as Ismael and al Abrahams howse were circumcised * the same day with Abraham . Deu. 17. ● . And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major , which ●so serveth to answer your minor . But touching those scriptures which you alledge for proof of your Minor , thus I answer in general to them all : that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel , to beleeve that Iesus was the Christ , who were never baptised before . And this rule I confesse to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptisme , that they make confession of their fayth & sinnes as they did : but they serve not to teach vs to deale so towards their infants or the infants of beleevers that are borne within the covenant . For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it , is not the same as concerning the administration of baptisme , no more then it was in the Iewish Church towching circumcision ; for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their owne profession ; and the other to be within it , by their being borne of beleeving parents : if you had instanced an example of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament , of parents that were members thereof , whose baptising was differd until he was able to make confession of faith , then had you sayd more to the purpose , though in such an example there might haue bene neglect , as was in Moses in circumcising his sonne .

Argument VII .

Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly , the Apostles practise is our instruction , but they baptised not onely the maister of the familie which beleeved : but all his household , Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now also the like is to be done : and so consequently the infants are to be baptised , for they are a part of the family , see Gen. 45. 18. where Ioseph bad his brethren , take their father and their househoulds and come to him . Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is sayd they caried their children and wives in charets , noting hereby , that children were of the household , els had they no commaundement to haue caried them into Egypt , see also verse 27. and Exodus 1. 21. it is sayd , because the midwives feared God , therefore he made them howses , in 1 Tim. 5 , 8. The Apostle sayth , hee that provideth not for his own & namely for them of his houshold he denyeth the fayth , &c. Now I would ask if children be exempted from the howshold in any of these places . or in any other where mention is made of a particular howshold . Therefore , this Argument will prove that children were baptised , unlesse it can be shewed that they were especially exempted . And if the holy Ghost have not exempted them , who dare do it , against a general commandement of baptising al nations .

M. Smyth .

I make answer to this Argument confessing it wholly , but yet denying the consequent of your conclusion : for it doth not follow because all the houshold of Lidia and the Gaylor were baptised , that therefore infants were baptised , you shal see what exceptions I take .

R. Clyfton .

The consequence wil follow , for if the Apostle baptised whole families , then children also if there were any , seeing they are of the familie , and no where excepted , but I wil come to your exceptions , the first whereof is this .

I say though infants are a part of the familie &c. yet it doth not follow that whersoever there is mention made of a familie , that therefore that familie had infants in it , &c.

Neither doth it follow , that the families of Lidia , of the Gaylor and of Stephanas , were all of them without children , because the scripture doth not mention their children . The generall speech of baptising the houshold , satisfies you not , except it be proved that there were infants therein : and why should not you ( that stand● for actual beleeving before baptisme ) as wel prove that Lidias familie did beleev as the mistresse did ▪ of whom onely it is sayd , that the Lord opened her hart , and she attended unto the things which Paul spake . The Actes of Christ and his Apostles are summarily recorded , and not every thing that was done at large explayned .

Certeynly , if the Apostle had minded that children were not to be baptised , he would not haue spoken so indefinitely of the family : yea hereby he teacheth that in the administration of this sacrament : he followed the common * * Gen. 17 ▪ -13. Exo● 1● , 4● . 4● . practise used in circumcising of the whol family when the governor thereof received the faith .

2. By this reason you might proue that Lydiaes husband and the Gaylors wife and their children of 40. yeres old and their servants of 60. yeres old were baptised , &c.

First , it is a question whether Lydia had a husband , and more like that she was a widow , because it is sayd to be her household . 2. Concerning the Gaylors wife , their children and servants , what letteth that they might not be baptised , if they refused not the grace of God offered ? The Apostle preached † † Act. 16. 31. 32. salvation to the whole family , and the Gaylor beleeved , and he with all that belonged unto him were baptised . Dare you now except against any in that family , seing the holy Ghost so speaks ? from these general speaches I prove that all in both households were baptised , shew the contrarie if you can .

3. If it were yeelded that there were infants in Lydia●s family and in the Gaylors , doth it follow that they were baptised ? no thing les , and that I wil declare thus . 1. You say , to the baptisme of the Gaylors wife and children of yeres of discretion , there was necessarily required saith and repentance , or els they were not baptised : so say I because infants cannot beleeve and repent , though they were in the family , yet they shall not be baptised .

I might ask you where I so sayd of the Gaylors wife and children , but I wil not contend with you about it . Concerning infants , I haue proved that their baptising is not to stay , until they can themselves make confession of their faith and sinnes , and you do not yet say any thing worth answer , to the contrarie .

2. I say , that although it be said , that all that perteyneth to the Gaylor were baptised yet it is also sayd , verse , 32. that the word was preached to all that were in his house . & verse 34. that all his howshold beleeved , &c. seing therfore all that were baptised in the Gaylors house beleeved by the preaching of the word . Infants that could not beleeve were not baptised , &c.

First , all that you here say doth not prove that all that were baptised in the gaylors howse beleeved by the preaching of the word . The word was preached to al in his house , that were able to understand , and so must both ver. 32. & 34. be und●●stood of such . But Paul speaking of baptising them , sayth , that he was baptised and al that belonged unto him . Which speach must needs include his little children also , if he had any .

And although it be sayd , that he reioyced that he with al his howshold beleeved in God , yet wil it not follow hereupon , that his children were not baptised , seeing children are to be esteemed in the number of beleevers . And those words may have this construction , viz. that he rejoyced , that he with al his familie were received into the fayth of Christ , or were accepted into the number of beleevers , and so it includes his children .

Concerning the tyme , being midnight , which you say was a distempered time to waken yong children , it is nothing that you say : were not the infants of Israel awakened and caried out of Aegypt at the like tyme of the night ? Exod. 12. 31. upon lesse occasion then either of these , children may be awakened .

● . I say for Lidias familie , it is not sayd that al her howse was baptised , or yet if it had been so said , that everie particular person of her familie was baptised , for Mat. 3. ●● . It is sayd , al Judea went out to John and were baptised of him , &c. yet hence it cannot be concluded that al and every one that went out were baptised ▪ &c.

The scripture sayth , that Lidia was baptised and her houshold without excepting of any , the like is sayd of Stephanas familie , 1 Cor. 1. 16. And by † that which is written of the gaylors house , we are taught how to understand Act. 16. 33 the Apostle . And be it that this word ( al ) be used sometimes for many , as in that of Mat. 3. 5. 6. What then ? yet it followes not : therefore , it is so to be taken in this place of the Apostle , seeing he useth it for every particular of the whole in al these places , 2 Cor. 5. 10. Hebr. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 27. 28. & 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 4. 20. & 4. 15. & 5. 18. and in divers others .

But you say , As Act. 16. 32. 34. onely they that beleeved were baptised , s● was it with them of Lidias familie .

You are to bold with the text to add unto it . The Apostle sayth not , that onely they that beleeved were baptised , but that they preached to al that were in his howse , and wa● baptised with al that were his . Next , you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants , the former is this .

The Apostles practise is our instruction , but the Apostle in baptising howsholds , First Preached to all that were in the family , and then they beleeving were baptised . Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised .

This argument might have bene granted , had not the conclusion contayned more then the former propositions , viz. this word , ( onely ) which ought to have bene placed in the one of them , and if in the assumption , then were it false to say , that onely they that beleeved were baptised and ●o more : the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before . And it is to be further observed , that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church . Your other Argument is this .

That which the Apostles practised in one family , they practised in all families that they baptised : But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission , Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word , Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. &c.

This argument also may be granted , and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants , except your heretical collection which I deny . And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this & the rest of my arguments .

OF THE TESTIMONIE OF THE fathers concerning the baptising of infants .

HErevnto I will adioyne some testimonies of the fathers , not to prove that children ought to be baptised , which is to be done , & is by the scriptures already proved : but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches . Augustine ( as I find alledged ) writing to Ierome . epist. 28. sayth , Cyprian not making any new decree . but firmely observing the faith of the Church iudged with his fellow Bishops , that as soone as one was borne , he might lawfully be baptised . See Cyprian epist. to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists , lib. 4. cap. 23. & 24. sayth , that the baptisme of infants was not derived from the authoritie of man , neither of counsels , but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles . Ciril , vpon Lev. Cha: 8. approveth the baptisme of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptisme . Origine vpon the Rom. sayth , that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles . Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum . 3. sayth , that baptisme agreeth to everie age , to every condition of life , to all men if thou hast an infant , it is sanctified from his infancy , yea from the finger ends it is consecrated . After he sayth : some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne , what shal we baptise those ? & he answers , yea verily . Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha. 11. Speaking of baptisme , sayth , neyther old man nor Proselyte , nor infant is to be excepted , because every age is guilty of sinne and therefore stands need of the Sacrament . These & many other of the fathers do beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the lawfulnes of the baptising of infants .

Mr. Smyth .

And for conclusion you produce the fathers : I say that the producing of fathers , who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies , shall availe you nothing in your cause , and you that deny the testimonie of fathers contrary to the Scriptures , how can you with any colour produce fathers against vs in case contrary to the Scriptures &c.

R. Clifton

I plead not for the errors of the fathers , but for the truthes which they held according to the Scriptures ; And where you charge them to hold plentie of antichristian heresies , you tax them very deeply , and you that so censure others , had need to judge your selfe , otherwise the Lord wil find out a sentence against you . Also I desire you to shew where I produce the testimonie of the fathers contrary to the Scriptures ? you are growen to be very careles what you affirm . For my producing of the fathers against you , I do not recall that I have done , seing theire testimonie is the truth , who shew the practise of their times , according to the Scriptures .

I know the device of your producing of fathers , viz. 1. to set a glosse vpon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants . 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth . But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy &c. what would you answere , would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt tymes , &c. even so say I to you &c.

Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptising of infants , antichristian heresy , † † Esay . 5. wo to him that speaks evil of good . 2 with sinne , in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a glosse vpon my antichristian heresy , &c. for were it a falseshod that I defend ( as I know it is not ) yet know you that my soule is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf . It is one thing to produce the testimony of the fathers witnessing the truth according to the scripture , & another , for the defence of errors : the latter we reiect , & you take vp , but the former we approve and you condemne . And although we are not to build our fayth vpon the fathers ; yet for matter of fact done in their tymes we may give credit to their report : and so theire testimonie serves to prove something , namely to shew the practise of their tymes to which end I did alledge them , and that is not to confesse that they prove nothing as you charge me . And say Remember that , and let al men take notice , that you produce testimonies , that you say prove nothing . And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words .

But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers , forsooth to shew the practise of ancient Churches . But all these Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession , &c.

Yea Sir , I do produce them to shew the practise of Auncient Churches , whose testimonies is not so lightly reiected , save of you and such like , that condemne all Churches for antichristian , except such heritical Synagoges as your owne is . As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred yeares after Christ , albeit some devises of men crept in , and as they grew elder so increased , yet that they were Antichristian , where have you my confession ? it is strange that you dare affirme such untruthes . And for anticihrstiā antiquitie & vniversality , I could wish you were as free from Anabaptistical novelitie , as I am from approving of any error or superstito eyth●●o● the antiquitie or universalitie of it , the truth we defend needs no such Popish propps : but yet antiquitie ( when the thing is found to be true that is ancient ) is not lightly to be regarded seing the truth is more auncient then error . And although you esteeme not of the testimony of the fathers witnes●●ng against you , yet haue you summoned togeither such men as you thought would give any contenance to your error , to batle against both the Scriptures and them : but their testimony doth little pleasure you , as shall appeare by the examination of the particulars . The first you alledge is . Henr-Pantal●on Chro. fol. 6. who saith , that Victor Apher . anno 193. ordeyned that a● Easter it should be indifferently administred to all , wherevpon I gather , that before his time onely such as were catechised in the faith were baptised , for he would not decree that heathen should be baptised .

This man ( I take his words upon your report ) doth mention Victors decree for the time of administration of baptisme to all yong and old , viz at Easter . But would any but you inferre hereupon , that baptisme was not administred before this time to infants ? You might aswel say that before that time it was not administred to the elder sort , for he speakes in generall of the persons to be baptised . Victor brings not in baptising of infants , which was then the Churches practise , but prescribes a certaine time for the general administration of that sacrament : as Gelasius did the like , anno 494. That infants were baptised before Victors time , appeareth by that ●eliques 〈…〉 e , p. ● 96. ●●bius . * of Higinius , who decreed that children which were to be baptised should haue a Godfather and a Godmother : Anno 143. Higinius lived before Victor , about 50. yeres . Your next , Eusebius Hist. lib. 7. cap. 8. saith that Novatus reiected the holy baptisme and overthrew the faith and confession which was accustomed before baptisme : whereby it appeareth that faith and confession were required before baptisme : and therefore the rudiments thereof still remaine that in the baptising of infants , a confession of sinne and faith is required of the suretie or parents .

That confession was required before the baptising of men growne to yeres and newly come to the faith is not denyed , and more then this can not be gathered from Eusebius words as you set them downe . But what is this against the baptising of infants ? Howbeit I find not this of Novatus in Lib. 7. chap. 8. but in that chapter mention is made of a certayne faithful brother that being present when some were baptised and heard what was demanded and what was answered , weeping , &c. began to confesse that he had otherwise received baptisme of Hereticks , &c. Now if he was baptised of Hereticks without confession of his faith , it was contrary to the practise of the Church , & of the Apostles concerning such as came newly to the faith .

Eusebius ecclesiastical hist. lib. 6. c. 33. thus writeth of No●atus , that ●e being vexed with an vncleane spirit in his youth , and having ▪ spent ▪ s●me 〈◊〉 with Exorcists , fel into a great sicknes , and lying in his bed , for necessity he was baptised , neither any of those things which were accustomed to follow baptisme w●re so 〈…〉 nly fulfilled , &c.

As for the rudiments of this confession , which you say still remaynes , therevnto I answer , that this practise is a kind of imitation of that which was observed in former times towards them of yeres : and it may be that the parents which brought their childten to be baptised did make some short confession of their faith ( for of confessing of syn is no step remayning that I know , onely a promise to forsake sinne ) which after did grow ( as other things ) into corruption .

Againe , you alledge Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 15. reporting a story of one that did baptise children in sport , and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria , though d●ne in sport , yet finding that the children had questioned and answered according to the manner of the catechumeni in baptisme , did approue it , whereby it appeareth that then onely persons by confession of their faith and sinnes were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria .

This storie I doe not find in that chapter before quoted , but such a like in chap. 14. yet both your written copie and printed book , appoints to cha. 15 ,

If you meane that of Athanasius baptising of certaine Catechumeni , lib. 10. c. 14. I answere that those children so baptised seeme not to be any children of the Church but some of the heathen which with their parents were instructed in the faith , but not yet in communion or baptised . Againe , in that they being thus baptised were by the Bishop delivered to his Church to Athanas● vero at● eos &c. ● vocatis p● rentibus s● Dei obte●tione trad● ecclesiae su● nutrien●● to be brough up , their parents thereto consenting : which consent the Bishop needed not to haue required , or so committed those children to be educated , if they and their parents had bene already of the Church , for to them then had this care apperteyned . Besides if none but the elder sort had bene baptised ( which by that which is here obiected is not proved ) yet was this but the practise of one particular Church which might be tainted with that error about baptising of infants , as Tertullian and some others were in those times .

Next you alledge Hoseus Petricov . Confes . de fide cap. 27. saying , that these 2. Apostolical traditions which the Scripture teacheth not , viz , that there are 3. persons and one God , and that Dionysius & Origin do testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostolical tradition . Now you know their Apost. traditions were antichristian inventions .

This witnesse wil do you little pleasure : for as he calleth the baptising of infants a tradition , so doth he the Trinitie , which the scripture doth manifestly teach in sundry places . Now if you accept not his testimonie in calling the Trinitie a tradition , why do you produce him against baptising of infants ? Besides though this man was a Papist , yet is his witnesse with us , for calling the baptisme of infants an Apostolical tradition , he meanes as the Papists do , such doctrines of the Apostles as were not written which they hold equall with the scriptures . Againe , this he sayth is so called by Dionisius and Origen , who understood thereby the doctrine of the Apostles : And those Apostolical traditions ( whereof you dream ) were not in their times in esse .

Polydore Virgil , you bring in also to testifie , that it was the use with the Auncients , that persons of yeres ( sere ) in a manner should be baptised clad with white garments &c. and this was performed at Easter and Whitsontide , &c.

This witnes tels us that it was in use with the Auncients not onely to baptise the elder sort that turned to the faith , but appointed the n● to be clad in white , & that they were instructed until Easter , ( th●ir time appointed for baptism ) : & these it seemes were the Catechumeni ( for in those former times many had not imbraced the faith ) now this autho●● sayth not that children borne in the Church were kept unbaptised until they could make profession of their owne faith , whereof our dispute is .

The wordes of Lactantius ( whom you also cyte ) are generall of yong & old , whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number , but proves not your desire , his words you set downe thus Candidu● egreditur nitidis exer●itus undis : atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo , which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort .

Concerning Lodovicus Vives , vpon August . de Civit. Dei cap. 27. ( if ●dovicus ●ves flo●● anno ●4● . ●●d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his ●● , as did ●● Erasm . he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him , ) seing he is but a late writer , I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth , certainly from that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name .

Lastly , you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes ▪ to say , That in Pauls time it was not received , that infants should be baptised .

Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth , and therefore being of so late time , what is his witnes against so many fathers , testifying the contrarie . Thus in alledging of him and the rest , you shew the weaknes of your cause , that have not one auncient father directly to witnes with you , but are driven to call them to witnes that in this thing were of contrary judgment to your selfe .

REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants , answered . R. Clifton

Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the contrarye , the first of them is this .

1. Reason :

Because there is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples , only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their faith were baptised : Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37.

Answer

1. This reason being brought into form wil bewray the weaknes therof , for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a speciall comandement or example in the practise of Iohn or Christs Disciples for the baptising of infants , yet it may not withstanding be lawfull to baptise them , namely if by sound consequence it may be gathered out of the Scripture . And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Saviour Christ , Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection , proves it by Argument necessarily drawen from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expres●ly mentioned , and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries , as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth . After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law , this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much , but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures . And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged . So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament , ( though wee can not shew any playne precept or example ) yet may upon warrant thereof , not feare to baptise them . For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny , that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words , as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead , that the son is Homousius , that is , of the same substance with the father ; now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture . And many such like .

2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme , then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper , but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence , because they are within the covenant and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme . Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested , I wil thirdly answer vnto it .

3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants . Commandement I say , Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them , where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents . And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents , the same lawe of sealing the covenant , must stand stil in force to the parties ( though the outward signe be changed ) except the lawemaker do repeal it , or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof , which must be shewed , or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant .

And as for examples , we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia & her household . Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers. 33. both which seming to be great housholds , it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist mention them not . But the exception is , that only such as did confesse their sins & confesse their fayth were baptised . Concerning Iohn , he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the waye of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confesse their sins , he baptised : but did Iohn refuse their children if they brough● them to him ? but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them : no more say I , is there that they were offered unto him . There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised , and yet it were too bold a part , and no doubt very false , to affirme that they were not baptised . All things that Iohn did , nor that Christ did in the particulars are written . Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof . And therefore to gather an Argument from hence , because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn , therefore they ought not to be baptised , is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear . : and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch ( Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch ) is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised . Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country , now in iourney homeward , & therefore not like that he should have his children with him , specially in such a tedious iourney , & not knowing of this accident .

M. Smyth .

Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants , to the first argument you say , if it be brought into forme , it wil bewray the weaknes of it , wel I wil bring it into forme &c.

That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done : Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example . Ergo. &c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus . That which hath precept and example must be practised . Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ John and the Apostles . Ergo. &c.

R. Clyfton

First , the Major of your former Sillogisme is not necessarily true , your selfe confesseth † that every consequent necessarily deduced from the scripture is as wel Parallels , ●g . 71. and as truely the word of truth , as that which is in playne termes expressed , &c. and therefore you ought to have added ( nor ground of the scripture ) or such like .

2. The minor I deny , and haue proved that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants . Your second Syllogisme may be granted , save that the conclusion seemes to entend more then the propositions , viz , in these words , ( are the persons to be baptised ) as yf onely such ( & not infants ) as can confesse their faith , are to be baptised , which I deny .

Before you proceed to confirme your argument : you labour first to remove my answer saying . Although a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevaile , yet I say , the Lord can not leave vs in this particular to necessary consequence , he dealing plainely and faithfully with vs &c.

You graunt a necessarie consequence in all cases shall prevaile , why not in this particular . Your reason is , seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old , &c. and Moses hath set downe distinctly and plainly the persons with their qualifications to be circumcised , &c. either Christ hath as plainely and fully set downe these particulars or els the new testament , is not so playne as the old .

1. By this your reason you iniure God & his word , who leaft the Iewes in the books of Moses onely to consequences towching that great point of the resurrection , which yet Christ accounted sufficient , and against the Sadduces , drewe his Argument to prove the resurrection out of Exodus , 3. 6. where no such thing is expressely mentioned , and so by your doctrine he dealt not plainely and faithfully . Also every other argument , that he or the Apostles used upon a necessarie consequence can not stand with the open face of the gospel , thus far do●h your reason extend : but I wil come to your particular whereof you would have it understood , viz , that Christ can not deale faithfully , if for the baptising of infants he hath not as playnely described the ordinance of baptisme , the persons with all other circumstances , &c.

Do you thinke that if Christ have not set downe every circumstance about baptisme , that he is therefore unfaythful ? what think you of his describing of the other Sacrament , where is it set downe so playnely , that wemen shal be partakers thereof ? there is no mention that any woman was present at Christs administration of his last supper : where is the tyme so described for the administration thereof , as was for the Passeover ? must Christ for this be accused to have dealt not so faithfully as Moses ? had our Saviour any need to teach or write otherwise then he hath done about the sacraments ? seing it is the same covenant under the Gospel that was sealed to the old Church , and a commaundement given for the sealing thereof unrepealed : that which was to be chaunged concerning the outward ceremonie , Christ hath plainely set it downe with direction for for the administration thereof . And that which was needful for Moses in describing circumcision , was not so necessarie for Christ in describing of baptisme : because circumcision was to be administred onely to the males , but baptisme to both sexes , circumcision on the 8. day : baptisme is tyed to no strict time , and therefore the particular description of these circumstances might wel be omitted , and no unfaithful dealing in Christ .

As for the minding of it to be administred to infants , there was no use of any such particular direction , seing the Lord had once ordeyned to seal his covenant to the faithful & their seed , & renueth the same in a general maner under the Gospel , which may suffice to all that are sober minded .

For it had bene easily said , go teach &c. baptise them , & if they have any infants baptise them , &c.

It is not for man to prescribe wisedome how to speak , things are taught plainly inough , if God give men eares to heare .

But say that Christ Iohn and the Apostles leaveth direction for this meane matter onely by dark far fetched probable coniectures & consequence from the old testament , whi●h was onely typical , &c. and hath not left evident grounds for it expressly in all the foresaid p●rticulars , &c. is to say that Christ is not so faithful in his office propheticall as Moses was ▪ &c.

For these things which we defend are playne enough and no darke or farfetched coniectures , except to such , whose eies the Lord hath blinded . Concerning our Reasons drawen from the writings of the old Testament we do herein follow the example of Christ & his Apostles , who did confirme , and prove that doctrin which they preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets . Paul sayth , † that he witnessed to smal and great , saying no other things then Act. 26. those which M●ses and the Prophets did say should come : notwithstanding I have also confirmed , this doctrine of baptisiing of infants from the new Testament .

In that you say , the old Testament was onely typical , you must explaine your meaning , for although some things were * typical vnder the old Testament Heb. 10. & 8. 13. ● 9. 1-9 ●l , 2. 16. 17 Gal 4. 24. ●5 . yet other things were Moral , as the Moral † law which was a parte of it : preaching , prayer and other spiritual parts of worship , which were commanded vnder the old Testament . Agayne , That Christ hath left vndeniable groundes in the Scriptures for the baptising of infants , before is shewed .

Moreover seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp and preached obscurely in the old Testament and types thereof , it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament , prove the resurrection &c. but now that the new Testament being written &c. why should we be sent to obscurities and coniectural cons●quentes &c.

Because the bookes of the new Testament were not written , Christ and the Apostle might reason from obscurities & coniecturall consequents out of the old Testament : do you thus argue indeed ? was Christs reasoning obscure for the resurrection ? do you thinke the Saduces would have bene soner perswaded if the new Testament had bene written and Christ had reasoned from it ? no more then you wil be perswaded to beleeve the baptising of infants for al the reasons we bring frome the same . He that wil not beleeve Moses and the prophets , wil not beleeve the Apostles . Agayne , I deny that to reason from the Scriptures of the old Testament is to reason from obscurities : the Apostles have made all things cleere and manifest , Ephe. 3. 5-9 whose writings do further us to the vnderstanding of the prophets , & Christ himselfe sends vs to search those Scriptures . Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter ● Pet. 1. ● . sayth † yee do wel if you take heed to the word of the Prophets as before is observed .

Besides , the Trinitie of persones & vnitie of essence in the Godhead is proved by playne wordes 1. John 5. 7. &c.

That the Trinitie is proved by this scripture and by divers other places , I deny not , yet in these expresse words , That there be 3. persons in one Godhead , is not so set down in this place or in any other . Nether is found to be in those playn words , though the same thing may be concluded out of the Scriptures . But I did instance these , to shew that every thing is not set down in so playn and expresse words as you would bear us in hand .

Finally , I say , shew me any necessarie consequence for baptising of Infants out of the old Test. or the new , and I yeeld .

This I have done already , but for your yeelding it is not in your owne power , but in † † Phi. 2. ● God that must shew mercy , and give grace , which I pray the Lord to give you , Amen .

Yet a reason or two I wil here adde unto my former , to prove that infants of beleevers are within the covenant : from Gal. 3. 29. thus I reason .

Whosoever are Christs are Abrahams seed & within the covenant .

The children of beleevers are Christs : Therefore Abrahams seed & with in the covenant : and so consequently have right to baptisme the seal thereof . The Assumption is thus proved . Children be eyther Christs or els they * * Act. 4. cannot be saved : But they “ “ Mar. ● 13. 14. may be saved . Ergo &c.

2. The infants of beleevers are eyther of the church , † † Eph. 1. 2. 23. which is the body of Christ , or without : If within , then are they of the covenant , and Christ is theirs , for he * * Esa. Eph. ● 25 , -27. 2. 18. 22. is given for and to his Church , and is the saviour of it : and so being of the church , baptisme must belong unto them . But if children be without the covenant , then are they “ “ Eph. 2. 1 without God , without hope , and without promise of salvation , and so their estate as hethen , and the children of beleevers no more holy then the children of infidels , though Paul witnesseth the contrary .

But I desire it may well be observed that you are driven to consequents for this matter , and secondly , that the Gospell of Christ is for babes . Matth. 11. 25. &c.

What except you against a necessary consequence , is not that manner of reasoning lawful ? did not Christ so reason , as before is shewed ? & you your self do † † Parale●● pag. 71. Caract. p. 33. justifie it . I know if you had such consequents for the baptising of your self , you would make them go for currant , as indeed they ought . But I do not onely reason a consequentibus , but set down the expresse † commandement of God , for the sealing of yong and old , and the example 〈◊〉 . 17. ● 13. of the Apostle baptising whole families .

2. That the Gospel is for babes , I graunt , and that in Mat. 11. 25. is applyed to men of yeares , which are lowly and meek , but you must know that the most simple persons ( as you speak ) are capable of the mysteries Cor. 13. 12. Heb 11. - 14. 6 , 13. 2 Pet. 4. of the Gospel but in * part , and every man hath his tyme of groweth therin , and needeth to be instructed , that he “ may increase in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ ? And though the Gospel be playne , yet we attayn to the knowledge of it by degrees , your self wil confesse this , at least your many alterations do testifie thus much against your self , and therefore the most simple is not so capable thereof as you pretend .

Lastly , for my consequences which you cal mere hallucinations & Sophismes . I justifie them against your best arguments , how well you have disproved them , let the good Reader judg .

Your second Answer and exception is , that if want of special precept and example barr children from baptisme , it shal also barre women from the Lords supper . I deny it , for in playn termes it is sayd , 1 Cor. 11. 28. let Anthropos viz. eyther man or woman eat after examination . & Gal. 3. 28. there is neither male nor female in Christ &c. 1 Cor. 12. 13. we have been all made to drink into one spirit , and Dorcas is a disciple . Act. 9. 36. and the disciples met together together to break bread . Act. 20. 7. &c.

That women are to be partakers of the Lords supper is no question , but whether there be commandement or example , expressely nameing women , that you have not shewed from these scriptures . Concerning 1 Cor. 11. 28. there is a word of the common gender , but the Apostle sayth not in plaine termes thus , let every woman examine her self and so eat : seing the word anthropos , may be applyed to the man , and is sometimes restrayned to man onely , as in Matth. 19. 3. is it lawfull for Anthropos to put away his wife ? and Hebr. 5. 1. and every high Priest is taken ex anthropon . And in reproving of their abuse the Apostle useth words of the masculine gender : also the words joyned with Anthropos , 1 Cor. 11. 28. are of the masculine gender , let a man examine himself , cauton for he that eateth esthion , &c this compared with Christs institution where onely men were present , though women were in the citie , sh●weth this testimonie not to be so plain as you pretend . Neither do the rest of your scriptures prove your desire . As for Dorcas being a disciple , is no expresse example , the women of the Iewes were Moses disciples , yet were it not true to reason , that therefore they were circumcised . As for Gal. 3. 28. & 1 Cor. 12. 13. they speak of the spiritual union in Christ , and spiritual grassing into his body by the spirit and baptisme , but neither of them sayth , let women partake of the Lords supper . I reason for the plaine termes , otherwise I deny not , that arguments may be drawn from these scriptures to prove that women are to receive the Lords Supper .

Your 3. Answer and exception followeth , wherein you do affirme that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants &c. to these I have already answered in the sixt and seventh reasons going before .

And there also may you receve satisfaction to that you have answered : but yet to one objection concerning the commandement once given , of the sealing of infants . I answer ( say you ) besides that baptisme is not the seal of the new Testament but the spirit , and that circumcision was not the seal of the everlasting covenant &c. So though it were granted that infants of the old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in Christ , which I peremptorilie deny , yet seing the tyme of circumcision is expired , therefore infants are not to be sealed by baptisme .

To al this it is answered “ “ pag. 12 , 37. 38. before that circumcision as also baptisme are seales of the covenant of salvation , and though the tyme of circumcising be expired , yet is not the commandement of sealing of the covenant expired , & therfore infants are stil to be sealed with baptisme which succedeth circumcision .

In the last place you require prose that onely persons that confessed their sinns & their faith were baptised , I prove it thus : They onely were to be baptised that Christ commanded to be baptised , persons made disciples by teaching , were onely commanded to be baptised by Christ . Mat. 28. 29. Ergo &c.

I deny your Assumption , the affirmative is not to baptise them onely that are made disciples by teaching , but also their seed , as formerly hath been proved : and you feighne a false negative to that affirmative , in Mat. 28. 19.

2. Againe , considering that in every affirmative there is included a negative , therefore wheresoever example is , that persons confessing their sinns and their fayth were baptised , there is signified that those that did not confesse their sinues &c. were not baptised .

This is graunted of such as were of yeares and to be added to the Church ; & so now to be practised towards any of the Turks or such like that should come to the faith . But this is false , that because persons confessing their faith were baptised , therfore the infants of the faithful , not able to make confession of their faith shall not be baptised . Willing confessing must be opposed to actuall refusing , if the argument according to the mind of the holy Ghost stand good .

For we must know that the bodie is one &c. and the seed one and not two , for in the new Testament they know God from the least to the greatest . Heb. 8. 11. and they are al taught of God . Mat 11. 11. and this I take to be a playne proofe of the point which you desire .

This serves rather to prove that children are to be baptised because they are of the same body of Christ . To affirme infants to be baptised is not to hold two seedes of contrary natures as you charge us , for as the father , so are his children partakers of the covenaunt , and both are a holy seed & children of God in respect thereof , though the father professe his faith & the childe cannot , in respect of age . the father can reason , so cannot his infant , yet both of them are of the same nature , & reasonable creatures . And be it that some of the children whose parents professe the faith are not elected , so may it be also that the father that confesseth his faith is not elected , but this belongs not to us : we are to hold them as children of the covenant as the word teacheth . ● . 8. 11.

Concerning , Heb. 8. 11. all shall know me , &c. it must be vnderstood of all that are capable of knowledge : God promised a more singular grace of illumination under the gospel of those thinges which the Church had more obsurely before Christs comming : so doth he promise remission of sinnes , wherof children are partakers , & shal be of this heavenly knowledge also , as by yeres they shal be able to learne , the want whereof doth no more hinder them from being partakers of Gods promise in Christ , then the want of knowledge , hinders an infant to be heire to his fathers inheritance .

But if this be an argument of force against the baptising of infants , because the Lord sayth , I wil put my lawes in their harts : then wil this be as forceable against them that are of yeres that they need not be taught , because the same Lord sayth , they shall not teach every man his neighbour , &c. and so teaching shal be overthrowen also . The true sense is to be sought after , ● not thus to pervert scriptures ans you do to your own destruction .

Touching that of Ioh. 6. 45. they shal be al taught of God , it must be understood Ioh. ● of al , as they are capable of instruction , the promise is made to the church Esa. 54. 13. and so to children , as also that in Hebr. 8 , 11. and shal be fulfilled to every one , as they shal be able to understand .

Next upon my speeches affirming , that of Iohn it is not said that he refused to baptise infants . you say , that Iohn his preaching was such as peremptorilie excluded infants , for it was the baptisme of repentance &c.

Iohns preaching of repentance , is the preaching of the Gospell which excludes not children : your reason is not good , for baptisme of repentance respects the tyme to come , and not onely sinns past , and byndeth the baptised to continual mortification . And both Iohn & Christ ▪ preached to the Iewes which * * Act. 2. ● & 3. 25 were of the covenant , and therefore called them to repentance and taught them to beleeve that Christ was come , whom they looked for .

For being not regenerate &c. yet they could not enter into the kingdome of God . Joh. 3. 5.

Christ in Iohn 3. 5. speaketh of true members in his sight : we are to hold the professors with their seed to be regenerate , because they are of the covenant , until the contrary appear by their deeds .

And here it would be considered vnto whom Christ and Iohn spake , unto the Jewes &c. and yet he sayd repent and beleeve . Now if the Jewes had been truly regenerate in their communion , Iohn needed not to have required such conditions of them , but in few words might have sayd , come you faythful and al your infants and be baptised .

1. Iohn spake to them that were of yeares and had sinned , & therefore repentance was necessarily required , not so of Infants that have not committed actual sinne . 2. The preaching of the Gospel belongs to the regenerate , I mean the preaching of repentance and fayth , seeing we are but regenerate in part , and “ dayly sinne . The primitive churches I hope ▪ Mat. 6 , 1● you w●ll graunt were regenerate in their communion ( I use your termes ) & yet to them was preached † † Rev. 2. 5. 16. 21. and 3. 3. 20. repentance . Ergo your reason fayles you .

3. The members of al true churches whether under the old or new Testament are holy , in regard of Gods covenant , and so wee are to walke towards them : but that every particular person is truly regenerate , is not our faith ; because in visible Churches † † Joh. 2. 19 there may be hypocrites , & man oft fayleth on his part * and breaketh of . Notwithstanding , † charitie bindes ●om. 11. 20. 1 Cor. 13. vs to hope the best , until the contrarie appeare .

Lastly where you say ▪ That the Iewes were not faythful in their communion because Iohn saith the Lord wil purge his store , & Christ sayth , they are of your father the Divil .

1. This may fall out to any true Church to have unfaythfull members that may pollute their communion , see the Churches of Asia , Rev. 2. 4. 5 : 14. 15. 20. 21. & 3. 1. 2. 16. & of Galatia . Gal. 3. 1. but what is this to the purpose that the Iewes became unfaithful ? ( but by the way remember that they ought to haue bene faithful , which you deny to that Church ) did not Gods covenant stand stil in force to the faithful and their seed ? Rom. 9. 6. 8. 15. & 11 , 1. 2-5 .

2. Christ speaketh to such of the Iewes as by their works did shew themselves to be of the Divil , he intendeth not to teach , that this was the constitution & state of the whol Church under the old Testament : as much as Christ sayd to these Iewes may be sayd to us under the Gospel , as of those Antichristians , whereof Iohn speaketh : 1. Iohn 2. 19. and therefore all that you have sayd , proves nothing for the question in hand .

Againe to prove the Disciples to be baptised , you cite Ioh. 4. 1. & 1. 35. 40. I answere , in the latter place is no mention of baptisme and in the former , it is sayd that Iesus baptised moe disciples then Iohn , which in verse , 2. is explaned , that he did not baptise , but his disciples , shewing that Christ baptised disciples by the hands of his disciples : So I think they were baptised of Iohn as Christ was , but I wil not contend there about . And for that you answer concerning the Eunuch , that some mention should have bene made eyther of Philip or of the Eunuch towching his children .

It is nothing that you say , for what occasion was there to speak of his children ? And it is for you to prove that the Eunuch had children , seing he was one ( as it is like ) that was made chast by man : Mat. 19. 12. & the rather because in regard of his honour and auctoritie he was called Cheiffe governour as also in respect of his country , an Ethiopian : Act. 8. 27. see Esa. 56. 3. 4. 5. Now to your second reason .

The 2. reason against baptising of infants answered . R. Clifton .

But having thus discovered the weaknes of this first reason let vs come to the next which is this :

Reason , 2.

Because Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptise them . Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 4. 1. But infants can not by doctrine become Christs disciples , and so can not by the rule of Christ be baptised .

Answer .

1. The Apostles were indede commanded to make Disciples and to call vnto the faith and felowship of the Gospel not onely the Iewes , but the Gentiles throughout the world and gave them power to preach the Gospel , which before had bene preached to Abraham : Gal. 3. 8. And to baptise all that did receive it . And this we grant that fayth must go before baptisme , in al such as are to be made Disciples and brought into the covenant of God . So went fayth before circumcision : Abraham first beleeved & after was circumcised . And likewise must al they which with Abraham enter into Gods covenant , first beleeve and then be baptised , as the Eunuch , Act. 8. 37. Lydia Act. 16. 15. & the Keeper of the prison , verse . 33. but when such have receved the fayth , then are their infants and houshold capable also of baptisme , as Abrahams family was of circumcision , he beleeved the promises Gen. 17. & therefore it is written that when God opened the hart of Lidia that shee did attend to the word that Paule preached and beleved ; not onely she herselfe , but all her household were baptised , and yet is there no mention of the fayth of any of them , save of Lidias onely . And so the Keeper beleeving , all that appertayned vnto him were baptised . And this is proportionable to the example of Abraham , whose fayth we find sufficient to interest all his in the covenant , and make them capable of the seale .

2. Christ taketh the same course in giving out his commission to his Disciples , Mat. 28. 19. to bringe the Gentiles into Gods covenant , that the Lord tooke with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the father of many nations &c. he did not first command him to be circumcised , but preached to him the Gospel or covenant , and he beleeving was circumcised and his houshold : So here is a commandement , first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ : and for baptising such as beleeved with their families ( for it is included in this commandement , els had not the Apostle baptised the families of Lidia and of the Keper , as before is observed . ) And it is wel to be minded that there is no mention made of the faith of any in the familie of Lidia , save of Lidias onely , for it is not sayd all in the house that beleeved were baptised , which had bene necessary if this commandement of Christ should be expounded after the mind of the Anabaptists .

3. If children shal be excluded from baptisme because they can not be made Disciples by teaching and so beleeve , then by as good reason may they be excluded from salvation , for he that sayth he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved , sayth also , he that beleeveth not , shal be damned Mar. 16. 16. if therfore want of fayth be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme , then likewise the want of faith is sufficient to exclude them from salvation . If the former be held to be the meaning of Christ , then must also the latter be graunted , a thought whereof is to be abhord .

Lastly , generall rules must be taken with their sense and meaning . It is a generall rule given by the Apostle . 2 Thes. 3 10. that if any would not work , he should not eate . Yet if any should gather from hence , that the impotent & infants should not eat , because they do not work , this were to offer violence , & to wrest the Apostles doctrin : So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples and baptising them : now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme , because they cannot receive instruction ( which is intended onely of them that are capable thereof ) is to diminish the commandement of Christ : alike as he that should say , infants can not beleeve , and therefore cannot be saved . Againe , it can never be the true meaning of a scripture , when it is so expounded , that the exposition contradicteth other scriptures , or any sound conclusion gathered out of the Scriptures , as this exposition of the Anabaptists doth upon this place of Mat. 28. 19. as my former reasons for the baptising of infants , do playnely manifest .

Mr Smyth .

Next followeth , your answer to my 2. Reason , which reason of mine is framed thus : They that can not by teaching be made Christs disciples ought not to be baptised . Infants by teaching can not be made disciples : Ergo , &c.

Your answer to this Argument of myne , consisteth in 4. particulars , &c. to the first particular of your answer , I say that you erre mistaking the Scripture , for Abrahams faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessarie antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president , example type or patterne of iust●fication . And circumcision in Abraham was not a seal of his iustification or of the everlasting covenant of God &c.

R. Clifton

I answer 1. to the former proposition of your argument that it is false , for infants of beleevers may and ought to be baptised , though they can not by teaching be made disciples . 2. to that you answere to my first particular , thus I reply ; That of Abraham & his circumcision , & of the Church of the old Testament I haue spoken before : this now I wil adde further , that Abraham was an * * Iosh. 2● 3. idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan , and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church . As for his faith it was not onely a president or example to others , but was also necessarie for him self , as the scripture teacheth , he beleeved the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes . And being thus iustifyed , he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousnes of faith , by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemne covenant of the Lord , to become his peculiar people and to haue him to be their God , which at that time the Lord made with him , & so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood .

And where you say , that Circumcision was not a seal of Abrahams iustification , &c. you give the holy Ghost the lye , which testifieth the contrary , Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason , that he was sealed by the spirit long before , it is nothing to the purpose , for the spirit was no external seal , as circumcision was . The spirit sealeth inwardly , and is proper onely to the elect ; yea to all Gods people in Babilon , and so is no visible signe of of Gods promises given to the Church visible , whereof our dispute is .

And here remember by the way , that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit , and so was under the new Testament , as also others had . Esa. 63. 11. Psa. 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4 , - 39. that being the pledge and earnest of the sowles of al the faythfull in al ages of the love of God in Christ .

But Abrahams iustification in uncircumcision was a type of the iustification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised . And Abrahams circumcision after his iustification sealed him up to be the father of all the beleevers circumcised .

That Abrahams justification was an example to al that should be justified both of the Iewes and Gentiles , I graunt , viz. that as he was justified by fayth so should al others that beleeve be likewise justified . But as concerning Abrahams circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father Rom. 4. 11 ● . 13. of al beleevers circumcised : the Apostle sayth thus . * Abraham received the signe of circumcision , the seal of the righteousnes of fayth , which he had when he was uncircumcised &c. that he should be the father of al that beleeve not being circumcised &c. and the father of circumcision &c. In which words I observe , 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousnes of fayth , yea of Abrahams . 2 , that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised beleeving . And the father of al the circumcised , his posteritie the Israelites , and so was father of both sorts of people , and of the parents and children . 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised , he meaneth Mat. 15. ● . Act. 25. Rom. ● , 4 , 5. of his spiritual fatherhood , in regard of the “ covenant . 4. He is called the father of circumcision , not onely of beleevers circumcised , ( as you say , ) but of their infants also , seeing they were circumcised : and in this you deceive your hearers , by perswading them that Abraham was the father onely of beleevers circumcised , & not of their seed , whereas Paul sayth , he was father of the circumcision .

And so circumcision had a triple vse ; one general , two special ● . Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a patterne of al the beleevers in uncircumcision &c. 2. Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a paterne to al beleevers in circumcision &c. The general use of Abrahams circum●…cumcision was common with him to Ismael , and al the persons of his familie , and al the carnal Israelites , viz. to seal him up to the old Testament , and to the observation of the whole law , &c.

You labour by your new devised distinctions to obscure the truth and to shut out of the covenant of grace the infants of the faythful , otherwise ●e affirme that both beleeving Iewes and Gentiles are justified and † † Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20. live by their fayth , and that the one and the other have but * * Rom-4 . & 3. 24. 2 one way of justification , as they have but one Christ , and one covenant of salvation . And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham , so was it given to have the same use to al that were circumcised , viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant . And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by “ “ Rom. 3. 2● his grace , through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus ,

Concerning that general use of circumcision ( as you terme it ) to be common with Abraham and to Ismael , and to al the persons of his familie , &c. is true , but the use viz. to seal him up to the old Testament , and to the observation of the whole law &c. you must prove , ( for God had not then given the law or old Testament ) It was the covenant in Christ that was sealed by circumcision , and not the law or covenant of works . And whereas it was the Apostles purpose to shew that † † Rom. 4● &c. Abraham was not justified by works , he hath not proved it , but confirmed it by this your distinction of circumcision , if Abraham received it to seal him up to the old Testament , & to the observation of the law .

Now for the place of Rom. 4. 11. which I am assured you wil ground your assertion upon , I say it is both falsly translated & expounded : for ( tes en acr●bustia ) is usually translated , which Abraham had when he was uncircumcised , and this I say is a false translation : for this is the true translation , viz. which ( is or was or shal be ) in the uncircumcision , meaning that circumcision upon Abraham &c. was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcision that beleeve , and the end of his circumcision is the fatherhood of the faythful .

Here you pick a quarrel against the translation before it was alleadged , and so it pleaseth you to set downe an other with your own exposition , to this scripture . Rom. 4. 11. and by your glosse corrupts the text . You 〈◊〉 4. 11. fault the Translator for saying ( which he had &c. ) and you put in ( which is or was or shal be , ) The text is , ( which in the uncircumcision ) , the verbe being omitted . Now I ask you what warrant you hav● more for your addition then the Translator had for his ? the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain , that the Translator saw his meaning better then you do . For Paul speaketh of Abrahams justification by fayth . Rom. 4. 3. - 11. asketh how fayth was imputed unto him , when he was circumcised or uncircumcised ver. 10. answereth , when he was uncircumcised . Then preventing a double objection that might be made thus . 1. If Abraham received the righteousn●s of faith when he was uncircumcised , then his example seemes to belong to them that are uncircumcised . No ( sayth the Apostle ) for he received circumcision . 2. It might be objected , yet it seemeth that he received circumcision in vayn , seing he had received the righteousnes of fayth before : no ( sayth Paul ) for he received it as a seal for the confirmation of his fayth which he had in his uncircumcision . Then he expresseth the cause both of Abrahams justification by fayth , when he was uncircumcised , and also that being justified by fayth he received circumcision , viz. that he might be the father of al that beleeve being uncircumcised , that righteousnes might be imputed unto them also , And the father of circumcision , not unto them onely which are of the circumcision , but also unto them that walk in the steps of the fayth of our father Abraham : &c. this is the Apostles meaning .

Now whereas you affirme , that circumcision upon Abraham was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcised that beleeve , I desire this may be proved according as you mean . For the Apostle sayth it not , but thus , he received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of the fayth which he had : for how could Abrahams circumcision that was applied to his particular person seal up justification to us & not to himself ? seeing a seal is a particular applying of the covenant to the partie that is partaker thereof . By this your exposition , you make Abrahams circumcision to differ from the circumcision of his seed , of which difference , the Lord spake not a word in the institution thereof , nor in any other place . Yet you say , the righteousnes of fayth is not sealed up to Abrahams particular person , but to the uncircumcised that beleeve . Which doctrine is very strange , that Abrahams circumcision shal seal that to others & those uncircumcised , & not to himself being circumcised , you must therefore bring better proofe hereof , els your confident affirmation wil be accepted as the facing out of an error . As for the common acceptation & translation of Rom. 4. 11. which you say , is the mother of this heresie , it is confirmed in these words : but unto them also that walk in the stepps of the fayth of our father Abraham when he was uncircumcised ; which makes it plaine , that the Apostle understood by the righteousnes of fayth , Abrahams righteousnes which he by fayth apprehended , and which was sealed up unto him by circumcision .

Againe , al the persons of Abrahams familie were not circumcised , because of Abrahams fayth , but the males onely , the males being assumed as types for to teach them figuratively the male Christ .

So many of Abrahams familie were circumcised as the Lord commanded : to the women it was not injoyned , and though Christ was typed out in the circumcision of the male , yet as it was a sacrament , it sealed unto them the righteousnes of fayth , and therefore in Genes. 17. 10. it is called the covenant , because it was a signe thereof , sealing unto them remission of sinns and regeneration by fayth in Christ to come .

And the femal●s were uncircumcised &c. to signifie that those that had not the male Christ in them , were not fit to be members of the Church of the new Testamentment .

1. The females were not accounted as uncircumcised , seing they were comprehended under the males , and so distinguished from the uncircumcised Gentiles Genes. 34. 14. Deut. 7 , 3. Esa. 3 , 16. 2 , I confesse that such as are not in Christ , are no fit members of the church , but this seemes not the reason why women were not partakers of this sacrament , but rather to teach that salvation should come by the male : but this alegorising proves nothing .

Further you say , as it was with Abraham and his familie in Circumcision , so was it with Lidia &c. it is not so , I shew the difference in divers particulers . 1 , They of Abrahams familie were circumcised upon particular precept , &c. 2. They that ●ere males onely were circumcised &c. 3. They that were circumcised of Abrahams familie were al the males being of yeares though never so lewd &c. 4. As fayth did not intitle the female to circumcision , and as infidelitie did not deprive the male of circumcision so fayth did intitle the female to baptisme in the familie of the Gaylor and ●f Lidia . &c.

To these pretended differences I answer , 1. that the precept of sealing the covenant to Abraham is not reapealed , ( onely the ceremonie is changed ) and that Christ hath given * a commaundement for the administring 〈◊〉 . 28. of the signe as the preaching of the covenant to all nations , and by vertue hereof were the families of the Gaylor and Lydia baptised , and so it was with Lydia and her family , as it was with Abraham and his household , els was she not the daughter of Abra. entring into Gods covenant , she & hers , as Abraham and his entred in & seing the holy Ghost saith that the housholdes were baptised without limitation , it belongs to you to prove , that the children in these families were exempted , or els that children are not of the family , or els we may not restreyne the Apostles words contrary to the tenure of the first giving of the covenant which was sealed to yonge and old . For your first difference , I deny that commandement to be a particular precept to Abraham and his house alone , it was also to all beleevers of the Gentiles and their children , and so was it a generall precept to the whole Church for the sealing of the covenant , ( though circumcision was proper to the former Church , as baptism is to the church of the new testament ) and so there needed no particular precept for baptising of infants , they being comprehended under the general . For the 2. difference , that the ●males onely were to be circumcised . I answer , this was according to the Lords dispensation , then to set his signe on the males , now on both sexes , but neither then nor now to restraine it from infants . Concerning your 3. difference , I ask you , where the scripture sayth that any wicked persons were circumcised in Abrahams familie ? Dare you condemne that house which the Lord doth iustifie ? see Gen. 18. 19. where the Lord saith , I know that he wil commaund his sonnes and his household after him that they keep the way of the Lord , &c. and that infants being males , in Abrahams house were circumcised you can not deny , for the commandement is that every man child be circumcised , and Abraham did so , Gen. 17. 12 23. And therefore you must prove that the children in Lydiaes & the Gaylors families were not baptised , els you shew no difference . For your 4. difference , it stands upon an unequal comparison , & toucheth not the thing in question , you might know that faith , could not intitle the females to circumcision , when they had no commandement for it . In the Gaylors & Lydias families the women were capable of the seal by the ordinance of God . Againe , concerning the males , infidelitie might and did hinder from circumcision , as it did the Gentiles which received not the faith : and so infidelitie excludes from baptisme both males & females . As for infants they can not be sayd to be infidels or vnbeleevers for they are partakers of the promise , which is the ground of faith , els * * Rev. 2● were they under condemnation .

To the second particular of my answere , you reply thus .

I answere , that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abraham , and the other of Lydia and the Gaylor according to the commission of Christ , Mat. 28. 19. 1. Abraham and all his family by the Lords commaundement came under the covenant of the old Testament actually , & the males onely were circumcised : but Christ doth not commaund all persons of a family in the new testament to be baptised , but onely such as are made disciples . 2. the Gospel was onely preached to Abrahams owne person , but in the Gaylors case Paul preached to all that were in his house , &c. 3. The gospel was not preached to Abraham thereby to prepare him to circumcision , as if thereby it should follow , that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel , for it is not so , &c. but Christ in the new testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every parricular person , that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme , and so Paul did to the Gaylors family .

To your first difference I answer as formerly I haue done , that Abraham and his family came not under the old testament or covenant of works , seing it was not made with him but with Israel afterward by the Ministery of Moses . 2. Your comparison should thus be propounded : as Abraham & all his family , came under the covenaunt of God : so likewise do the faythful of the Gentiles and their families : & therefore as Abraham and his family were circumcised : so ought the faithful and their families to be baptised , thus holds the comparison , and thus it is against you : and you do but beg the question , in saying , that Christ commaunds not all the persons of of a family in the new Testament to be baptised : for this is defended against you ; that Christs commaundement of baptising , extends to the infants of the beleevers as wel as to themselves .

To your 2. difference I answer , that the Gospel which was by the Lord preached to Abraham , was by † † Gen. 11. 1● 19. & 12. 1-5 . Gal. 8. him preached to his family . To your third difference I answere , that the gospel was preached to Abr : to be the meanes and ground of his faith , & circumcision was given to him to be a seale of the righteousnes of faith , & therefore a seal of the Gospel which was preached unto him , and so the Gospel was preached to Lydia & the Gaylor , & baptisme given for the same use as circumcision was to Abraham . And where you say , Christ commandeth the gospel to be preached to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme , and so Paul did to the Gaylors family . Why sayd you not ( according to the point in hand ) And so Paul did ●● Lydias familie , & the Gaylors ? Did your self perceave that you could not shew it so in Lydias familie ? Did you therfore passe by that example ? Act. 16. 14. 15. Let the reader wel observe these things and this dealing of yours . And to this your standing so strictly , that the gospel or covenant was preached●● every creature . I answer , that as it was preached to such as were received into the Christian Church so was it to Abraham & all the Gentiles , which entred into the old Church : and therefore in this is no difference .

To my 3. exception thus you answere : Christ speakes onely of such as to whom the gospel may be preached that are of a docible age and nature .

I graunt that Christ intendeth by his commaundement that they should be taught , that are of a docible age , but with all intendeth it so to be preached to them , as it was before to Abraham , which was not to exclude their infants from the covenant or seale thereof . To this obiection , how infants not being in the covenaunt can be saved , you answere : Eyther they are all saved though they can not come to faith by hearing , or that they are one of the Lords secrets .

Can you speak of faith , to say they are all saved and not within the covenant of grace ? but it is not your faith , for you hold it doubtingly , and being driven to a non plus , you answer as the Preists and Elders did to Christ concerning Iohns baptisme , who sayd , wee can not tell whether it be from heaven or of men : and so you make the state of children , one of Gods secrets , but the contrarie I have before proved . And here you might see ( if your erronious opinion had not blynded your eyes , ) that you cannot beleev that any infants shal be saved , seing by your doctrine you haue no word to ground your faith upon for their salvation .

To the last particular of my answer , you reply , saying :

First , you confesse that this place of Mat. 28. 19. is not vttered of Christ in respect of infants that they should be taught , and then I say , he never intended by this place that they should be baptised , &c.

I wil confesse as much as I haue spoken : In this scripture : Mat. 28. 19. Christ commaunded to make disciples and to baptise them , the former I sayd , Christ intended to such as were unconverted , but yet so , as they receiving the gospel , their infants came also under the covenant : the latter , I did , and stil do affirme to be vnderstood of the beleevers and their seed , and so I have not contradicted my self , as you untruly speak .

Next I say , that general rules shal be expounded with their senses , and as impotent persons & infants shal eat , though they can not work : so infants shall be saved , though they cannot be baptised , seing they cannot by teaching be made Disciples &c.

Now you affirme infants shal be saved , a little before you doubted whether it were not a secret , thus vnstable men are when they erre from the truth . But if infants can be saved as now you affirme , then tell me whether you hold them to be saved in the covenant or out of the covenant ? if within , you crosse your self , and if without , shew me what warrant out of the word you haue so to beleeve ? certainely * * Act. 4. ● there is no salvation out of Christ . And if children can be saved by the covenant , why is the signe thereof denied them ? You separate those things that Christ hath ioyned together , ( and yet you charge me therewith ) and so you pronounce a woto your self in saying , wo be to them that so do without repentance , seing you deny baptisme to infants , that are the children of the covenant which ioyneth the parents and the children together .

Your conclusion of this argument , is shut up with some bitter and reproachful speeches : saying : You blaspheme the truth with your title of Anabaptistry . You are driven to most miserable shifts for your Paedobaptistrye , which you see can not stand without scraping together all the wrestings and pervertings of the Scriptures .

These speaches and divers others of like sort , which you use in your writings , take and apply to your self , for the mainteyning of your heresy against Paedobaptistrie ; also they serve to testifie the corruption of your hart , and therefore I will answer them with silence , praying the Lord to give you a sight of his truth and a better hart .

The 3. Reason against baptising of infants , answered . R. Clifton

Now followes the 3. reason .

3. Reason .

3. Because if infants be baptised , the carnal seed is baptised and so , the seal of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenant appertayneeth not . Rom. 9. 8. which is a profanation .

Answer .

1. This reason semeth to imply , that the seed of the faithfull , is part carnal and part spiritual , ( for I can not imagine that the author holdeth al the seed of the faithful to be carnal , and that the covenant appertaines not to any of them , seing so to affirme contradicts , Act. 2. 39. ) And therefore because the spiritual seed is not discerned vntil it manifest it selfe by outward profession , therefore may not be baptised , least in baptising them , the seale should be set also vpon the carnal seed unto whom belongs not the covenant . To affirme this , first is to deny that which is done to the seed to whom the promise belongs for the wicked sake , & so to iniure them . 2. this reason also serveth as well against the circumcision of the infants of the Israelites ; seing at 8. dayes of age , they could not be discerned , whether they were of the carnal or spiritual seed , & so the seal of the covenant be administred to them to whom the covenant did not belong : But as then the not discerning hereof , did nothing hinder circumcision to be administred to all the infants of the Israelites ; no more now , can the not knowing of the spiritual seed from the carnal , hinder baptisme .

2. Touching the seed of the faithful thus I conceive thereof , that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects ; carnal , as they naturally descend of their parents : so are they all alike borne in sin Psa. 51. 5. Spiritual , in respect of the covenant wherein they are comprehended with their parents . Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. in which regard also , al the children of the faithful , are sayd to be holy , 1. Cor. 7. 14. And thus considered , I deny the children of the faithful to be carnal seed , & do affirme that to such belonges the covenant and the seale thereof . Act. 2. 39. And though some of them in the sight of God be knowen for none of his , yet to vs it sufficeth for the administration of baptisme , that they be the seed of the faithful . And therfore as the Israelites circumcised al there children ( though some of them proved to be carnal afterward , as Ismael , Esau &c. ) so are we to baptise al our infants leaving the secreet things to God . Deut: 29. 29.

3. If this be sufficient to cleare us from the profaning of the Sacrament if we baptise them that make confession of their fayth , because they so do , though they be not the children of God : as S. Magus . Act. 8. 13. then is it not simply a profaning of baptisme to administer it to them to whom belongs not the covenant , but to do it to them which playnely appeare to vs to be without . Therefore if no man dare take vpon him to say this or that infant is carnall and without the covenant of grace , it shal be no profanation of the sacrament , if it be administred vnto such , seing we ought to hold the seed of the faithfull , holy . 1. Cor. 7. 14. If it be obiected ( as some have done to me ) that all the seed of the faithful are carnal and so to be held until they beleeve and make confession of theire fayth . I Answer , 1. If they take carnal , as it is opposed to the children of the promise : Rom. 9. 8. 13. these two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle as that the one can never be the other . 2. If by carnal they meane nothing els but that natural corruption wherein we are borne , that hinders infants no more from baptisme , then it doth those that can give an account of their fayth : seing natural corruption remayneth stil in the purest professor . Rom. 7. 23.

And if it be replyed , that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that beleeve : no more ( say I ) is it to infants , els Christ dyed not for them , neyther could they be saved dying whyst they be yong .

Lastly , if Abraham knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac , Gen 17. 19. yet circumcised Ismael vers. 25. and Isaac knowing that God had chosen his yonger son : Gen. 25. 23. with 27. 33. yet circumcised Esau as wel as Iacob , and in so doing neither of them prophaned the sacrament : muchles is baptisme prophaned when it is administred to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise . Act. 2. 39. and thus having shewed the weaknes of your reasons against baptising of infants , let us come to the 2. position .

M. Smyth .

In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argument , which may be framed into this form● ●eyther do ●ey the ●rks of the ●ivil : and ●erefore if ●ey be not Abrahams ●nes for de ●ct of the ●e , they ar●●ot the Di●els because ●hey do not ●●e other .

The carnal seed is not to be baptised : for the covenant parteyneth not to them .

Infants are the carnal seed . Rom. 9. 8. Ergo Infants are not to be baptised .

To this Argument you make answer in 4. particulars , 1 , You expound my meaning , but I can expound myne owne words best , and therefore by the carnal seed I understand children borne by carnal generation what soever though they afterward beleeve , for they are carnal visible to me , whosoever they be that do not shew then fayth by their workes , † that do not the works of Abraham . Rom. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. Rom. 9. 8. & 4 , 23. Heb. 7. 16.

R. Clyfton .

In the last part of your reply to my answer to your former reason , you sayd , that infants shal be saved , and now they are al carnal visibly unto you : can you say that they that are carnal to you , shal be saved ? If the word teach you that they are carnal , how can you call them spiritual ? Your reason seemes to be grounded upon Iam. 2. 18. Iohn . 8. 39. in both which scriptures , application is made to them that , are of yeares and capable of instruction , and you applying them to infantes do pervert the meaning thereof and purpose of the holy Ghost , who intendeth to discover the hypocrisie of vaine professors , and to shew who are true sonnes of God , viz. such as by a godly conversation declare their fayth to be unfeighned . I denye that infants are carnal , because they shew not their fayth by their works . Those whom the scripture so calleth , are they that ●om . 8. ● . 8. † walk after the flesh and do the deeds thereof , which Infants nether do , nor can do , wanting actual power of doing good or evil .

The former scripture that you alleadge to prove infants carnal , is Rom. 7. 14. The Apostle sayth of himself , I am carnall , and so you conclude ●●m. 7. 14. thence that al that naturally discended of Abraham , and so of the faithfull are carnal , and so to be reputed of us , and cons●quently without the covenant . Paul when he thus sayd of himself , I am carnal , was regenerate . And if you cal children carnal , in that sense , it hinders not but they may be spiritual seed as he was . The Apostle cals himself carnal , in respect of his natural corruption and carnal infirmities wherewith he was compassed : neither was he wholly carnal , but in part † † Rom. 7. spiritual . And here is to be noted that carnal , is opposed to spirituall , in one and the same person , and is found to be in al that professe fayth and are regenerate , & yet doth it not debarre them eyther of the covenant or of baptisme .

A like Answer may be given concerning , 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians 1 Cor. 3● are called carnal , because of their infirmities and carnal works , as enrying , strife &c. vers 3. &c. Infants cannot in this sense be called carnal , & therefore this scripture also is unfitly applyed unto them . And here it is to be noted , that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptised , are called carnal , whereby we may see how impertinently this scripture is alleadged .

You say also , that you cal children carnal as in opposition to the spiritual seed , that one seed of Abraham . Gal. 3. 16.

I have sayd that carnal , as the Apostle opposeth yt to spirituall , is our corrupt nature that * lusteth against the spirit , and is found in the faythfull . Gal. 5. 17 Rom. 7. 2 Now to oppose the infants of beleevers to spiritual seed is no opposition : for such infants in regard of the covenant are spiritual , though by nature they are carnal .

Concerning , Rom. 9 , 8. see page 63. The Apostle proving God to be Rom. 9 , 8 faythful , sheweth withal , that though the promise was made indefinitely to al the Israelites , yet al that were carnally begotten of Israel , were not true Israelites , save onely such as were the children of the promise , verse 7. - 9. but he intendeth not to oppose all the seed of Abraham naturally begotten , to the children of the promise ; for then should Isaac be opposed against himself , for he was both the natural seed of Abraham , and a child of the promise : but this he teacheth , that although many be reputed the sonns of God in regard of the promise which is made indefinitely to all the seed of Abraham , and to al that are called to be members of the visible church ; yet al of those in the account of God , are not children of the promise , seing many hypocrites are found to be in the outward visibilitie of the Church , to whom the Lord shall say , * * Luk. 13. 25. 27. I know you not whence ye are , &c.

Touching Gal. 4. 23. it hath been handled before pag. 14. Thus I will here answere to your obiection out of it . viz. that Paul doth not intend Gal. 3. 2● to make an opposition betwene the natural seed of Abraham and the heires of promise : but opposeth against the false doctrine of such as vrgeth circumcision and the workes of the law to be necessary to iustification : and after divers reasons against this error , he illustrateth his purpose by an allegorie which shadoweth forth two sorts of children borne of two Testaments as Ismael & Isaac were of two mothers , the one sort that should seek after righteousnes by the law , but they were no better than Ismael , no heires of the promise , but in bondage vnder the law : The other , should seeke after righteousnes by Christ , and these are of the covenant of grace ; as Isaak was of the freewoman , which are heires and free indeed , and this appeares to be the Apostles meaning by that which followes in the Allegory ; as also by vers. 21. And so it is to be noted , that to be borne after the flesh , ( typed out by Ismael , ) is to be without the covenant under the bondage of the law which was given in Sinai , signifying that all such as seek for iustification by the law , are as they that take up their habitation in the wildernes , and never enter into the land of promise . ●eb . 7. 16.

The next Scripture , is Heb. 7. 16. where the commandement is called carnall , so children borne of theire parents ( say you ) naturally are carnal , &c. see this place expounded pag. 68. by carnal commaundement the Apostle means that law that commaunded the ordination of the Preists under the old testament which stood in fraile and transitorie things , as in Aarons consecration , &c. Also this commaundement or ordination of the Leviticall Preists may be called carnal compared with the ordination of Christ , ●sa. 61. 1. 〈◊〉 45. 7. ( which was without all * external ceremonies ) and not simply : for in other respects it may be counted spiritual as all Gods ordinances are , whether under the old or new testament , and so this scripture rightly vnderstood , maketh nothing to your purpose . And towching children you should observe , that as it is true , that naturally children are carnall : so is it true also , that the children of the faithful borne under the covenaunt , are by grace , spirituall , Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14.

The covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually sease upon any infant of the Iewes in deed and in truth , and the place , Act. 2. 39. doth not prove that it did ; for the place is to be understood of the offer of Christ and the new testament to all the carnal Iewes , and their children , &c. and therefore I say , to baptise infants , is to baptise the carnal seed .

For this point , & for the exposition of this scriptur , see p. 19. where also is answer to that which is here obiected , for by this scripture it is playn that the promise apperteyned to the Iewes & their infants into which they & their child●en had entred when God made his covenant with Abra : & his seed for them were they in his loynes . And upon this ground the Apostle exhorts them to be baptised : not saying , the promise is now offred , but thus , the promise is to you , that is , made or given to you and your children , ( as the Apostle explayneth the same , Gal. 3 , 16. 17. 18. & Act. 26. 6. ) And to as many as the Lord God should call ; meaning to the Gentiles which should beleeve and to their seed .

Therefore , I say , to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed , &c. To this I haue answered , that children of beleevers , though carnal by nature , yet are they spirituall in regard of the covenant , and in this respect to hold them the children of Abraham , though they can not shew forth the fruites of faith , which are required of the elder sort .

Why then , they are damned wil you say ? God forbid , do you cendemne all the men that are not of our saith : and yet they are neerer to condemnation in the iudgement of the scripture to you then infants : for Christ sayth , he that beleeveth not shal be condemned . &c.

It is wel that you detest the condemnation of infants : & if they be not condemned then are they saved , & if they saved , then are they under the covenant of grace in Iesus Christ . Towching others of yeres , according as the scripture sheweth their estate to be unto vs , so must we judge , but secret things belong not unto us , the salvation or condemnation of this or that particular person is a secret , nay wee are not able certainely to determine thereof amongst such as be external members of the Church , because many that haue not on their * * Ma● 11-1● mariage garment , may thrust in with the guests , & the † † Ma● 1. &c. five foolish virgins had lampes as wel as the wise . But this is not the question , we reason concerning the dispensation of Gods covenant in respect of us , which we affirme according to the “ “ Gen. 17● Act. 2. 3● scripture to be given to the children as wel as to the parents : And you deny it ; and therefore by your opinion in respect of us no hope can in deed be had of the salvation of any infant : nay the infants of Turks and infidels wil be in as good estate as the children of beleevers : for if infants be without the covenant ( as you affirm ) if we wil speak according to the scripture , we must hold them * * Eph. 2. ● without Christ , and alianes from the common wealth of Israel , without hope and without God in the world ; and standing & dying in this estate , to be as Turks & infidels dying in the state of condemnation .

But you not able to shift of this Arg. & loth to confesse the truth , do say , that the Scripture teacheth nothing concerning their final estate , except it be the salvation of them al.

If it teach the salvation of them al , then I hope it teacheth that they are in Christ , and within the covenant . Christ teacheth that the kingdome of heaven is of such . The final estate of many professors of the fayth being of yeares , is a secret to us , the scripture doth not open unto us the particular election of this or that man , but teacheth with whom God hath made his covenant , to esteeme them as of his covenant , untill the contrarie appear by their falling away . Rom. 11. 20. And thus having explayned your own meaning of your former Argument , you proceed to examine my Answer , saying .

Now according to your exposition I should intend , because it is not discerned which children are the spiritual seed , which the carnal , therefore both of them must be deprived of baptisme , least by giving baptisme ( which you falsely call a seal ) to al , it should be prophaned to the carnal seed . Wel suppose this were my meaning , what then ?

If this were your meaning , then my collection must follow : for my calling baptisme a seal , I have proved that which I affirme of baptisme , p. 37. 38.

You except against this exposition two things , one that the spirituall seed should be iniured by denying baptisme unto it , for the carnal seeds sake . And I reply by giving baptisme to al indifferently we should iniure baptisme , it is to be administred onely upon them that confesse their fayth and sinnes and are made disciples &c.

Your Answer stands in begging the question , I say it is no more an injurie to baptisme to be indifferently administred to al them to whom the covenant is indefinitely given , as it is to the seed of the faythfull ; then it was before for circumcision , or is now , when hypocrites are baptised . For we can not be sayd to prophane the sacrament by administring it to them that appear to us to be within the Lords covenant , as both hypocrites & infants , until they break off .

An other thing you except is , that this reason should availe against circumcision , seeing the males of eight dayes old could not be discerned to be the spiritual seed . And I insist that it was not then needfull , that then they should be discerned to be the spiritual seed , for that carnal seal of that carnal covenant , it was ynough for investing of them with that carnal and typical seal that they were the carnal & typical seed , and that they were Israelites or proselyts &c.

Your answer stands upon a false ground , confuted before , I have proved pag. 12. 13. that circumcision is a holy seal of the covenant in Christ , and that your carnal covenant is a devise of your owne . And where you call the Isralites the carnall and typical seed , I have answered and do again say , that though they may be called carnal in respect of their natural generation , or in regard of the infirmities hanging upon them , or some of them termed carnal , in respect of their evil works : yet the bodie of the Israelites considered as they were a body and children of the covenant , were a spiritual seed and holy ; And it was needful that they should be so , els had not † † Rom. 9 ▪ 5. Psal. ● 16. - 21. the holy things of God belonged unto them , or they pleased God in their slanding .

And shew me that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised , but to be a male . But in the new Testament it is taught , 1. that Christ the male must be in us . and 2. that there must be circumcision of the hart . & 3. that wee must attayn to & learn al that the schoolmaster of the old Testament could teach us , before we can be baptised .

I answer , that the Lord required as much of them that were to be circumcised as of them that are to be baptised , of the infants both of the Iewes and Christians , God requires onely that they be the seed of the faithful : but for such as were of yeares and without the church , as under the Gospel they are to turne from sinne and professe their fayth in Iesus Christ , that require baptisme : so likewise before Christ , was the case of Abraham himself , & such of the Gentiles as would be circumcised , were to * * Exo. 1● 48. Este● 17. Esra . ● 21. Ac● 27. renounce their hethenish and idolatrous worship , and to professe the true God of Israel and his religion . In Ester it is sayd many became Iewes , that is , addicted themselves to the religion of the Iewes , which is to celebrate or confesse the Lord , these were called “ “ Ac● proselytes , which signifies a stranger coming and converted to their manner of religion , as the Eunuch & such like . And it is not to be doubted , that the Iewes would ever admit into their communion , and to administer circumcision unto a Gentile , that did not renounce his heathnishnes and professe their fayth : seeing † † Ex. 12 . one law was to them that were borne in the land , and to the stranger that dwelled amongst them , & therefore as much required of them that were to joyne to the Church of the old Testament , as is now of them that wil ioyne to the Church of the new . And so I hav shewed you that more was required of them that were circumcised , then to be a male : for every one must be a professor , or the child of a professor : & so much is required concerning baptisme & no more . And to your particulers , I answer that these things were also required of the Israelites . Concerning the two former ; infants both have Ch. & wer & are circumcised in hart , in that they are partakers of the covenant of grace● & we are to hold them partakers of Christs benefits . Mat. 19. 13. 14. For the third point , that we must learne what the schoolmaster of the old Testament doth teach . It is for such as are of yeares , and was required of the Israelites , and not of us onely , as the writings of Moses and the Prophets do shew . And where you say , this must be done of al before they can be baptised , it is your addition which you can never prove .

Moreover if you by old Testament , do mean the writings of Moses & the Prophets then can not we † learne al that they can teach us whylest we live Cor. 13. ● . ( unlesse you dream of perfection with the Familists ) and so by your doctrine shal not be baptised . But if by old Testament you mean Moses administration , Heb. 8. 9. ●3 . Gal. 3 , 25. it is * abrogated ; and seing “ fayth is come , we are not under that schoolmaster to be taught by such legal types and ceremonies , as were the Iewes . And so your doctrine is false howsoever it be understood .

And whereas you wonder at me and at your self that we could not see so evident a truth al this tyme : for myne owne part I saw ( I thank God ) long since , and stil do see your evident truth , ( as you cal it ) to be a manifest Act. 13. 10 error . And further I see that God hath given you over to † p●rvert the right wayes of the Lord , and to be the leader of others into heresie , and so for just cause , known to himself , blynded your eyes , and hardened your hart . This is that great comfortable state that now you stand in , God in his mercy deliver you forth of it .

To the 2. particular of my Answer to your reason , you thus reply .

1. Your distinction is without warrant , and I deny that Infants of the faythful ▪ are to be considered in these two respects . And whereas you bring , Gen. 17. 7 & 1 C●r. 7. 14. to prove the latter part of your distinction , I have answered these two places alreadie , shewing your false exposition of them &c.

And these two places of scripture I have likewise formerly proved to stand with my exposition , where it wil appear that this is but a calumniation of yours , and that my exception is not frivilou● . For first you wil not deny that the children of the faythfull , are carnall in respect of their naturall berth , & then being proved within the covenant , in that regard they must ● Cor. 7. 14 needs be spiritual , and as the Apostl● calleth them * holy .

To the third particular of my Answer you reply saying :

The sacrament of baptisme is prophaned when it is administred upon a wrong subi●ct , as to give the Lords supper to an infant of two yeares old , so to baptise an infant is ●●phanation , &c.

That to baptise an infant is a prophanation of baptisme , I deny , and by sundry reasons I have proved the contrarie , shewing that infants are not a wrong subject , but a right subject for baptisme . As for the Lords supper , the institution and use of it and the actions & duties required of them , that eat and drink at that table shew it to be otherwise for the not giving of it to infants . But you say ,

As profession of fayth shal intitle any man to al the ordinances of the Church , and f●rst to baptisme . So absence of confession of fayth shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the church in communion . And afterward , you say , Although I dare not say this or that infant is not under the election of God , yet I dare say , that never an infant in the earth is actually seazed of the new Testament which is onely attayned by confession of sinne and of fayth , &c. Mar. 1. 15 Ioh. 3. 3. Eph. 3. 17. &c.

To this I have answered before and have shewed that profession of fayth is required of such as were never of the church , and that with them , their seed enters in also : but that absence of confession shal debarre every one from the orrdinances of the church , can never be proved , seing there is not a like reason of persons without , and of infants borne in the church . Also , I have shewed that infants are actually seazed of the new Testament according to the ●enure of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed , I mean so actually seazed , as we are to repute them children of the covenant . And here also , I mynd , that al infants to you stand in the state of condemnation , this is your Gospel , contrary to Gen: 17. 7. Act. 2 , 39. & 3 , 25. Gal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 14.

Concerning the Scriptures , which you alledge , I answer , first , that all Mar. ● three places are applyed to them of yeares . secondly , in Mar. 1. 15. the Evangelist setts down in breif the summe of Christs doctrine , the unfolding thereof doth reach to the faythful and their seed , as by his own action Iohn . 3. ● appeareth . Mat. 19. 13. 13. Mar , 10. 14. In Ioh. 3. 3. Christ speakes of regeneration : without which none can enter into the kingdome of God and he speakes to Nicodemus that was a member of the Iewish church , into which , as also into the visible Churches under the new Testament , many did and may enter into , with outward confession onely , as did Simon Magus , though their harts be not regenerate . And therefore this scripture speaking of that grace of God which is imvisible , is not fitly alleadged for this purpose , where we are to judge of members of the church , not as they stand so before God in his secret counsel , but as they externally appear to us within Gods covenant , by their confession , or otherwise .

That of Ephes. 3 , 17. is also spoken to them that were of yeares , who ●h. 3 , 17. being beleevers , they & theirs were Christs , of whom is named the whol● familie in heaven and in earth . Esa. 3. 14. 15. & of this scripture also is spoken before .

Though infants could hear and beleeve , it is nothing to me , except they can shew me their fayth , I say therefore that al infants are carnal to me . Rom. 9. 8.

If you be not carnal to your self also , it is wel . But thus you confesse that you have no word of God that children can be saved . The scripture requires confession , ( as I have sayd ) of persons growen to yeares which are to enter into the Church , not of their Infants . It was required of the Gaylor himself that he should beleeve , and the promise was that † he and all Act. 16. ●1. ●●ck . 19 , ● . 8. 9. his howse should be saved . And Zacheus receiving Christ , and professing his repentance , Iesus sayd to him , * this day is salvation come to this howse ▪ Note , he sayth not onely salvation is come to him but to his howse . And he adds a reason thereof , forasmuch as he is also become the sonne of Abraham . And therefore as want of confession in Zacheus Familie , in Lidias , Stephanas &c. hindered not salvation to come to their howses , no more shal it hinder any other families of the faythful .

Touching that of Rom. 9. 8. which you alleadge to prove that infants ●m. 9. 8. are carnal , I have expounded before pag. 63. & have shewed that it makes not for your purpose . And where you tel me that I sayd , that every infant of Abraham , and so of the faythful was borne spiritual as wel as carnal , and that here the Apostle is contrarie to my aser●ion : Although being well understood it may so be sayd , yet this was that I sayd : that I did thus conceive of the seed of the faythful , that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects . And so I say still , nether doth this scripture contradict it : for those that the Apostle calls children of the flesh , he meanes not thereby al the circumcised , but such of them as became carnal by their works , as those in Ioh. 8. 44. and such as for their unbeleif were rejected and “ broken off from the olive tree , until ●ō . 11. 20 which tyme they are to be held the children of the covenant , so was Iudas accounted of , & by his fellow disciples to be one of them , although God in his secret counsel know them for none of his . And so Paul doth not deny the natural sonnes of Abraham to be accounted his spiritual seed in respect of Gods covenant , but that of * * Ioh. ● 41. 37. these so externally estemed , there were of them carnal sonnes , manifesting themselves in tyme through unbeleef to have been in shew that they were not in deed , as Iohn speaketh † † 1 Ioh. ● of the hypocrites of his tyme. And thus these impossible contra●ictions as you cal them , are easily reconciled .

And where I sayd , that children of the flesh can never be the children of the promise , in that sense as the Apostle opposeth the one to the other ▪ Rom. ● , 8. 13. You answer , that al the children of the Jewes were borne according to the fl●sh , Gal. 4. 23 , 24 , 25. and so were carnal , and so are the children of the faythful , and yet as many of the Iewes were afterward regenerate , so many of the infants of the faythful may prove children of the promise , but I confesse that Esau can never be Iacob , &c.

If you wil thus understand , being borne according to the flesh , and so being carnal , you speak not to the Apostles meaning . And Abraham Isaac and Iaacob & al the faythful are so borne , as you intend , of which point I have spoken before . And I have already answered to “ “ pag. 14. Gal. 4. 2● 24. 25. that place of Gal , 4. 23 , - 25. that by that allegorie is described two sorts of children , whereof the one seeks by the workes of the law to be justified , the other by the covenant in Christ , seek after salvation through fayth in him , typed out by the two mothers and their two sonnes . Now take this scripture in his true sense , and it can not be gathered from hence , that eyther al the children of the Iewes were thus borne after the flesh , and in this sense to be called carnal as the Apostle meaneth , nor yet that the children of the faythful are thus to be held of us , to be carnal : For they seek not by workes , justification , and therefore makes not themselves children of the bond-woman , I mean of the covenant of works , or of the law : for this falleth ●ut by an action of the parties themselves , that refuse the doctrine of free justification by fayth , and seek salvation by the law . And this is that the Apostle reproves the Galathians for , because † † Gal. 3. 3● after they had begunne in the spirit , they would be made perfect by the flesh .

Carnal corruption doth hinder infants from baptisme , more then men of yeares , because men of yeares make confession of their sinnes and their ●ayth , and so declare their mortification and regeneration , but infants can not , or do not so at al to us , and so with them we have nothing to doe .

But the covenant of God hath to doe with them , and therefo●e we also , if we wil walke according to it . Also your comparison is not equ●l , for infants nede not to make such confession of their sinnes and fayth , as men of yeares are to do , seing they are already to vs within the covenant of God .

2. The Scripture gives nether precept not example to require an actuall confession of their fayth of al that are baptised , except of such as are of yeares and to be added to the Church : but † examples of the contrary . ● Cor. 1 ▪ ● . Act. 16. ● . 31. 33. And therefore to make a general rule of such particulers : thereby to exclude the seed of the faithful , is contrary to the meaning of the Scripture .

But where as I did affirme , that natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men beleeving , you answer , That I cannot defend that without the opinion of vniversal redemption ; And then if all infants of the faithful being delivered from their natural corruption , may therefore be baptised , then all infants partakers of the same benefite shal be baptised , even the infants of the Turkes .

As concerning that opinion of general redemption , I reiect as an error : but as touching the imputing of natural corruption to infants ; thus I mean ▪ that as the children of the faithful are to vs within Gods covenant , as wel as their parents , because of the promise made to the faithful and their seed : So of vs they are to be estemed of , as pertakers of the promise , whereof * Heb. 10 17 the not imputing of sinne is one . But whereas you would inferre herevpon that infants of the Turkes partakers of the same benifit , may therefore be baptised as wel as the infants of beleevers , I deny that eyther they are partakers of the same benyfite ( I meane the covenant in Christ ) or may be baptised , if their parents come not to the fayth ; because they are not visibly knowen to vs to be of the covenant , as the infants of the faithfull are . And the Church is not to administer baptisme but to those that are children of the covenant visibly apparant . As for condemning or not condemning , I leave to God . That which I speak of , is touching our question about the administration of baptisme , that it appertaines onely to members of the Church and to such as come out of the world to be ioyned vnto it . And seing the infants of vnbeleevers to vs appeere not to be of the kingdome of Christ , because their parents remayne stil in infidelity , we cannot acknowledg them , nether have we any rule to admit them , vnles some beleever make them his children by adoption , or the like . And we refuse them as not belonging to the visible communion of the faithful as yet , and there ●e rest , without further searching into Gods secreet counsel . And thus I hope the scruple which you say remayneth is removed .

To the 4. particuler of my answere , you reply : That the external scale of that external covenant was perticulerly inioyned by God , and the knowledg of the reprobation of Esau and Ismael did not hinder it . But now seing we have ●o expresse commaundement for baptising of infants , but &c.

Circumcision the seale of the covenant of grace was † † Gen. 17. ● 12. Mat. 2● . 19. commaunded to every member of the Church , and so is baptisme now as before is proved .

Concerning Ismael and Esau , that their parents had knowledg of their ●eprobation and yet did circumcise them . 1. I do not find that that secreete was reveiled vnto them .

2. Christ knew that Iudas was reproved , yet eate he the passeover with him . The administration of the Sacraments is according to mens outward standing , & not according to election : & therefore the parents ought to circumcise them of their houshold , according as the Lord had commaunded . And as Abraham did know that God would establishe his covenant to Isaac ; so he knew also , that it should be in Christ that should discend of * * Gal. 3. 1● Isaacks line and not of Ismaels , in whom not onely Isaac and his posterity , but al the “ “ Gal. 3. 8. nations of the earth should be blessed : yea Ismael , if he beleeved , and so many of his stocke as should beleeve . And so the promise concerning Christ to come was to be fulfilled in the seed of Isaac and not of Ismael or Esau . As touching Ismaels & Esaus state , is before spoken of . And thus much concerning this first Position . For where you say , we have no expresse commaundement for baptising of infants , and al that followes to the end of this question , is answered before , yet I wil note this here , that you end this point with a notable vntruth saying . That we have an expresse commaundement & many examples to the contrary of baptising of infants . For there is neither any commaund ▪ ment to forbid it , nor any example to the contrary , agaynst it , as I have shewed before .

OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptising of Elder People . 〈…〉

2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme .

Answer .

AS the former Position denyeth the baptisig of infants : so doth this adnihilate that Baptisme which we hav received in the Apostate Church , and establisheth rebaptization . And this also I will shew to be an error by proving the contrarie , and then answer the Reasons hereunto annexed .

That baptisme administred in the apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptisme not to be iterated , thus I prove it .

I. Argument .

If the Apostacie of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that that it ceased to be the seal of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented : no more doth the Apostasie of our fore-Elders so polute baptisme , that it ceaseth to be a sacrament to so many of them that turne unto God from their sinnes .

But the first is true . 2 Chron. 30. 11. 18. 21. els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierusalem have eaten the Passeover , seing no uncircumcised might eat thereof . Ergo the second .

If it be obiected that the apostasie is not alike them let it be shewed that the apostasie under Antichrist did make a nullitie of baptism , & not the apostasie of Israel of circumcision : for Israel played the harlot so deeply , that the Lord denyed her to be his wife , or himself to be her husband . Hose. 2. 2.

Mr Smyth .

And thus having shewed the vanitie of your answeres to my reasons against ●swer . paedobaptistrie , let us come to your answere made to my 2. Position .

2. That Antichristians converted , &c. Your first Argument is framed thus . If the apostasie of Israel , &c. I answer that the apostasie of Antichrist is deeper then the apostasie of Israel , for first Antichristians are not called Israelites , but Babylonias , Egyptians , Sodomites , Gentiles , in the Revelation , whereby the holy spirit of wisedome giveth vs to conceive , that he doth account the apostasie of Antichrist equ●● to Paganisme it self , &c.

Rich: Clifton .

Whether my answers be vaine , or your reasons haeretical , let the reader ●ply . judge . For your answer to this my first Argument against your second Position , if it be graunted that the Apostasie of Antichrist be worse then of Israel , yet this difference is but according to the lesse & the greater , both are Apostasie . But as concerning these names of Sodomites , &c. they do not prove that Antichristianisme is equalled to Paganisme : rather they shew that the Antichristians were in some things like to the Sodomites , Aegyptians , &c. Was Iuda her circumcision voyd because the Prophet calles ●a . 1. 10. their Princes , * the Princes of Sodome , & the people the people of Gomorah ? If this had bene so , they must haue bene new circumcised . Know you not that the holy Ghost by these similitudes would manifest some abhominable sinne that he saw in his people wherein they became like unto the profane Gentiles ? And the more to cause them to detest their sinne , likeneth them to such notorious sinners , as had tasted of the hand of God against them for their sinnes . Wherefore as Iudah for her uniust shedding of blood and other filthy sinnes is called Sodome and Gomorah : So the Antichristians are called Sodome , for their filthy sinne of Sodomitrie , and such like , wherein they become like to the Sodomites : and Egypt and Babylon , because they keep Gods people under a spirituall servitude , as formerly Egypt and Babylon had done the Israelites and Iewes under a corporal bondage . And the Antichristians , if they be compared to the Gentiles ( which I do not remember ) it is in respect of their profanenes and strange Gods : for as the Gentiles had many Gods , to whom they gave spiritual worship : so the Antichristians have their Gods , Saincts of both sexes , and the Angels to whom they do worship and service . Notwithstanding all this their profanesse , yet did they confesse God and Iesus Christ to be their saviour , and worshipped him ( though corruptly ) professed also many of his truthes , which neither the Sodomites , Egyptians , Babylonians or Gentiles did : And therefore are not comparable with the heathen in all respects , much lesse to be held the worst kind of Paganisme . For in Paganisme , it was never heard that God had his people , yet in Antichristian Babylon , the spirit witnesseth that he hath his people amongst them , and so many truthes of God are therein taught , as thereby Gods elect do come to some knowledge of God , and to faith : so can none do in Paganisme , by any doctrine there taught

2. I declare playnly the difference between the Apostasie of Antichrist and Israel A●● . in this , that Israels apostasie did not destroy the true constitution of the Church ; but Antichrists apostasie did rase the true Apostolike constitution . For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or proselytes circumcised , and so long as they reteyned circumcision in the Land of Canaan , they reieyned a true constitution though there apostasie was never so great , &c.

This which you say , is a playne difference , is none at all , it is your false Re. ground that deceaves you . The reason of your difference wil not hold , for if reteyning of circumcision preserved the constitution of the Church of the old Testament , though their apostasie was never so great , as you say it did : then should the reteyning of baptisme in the greatest apostasie , preserve the Churches constitution under the new testament : but this you deny , ergo the other can not stand : Seing baptisme by your owne confession * * Char 〈…〉 in the pr●f● is the constition of the Church under the Gospel , as circumcision was of the old Church : Now if this be true doctrine which you teach , I pray you shew us some reason why Apostasie more raseth the constitution of the Church now , then it did under the law : for circumcision was as corruptly administred by the apostate Israelites , as baptisme is by the Antichristians . But your iudgement of the Churches constitution fayles you , in holding the Sacraments to be the constitution thereof , 〈◊〉 them appertayne vnto it , yet can they not be counted the whole constitution of the Church . And if this should be granted you , it would follow , that if Israels constitution was carnal ( for circumcision you say was carnal ) so should the constitution of the Church of the new testament be carnal also : seing baptisme is an external ordinance as well as circumcision was , and both alike carnal in that respect . And therefore you must eyther renounce this opinion , or els grant that the constitution of the Church of the old Testament was spiritual , & then all your building is overthrown .

But to prove that Israel reteyned a true constitution in their apostacie , you alledge Hosea the fourth , saying ; Though their apostasy was never so great th● their worship ministerie and government , as it is to be seen in Hosea , 4. 6. 8. 12. yet they reteyned a true constitution so long as they reteyned circumcision in the land of Canaan .

I answer , although the Lord call Israel his people , he doth it in regard of his covenant formerly made to their forefathers , & not in respect of their present outward estate . The Prophet sayth , There shall be like people like Preist . And in verse 12. they are charged to go a whoring from under their God . How can this people be sayd to stand in a true constitution or covenant with God , that went a whoring from under their God ? Hath Rome done any more then this ? the people * perished for want of knowledge , Hose. 4. 6 and the Lord reiected their Ministers from being his ; because they refused Hose. 4. 12 knowledge . The Israelites did † ask counsel at their stocks , and the spirit of fornication caused them to erre , & they sacrificed to strange Gods , &c. ●hron . 13 ● King . ● 31. ●hr . 11. 14 ● Chron. ●● . ●ers . 8. & ●rse 9. “ Ieroboam drove away the true Prophets , & placed Preists after his own devise . Israel set up an other governement and * refused the governement of the Lord , † had a false ministerie and worship . What more can be sayd of Rome , then is here sayd of Apostate Israel ? And what though the Prophet Abijah did not charge Israel with a false constitution , but with the other particulars before mentioned : yet that sufficeth to declare that they had broken covenant with God , which , what is it els , but to depart from their primitive constitution . Needs a man to say any more to prove that a wise hath violated the bond of mariage , but that she hath played the whore , and foloweth other lovers ? and so much have the Prophets testifyed of Israel . ● Chro. 15 Azariah beareth witnes against Israel thus ; † now for a long season Israel hath bene without the true God , & without Preist to teach , and without law . And this was ●n the tyme of Asa king of Iuda . Also Eliah complayneth † † ● 〈◊〉 10. that the children of Israel have forsaken the covenant of the Lord : and this was in the dayes of Ahab , now it cannot be that they that had forsaken Gods covenant could be a true constituted Church , so continuing , & also , which were without God and without his Law &c.

C●n you say more agaynst the Antichristians ? and them you deny to be a true Church , and yet you iustify Israel withal her abhominations : but let vs consider furder of the difference you make between Israel and Antichristianisme : you saye .

That Antichrist hath not onely set vp a false government &c. but also a false constitution Ans. of the Church , for whereas the true Apostolike constitution was of baptised Disciples that confessed theire sins and their fayth , he hath foysted in a false matter of ● Church , viz. infants and persons vnbaptised , and so a false forme , &c.

I answere , 1. that the Apostolike constitution did not shut out the children Re. of beleevers , as I have formerly proved . 2. I iustify neither the matter nor forme of Antichrists Church , neither their ministerie worship nor government , they have in all these corrupted the wayes of God . But the falshood you tax them of in their matter & form , is the baptising of infants , otherwise if they had baptised persons confessing their sinnes , &c. theire constitution had bene with you Apostolike : such a deadly feud have you against infants , that to admit them to baptisme makes a false Church . For the lawfulnes of baptising children you may be satisfyed before , if the eye sight of your soule be not quite put out .

Your saying that infants are no more capable of baptisme , then is a foole or mad-man or pagan , Argues in you the want of spirituall wisdome , but that which you drive at , in this your bitternes against infants is to prove , That the Church of Antichrist is constituted of a false matter , viz , infants uncapable of baptisme , and a false forme , viz. infants vnable to enter into the new Testament &c. And therefore to be as Pagans or Gentiles in the Lords account ; and to iustifie Apostate Israel reteyning circumcision to be a true Church . For your pleading against the adulteries of Rome I dislike not : but by these your Arguments , & manner of pleading , you shall never convince her , or ever be able to justifie that adulterous Church of Israel : neither wil this your reason stand good . That circumcision in the Israelites Apostasie was true , because it was performed vpon carnal Israelites or proselytes the 8. day . And that baptisme in Popery is false and in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing , &c. for as much may be sayd for baptisme administred to the apostate Church of Antichrist , as yo● can say for circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel . And all that can be sayd is this , that neither of them both is in deed capable , in that standing : For the sacraments belong to the members of a true Church , not to apostates . But if to be circumcised the 8. day prove that Israels circumcision was true in her Apostacy ; what letteth the circumcision of the Edomites and Ismaelites to be true also , they keeping the 8. day , seing they were of the seed of Abraham . The right of circumcision belonged to the children of the promise which was made to Abraham in Christ : And therfore when any of Rom. 2. 5. 2 Chro. 30 ●-11 . Abrahams seed did cut off themselves by infidelitie , their † circumcision became vncircumcision : on the contrary , circumcision , though administred in Apostacy vnto infants , yea * those coming to yeares and seeking the Lord , their circumcision was then profitable to them . And so is baptisme in like manner to them that receive it in apostate Churches , when they by repentance shall returne to God . But you drive all to this yssue , that not the profanes of the apostasie , but the fittines of the subiect makes the sacrament true or false . That infants are as fit subiects for baptisme , as the infants under the law , for circumcision , I haue proved in the former part of this writing .

Your third answer . 3. I declare that Israel was the true church of God , or a member Answ. of a true Church , though infinitely corrupt as wel as Iuda in the dayes of her apostasie , &c. and therefore if Iudah reteyned true circumcision in her apostasie &c. surely the circumcision of Israel was also true .

This is strange that Israel can be a true Church , & yet infinitely corrupt , can ●●l . a wife be a true wife & also a harlot ? thus you may as wel iustify Rome & all Antichristian assemblies . The holy ghost calleth both * Aholah and Aholibah Ezech. 23 harlots : and you in their infinite corruptions instifye them to be true Churches , and particularly of Israel the Lord sayth , † plead with your Hose. 2. 2. mother for she is not my wife . And you say , she was a true Church , that is , a true wife , directly contradicting the holy Ghost . But you reason , If Iudah retayned true circumcision in her apostasie , then Israell , &c.

Then if eyther Iuda her circumcision was false , or that your comparison is not equall , your argument is of no forse . The sacraments seale up Gods covenant to his people walking in his wayes , and not to them when they fall from the faith . That of Hosea . 2. 2. alledged by some is you say , to Prove Israel a false Church you thus answer unto . Hosea . ●

I say it was after the Passeover of Ezechias which was in the first yeare of his reigne . 2 Chron. 29. 3. 14. and 30. 2. and the bill of divorce was given the sixt ●re of his reigne , 2 King . 17. 23. compared with 2 King . 18. 10. yet notwithstanding Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophecied of the bill of divorce ●● be given her . Hose. 4. 6. 8. 12. &c.

Concerning the time of Hosea his prophesie , when he sayd , plead with 〈◊〉 mother , &c. I take it was in the dayes of Vzziah king of Iuda and about the * * Perki● Specimen ● &c. pag. 3 † 2. Kin● 17. 23. 23. yeare of his reigne , which was almost 60. yeres before Ezechias began to reigne , and before the Lord † put Israel out of his sight . Now so long before the prophet was bidden to tel Israel that she was not the Lords wife . This being so , I would know how you or any can iustify Israel to be a true church , when the Lord denyes her ? she had broken covenant , & her divorcement ( as you call it ) argues as much : for men put from them wives that had broken the band of mariage , and not true wives .

To that of Hosea , 4. 6. 8. 12. I have answered , pag. 152. Furthermore you say , when the bil of divorce was given , divers of Is●ael kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme and went yeerly to Ierusalem .

I doubt thereof no more then you , according to these scriptures , 2. Chron. 34. 6. 7. 31. 32. 33. and 35. 18. and 30. 11. but we reason of the face of that Church , as it stood in apostasie and so continued , and not of particular persons . In Babylon god hath his ; yet the face of that Church of ANTICHRIST is apostate and false to the LORD . And so we say of Israel , that if we respect the outward face of it , it was a false Church to God long before Samaritanisme began ▪ And here I observe that you agree not with your self , for here you say , no manner of sinne made the Church of the old testament , a false Church : and yet you call it apostate , as also you do the like in your Paralels . pag. 14. and 26. And it is as much as we say of it : for that people that are fallen into ▪ apostasie have broken faith and covenant with God . And if in any place we call Israel or Antichrists , a false Church , we meane no other , but a Church that hath unfaithfully departed from the LORD , and so continues in Apostasie .

II. Argument .

BAbylon in Chaldea ( which was a type of spirituall Babylon , Reve. 18. 2. ) though she did abuse and profane the vessels of the Lord , Dan. 5. 3. yet did not that make a nullitie of them , that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lord , but were brought with them of the captivitie that came up from Babylon , to Ierusalem . Ezra . 1. 11. Even so although spiritual Babylon have profaned the holy things of God , as baptisme & the rest , yet remaine they still Gods ordinances to all them that come out of her , Rev. 18. 4. and returne to the celestiall Ierusalem . And as these vessels of the house of the Lord need not to be new cast , because of Babels polluting them : no more is baptisme to be iterated to the people of God , because it passed through the polluted hands of the Papists .

If it be objected , that they that administered baptisme in Babilon were Idolaters and had no calling therevnto : I answere , that they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters , & so standing in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods holy ordinances . And that the wanting of a lawfull calling to administer the Sacrament , makes not a nullitie thereof , the circumcising of Moses sonne by his mother Zippora , Exo. 4. 25. doth playnly teach : For as the Lord makes effectuall his word to his people though coming vnto them by the hands of a false Ministery : so doth he baptisme to al that be his , though administered by them that have not a lawful calling therevnto . The sin of the Minister makes not a nullitie eyther of the word or Sacraments , els should the efficacy of the word an●●acraments depend vpon him that administreth them ; which is no● so : for both have their effect from the Lord Esay . 55. 11 :

If agayne it be obiected that baptis●e was not administred in the Apostate Church of Antichrist to a fit subiect . I answere , that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receive baptisme , as the infants of Israel in the tyme of Ieroboam & Ahab were to receave circumcision : seing the covenant of Abraham ( after the coming of Christ ) belonged as properly to the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. as before it did to the Israelites .

Mr Smyth .

I answere many things . 1. this Argument is an excellent argument for the retayning Ans. of idol Temples , the worship , government , ministerie of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England , &c.

Rich: Clifton

This Argument is not so excellent for idol Temples , &c. as you pretend . Re. For how can you reason from the ordinances of God to iustify the devises of men ? wil it follow , that because the vessels of the Lord , his sacraments and ordinances ( though polluted in apostaticall Churches , or by the profane Babylonians ) may be restored to the right use , for which God ordeyned them , therefore so to reason , justifies the inventions of men devised to religious vses ? you may shew your wit in composing of your Argument . But with all you answer . That baptisme of theirs was never appointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist .

Antichrist devised no new baptisme , but polluted the Lords ordinance ordayned by God .

2. I answer that the vessels of the Lords house were his owne ordinances , & therfore An. need not to be new cast . But the baptisme of Antichrist is not the Lords owne ordinance &c.

Baptisme reteyned in the Churches of Antichrist is as much the Lords Re. ordinance , as the vessels of the Temple were in Babylon , and therefore nedes no more to be new cast , then they . But you distinguishe betwene the vessels of the Lords house and baptisme , thus . That they were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the Lords appointment : but the baptisme of the Lord is a compound or concreete ordinance limitted in certayn essential p 〈…〉 lars , not being a substance , but an accident in definition . Now if Antichrist h●● reteyned the essentiall parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated , &c but ● is salse , ● neither ●tter nor ●●e ● inven● by An●rist , but ●ng the or ●anc● of ●d were ●uted . seing baptisme in Poperie is not the Lords ordinance but Antichrists invention , * the matter and forme being invented by Antichrist , the matter being a carnal infant , the forme washing one into the covenant and cannot consent to the covenant or baptising , without a contract , and sealing to the covenant &c.

Here you confesse that if the essentiall partes of baptisme be reteyned in Popery , it is not to be repeated . But you make question about the parts , affirming that both matter and forme of baptisme in Popery is invented by Antichrist : you saye so , but proves it not . Concerning the matter , it is before shewed , that infants are capable of baptisme , not as they be natural and borne in sinne , but as they are the seed of the faithful , & therefore being the † children of God , and of the “ covenant , are not in that respect carnal matter , but spiritual . As for the forme , which you say , is the washing of one into the covenant which cannot consent . I answere , that the forme ●zech. 16 ● . 21. Act. 2. 39 ●3 . 25. of baptisme doth not any more stand in the Actual consent of the parties baptised , then the forme of circumcision did consist in the assenting of the party circumcised : for there is alike reason of the form of these two sacraments , and therefore as infants of the Iewes were circumcised , notwithstanding by reason of their age they could not consent to that action : So infants of beleevers may be baptised , especially seing they are but patients in this Mat. 2● Action . This is the Lords ordinance , to † baptise the beleever and his seed with water , into the name of the Father , and of the Sonne , and of the holy Ghost . And of this are infants capable .

As for sealing to the covenant , it is already proved that the Lord sealeth his covenant to infants . And for their sealing to the Lord , they do as much , as at that age is required , or was required of the infants of the Iewes circumcised . Nether is there baptisme without a contract , for the Lord hath made his covenant with the faithfull and their seed . For the Scripture describeth true baptisme thus : The matter must be one , that confesseth his faith and his sinns one that is regenerate and borne againe . The form must be a voluntary deliverance vp of the party baptised into the name of the Father , Sonne and holy Ghost , by washing with water . Mat. 28. 19. and 3. 6. Joh. 4. 1. Act. 2. 14. and 8. 36. 27. with Rom. 6. ●-6 . where there must be a mutual consent of both persons contracting together . And that this is so , the forme of baptisme retayned in Popery , yet teacheth &c.

That the matter of baptisme ( as you terme it ) or subject , must necessarily be one alwayes that confesseth his fayth and synnes , al that you have said Re. hitherto , hath not proved it : the scripture sayth it not : and the contrary is confirmed before , viz. that infants are to be baptised , although they can not make actual profession of their fayth , & to us they are partakers of remission of synns and regeneration : seing they are in the covenant .

2. Concerning the forme of baptisme , I confesse it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water into the name of the Father &c. but your voluntarie deliverance up of the partie baptised , to make that action a part of the forme of baptisme , al the scriptures you cyte , proves it not . we confesse that such as are of yeares must voluntarily offer up themselves to be baptised , and so were they that were to be circumcised : notwithstanding the infants that could not do this , were also circumcised , & so must our infants be baptised . The Lord sayd to his Ministers , baptise , but sayd not let every one that is baptised offer himself voluntarily thereunto , as he doth in the Lords supper , say , take eat &c. it is otherwise in baptisme , wherein the baptised are not agents , but onely patients : God thus disposing that the infants of the faithful might be capable thereof , & sealed up for the Lords , as wel as their parents . And it is to be noted , that the desiring or offering to receiv baptisme , is an action differing from the thing desired , & so not a part of the same . As for your mutual consent of both persons contracting together , it must be understood , of God with the faythfull & their seed , for such was the contract or covenant making with Abraham , which continues stil in force to al beleevers & their seed : & this precedeth baptisme , & is no part of the external forme thereof . Gen. 17. 1 , 7. &c. Act. 2 , 39.

And for that forme of baptising in poperie , with credis & credo , &c. which others speak for the Infant , declaring ( as you say ) that there must needs be a mutual contract &c. You know very wel how it is continued upon a blynd custome & imitation , because such as were to be received into the church in the primitive tymes , and to be baptised , being of yeares , did make confession of their fayth , & answered to such interrogatories as were demanded of them concerning the same . This the papists apply to infants , the questions being answered by the godfathers who ar sayd to be brought in by Higinus before whose time , the parents presented their children to be baptised . This corrupt custome & apish imitation , your self hath condemned . Yet now having cast off baptisme it self , you scrape in the filthye Dungehill of Poperie to advantage your selfe against the truth , whose practise you know condemnes your opinion of not baptising of infants . If Yf therefore you wil crave their testimony for your forme of baptisme , why dispise you theire witnes of baptising of infants , which is the matter . And thus much for answer to your description of baptisme .

Now concerning the outward ceremony of baptisme , the Scripture Mat. 3. 11. 16. ●ar . 1. 10 Act. 8. 38 Mat 28. ● . ● . Jo. 1. 7 Act. 2. 38 ● . 3. 19. Gal. 3. 27 Rom 6. 3 ● Col. 2. 12 ● . 3. 5. 6. thus teacheth , that the element in this sacrament is * water onely , the forme of administring thereof , Christ commaunded thus , † baptise them into the name of the father and of the sonne & of the holy ghost . This is that which the Lord hath instituted , whereby he would signify and seale unto his people “ the remission of their sinnes , * and the ingraffing into Christ , † the mortification of the old man and renuing of the spirit . This is the substance of this ceremony , and is found to be stil retayned in the Apostate Churches . And therefore , although it hath bene polluted by the hands of Apostates , as the vessels of the Temple were by the Babylonians , and by adding of humane inventions , yet is it in substance that which Christ ordeyned in his Church , neither the element nor forme of administration changed , and therefore not to be iterated . Your third answer .

3. I answer that if the Antichristians had baptised persons confessing their sinnes & their faith into the name of the sonne of God and the Trinitie , it had been true baptisme , though in the hands of the Antichristians , &c.

First , you confesse then , that the apostasie of Antichrist is not so great , but that in the papal Churches there may be true baptisme , not to be iterated . That they baptised with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy ghost , can not be denyed , all that you except against , is the administring of it to infants ; & so this second question is answered in the former : for if the infants are to be baptised , then stands their baptisme good without repeating which they have in Apostate Churches .

Lastly , where I sayd , that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament made not a nullitie thereof , instancing the circumcision of the Israelites by Apostats , and of Zippora her circumcising of her sonne , you answere saying .

1 What say you to Cyprian and al that counsel of learned Bishops who concluded that baptisme of Heretiks was a nullitie and decreed rebaptising .

This I answer , that if Cyprian and those learned Bishops did erre what is that to this purpose ; for those examples that I have alledged are such as are recorded by the holy ghost to be done , not by such as had lawful calling , and yet stood without recircumcising . But suppose Cyprian & those Bishops found that some were baptised by Hereticks and not in the name of the Trinitie , ( for seing some denyed the Deitie of Christ , some his humanitie , others held other errors about the Trinitie : It is not like that they would observe the true forme of baptisme , but some strange forme of their owne devise ; as some report ( how truly I know not ) that you baptise your selves into the fayth of the new Testament . ) And so decreed not rebaptising , but baptising of them that were not before baptised with Christs baptisme . Indeed it is recorded by some , that the Novatians , Arrians , Aetians & Donatists , did as you do , rebaptise those that fell to their errors , which had been baptised before into the name of the Trinitie . Lastly , if Cyprian & those Bishops did erre about this poynt of rebaptising , as in some others they did , I am no patron of their errors .

2 , I say , that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church and Antichrists Ans. baptisme was in a false , and that is a dissimilitude .

That Israel in her Apostasie was not a true church , I have shewed before : how you in this disagree with your self , here I wil set down your own Re. words in your book of Paralels &c. against M. Barnard . pag. 14. thus you write . A church falsely constituted ( as in the old Testament was the apostate church of the 10. Tribes , and in the new Testament is the Church of Antichrist ) is such a communion of men , where to God hath not given the covenant , the holy things , the promises , Christ for King , Priest and Prophet . &c.

Also in pag. 26. of the same book , you answering such as plead that they have the Word , Sacraments , & conversion in the English Assemblies , have these words . I say it is but as a thief hath the true manns purse , and as the false church of Ieroboam had , and as the Samaritanes , Edomites &c. had circumcision & the sacrifices by usurpation . Here you have testified to the world that Ieroboams church was a false church , falsly constituted &c. And now seeing a disadvantage thereby to your new erroneous opinion , you doubt not to cal it a true church . This inconstancie befitts not him that wil be a leader of others .

3. I know nothing to the contrarie but Zippora might circumcise her sonne , her An. husband commanding her . For where is it sayd in the old Testament , that a woman shal not circumcises for Moses did circumcise though Zippora was the hand of Moses in that action &c.

When you deal against us about baptising of infants , you wil have commandement Re. or example , or els you reiect it as Antichristian , now y●● being pressed with this Act of Zippora you shew nether , nor any reason for the lawfullnes of the fact and yet you defend it , answering , that you know nothing to the contrary , but Zippora might circumcise her son &c. What nedes the Scripture to forbid women to circumcise , when for the adminisstring of that ceremony God gave commaundement that Abraham the * * Gen. 17. 7. ●om p. with ●ers . 10-13 ●osuah . 5. 2 ● 4 , master of the family should circumcise al his males , as baptisme is now † † Mat. 28. 19. injoyned to the Apostles and Ministers of Christ ; the which commaundements disable all others , whether women or men that have not such calling from God for the administeration therof . That Zippora did circumcise her sonne by Moses commaundement appeares not in the Scripture , but that “ “ Exo. 4. 24 ●5 . she being greeved at her husbands neglect , did it : But if Moses ought to do it himselfe , the question is whether he might commaund his wife to do it . The non-residents in England are condemned for preaching by their substitutes , and you dese●d that a woman may be a substitute to administer a sacrament . If Zipporah may circumcise in case of necessitie at the appointment of her husband , why may not the midwives in case of necessitie baptise , by the appointment of the Preists ? You pretend rule , but in this you practis● it not .

4. I yeeld that the Minister shall not preiudice baptisme , if the baptisme be the Ans. Lords owne ordinance , &c.

In this we agree that the Minister , if he be not lawfully called , doth not Rep. so farre preiudice baptisme , as to make a nullitie of it , what is further here to be answered , is done els where .

The 2 obiection you answer , is , that although baptisme be administred in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subiect , yet it shall not be repeated , no more then circumcision in the dayes of Jeroboam , &c. My words were these That ●epl . the children in that apostasie , are as fit subiects to receive baptisme , as the infants of Israel in the dayes of Jeroboam were to receive circumcision . And you pervert my wordes and say , that I affirme , that although baptisme be administred in a false Church vpon an vnfit subiect . Is this to confesse that infants are vnfit subiects ? to say , they were as fit as the infants of Israel ? Your self doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apostasie were capable of circumcision . I sayd that the infants of the Antichristians were as capable as they , not approving of the state of eyther , but arguing that if the former might stand for circumcision , then also the other without iterating : the state of the Antichristians , being alike to the apostate Israelites : but I will come to your further answer , which is this .

I say that the Israelites infants in there defection were the subiect that God commaunded Ans. to be circumcised : so are not the infants in Antichristianisme , both for that they are 1. infants . 2. members of a false Church . 3. the seede of vnbeleevers .

That the Israelites infants in their defection were commaunded to be circumcised , Repl. can not be proved , God is no approver of apostasie . When he gave to Abraham and his seed circumcision , he did intend that it should seale his covenant unto them , and that they should continue therein , and not apostate : and therefore ( to speak properly ) the Israelites in their apostasie could be no fit subiects , although upon their repentance the Lord let stand their circumcision . And so if the state of this people be rightly considered , the dissimilitude between their circumcision , and baptisme in Antichristian assemblies , wil not prove such as you pretend . Your reasons to prove infants in Antichristianisme to be no fit subiects of baptisme , are of no weight . The first of them is answered in the former part of this writing , where is proved that infants are fit subiects of baptisme . Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichrists Church , and deny them to be members of true Churches ? but to let this passe , I answere , that this reason is of no force , seing your self confesseth , that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes , &c. it had bene true baptisme . To the third I answer , that the infants in Antichristianisme are no more the seed of unbeleevers , then the infants in Ieroboams Church were the seed of unbeleevers : both were the seed of apostates , and that is all you can say of them . Their parents , ( although apostating from many truthes , and polluted with mens inventions , ) yet were not fallen from all profession of Iesus Christ , but stil did and do acknowledge salvation by him ; retayne and beleeve many mayne grounds of faith , & excellent truthes , & so many , as the Lord hath his people in * * Rev. 18. Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by those doctrines there taught . And , therefore thus I think of such apostates , that in respect of their outward standing they remaine in apostasie , having forsaken many truthes , pollute Gods ordinances , practise the cursed inventions of men : yet professing faith in God & in Iesus Christ ( though corruptly ) I can not hold them as infidels simply , but as the Israelites in their apostasie : and their seed may rather be termed the seed of Apostates , then of infidels or vnbeleevers .

And whereas you say that the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ did ●● truely belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Israelits though both in defection : I deny it : for the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelits the carnal seed of Abraham even in their parents Apostacy , and the spiritual covenant did never appertayne to the Apostate parents . 2. much les to the infants of them &c. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved . and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be vnder stode of the blessing of Abraham to come vppon any of the Gentiles in their Apostacy , but onely being in Christ as the words are , also . ver. 7. and 9. &c.

I speak comparatively of the seeds of the apostate Israelites and Antichristians , affirming the one as fit subiects for baptisme , as the other for circumcision , because the Gentiles since Christ , have as much title to the covenant with Abraham , as the Israelites had . This you deny , shifting off with your devised carnal covenant . It is not for the spirituall covenant or Sacrament , to belong to Apostates , that I contend : I know it belongs to the faithful and their seed , though you say no. But this was the end wherefore I did alledge Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is inlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as iust clayme to it for them selves and their seed , as Israel could do . And therefore did reason thus : If the children of Israel could chalendg right to the covenant and circumcision , their parents being in Apostacy : then might the infants of Apostats in Antichristianisme do so : and this is all that I sayd , not iustifying the standing of the one or of the other .

III. Argument .

IF the word of God passing through the false Ministery of Anchrist was of force to convert Gods elect in Babilon : Then is baptisme passing likewise through theire false ministery , of force to seale vp Gods covenant vnto them ; and so consequently not to be iterated .

But the first is true . Apoc. 18. 4. for in babylon were Gods people converted ; other ordinary Ministery was there none , but that false Ministery of the Papists ; and therefore it is apparant that God made thereby his word effectuall to al them that beleeved Ergo &c. If it be obiected , that if God should convert his people by an Antichristian Ministery , it were to give Approbation to a false Ministery , and to teach that men might lawfully vse it , which is absurd . I answere , for vs to vse a false Ministery is vnlawfull : but it is no more absurd , or yet any approbation of a false Ministery for God to worke thereby the good of his owne people ; then it was his approving of the evil service of Iosephs brethren selling him into Egypt ; because he vsed their Ministery for the saving of Iacob and his houshold ; for God can worke good by an evil instrument .

If it be stil vrged that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptise : I say no more had the Iewes to put Christ to death : yet was his suffering avaylable to save al that beleeve : and so is the Sacrament to al Gods people avaylable to seale vp salvation vnto them .

Mr. Smyth .

I answer . First the word converteth none visibly vnto me particulerly knowen : so Ans. can Baptisme seale vp none visibly vnto me &c.

Rich. Clyfton

Although Gods people continuing in Babylon cannot so welbe discerned ; Rep. yet by their coming thensce , they manifest to me particulerly , that there they were converted by the word , and so appeare visibly vnto me to belong vnto God , and to be children of the covenant . As for the tyme before , we take no publike notice of theire secreete estate before God , nor can do † † Deut. ● 29. for the things revealed belong vnto vs . Further you say .

The marke of the Beast is vndoubtedly baptisme , whereby they are initiated into Antichrist , and receive his mark as Christs servants in baptisme receive his seale upon them , &c.

Oh how fearful a thing is it to blaspheme : baptisme is the ordinance of God though it was polluted by Antichrist : you may as wel say , the word of God is the marke of the beast : for Antichrist did pollute it also as you formerly have confessed . Your mark of the beast reacheth verie farr even to the Apostles tymes , as the Auncients have witnessed of the baptisme of Infants . And if this was the mark of the beast , then was the mark before the beast , which is absurd to affirme : for can the beast before it be in esse , make ● both great and smale to receive a † mark in their right hand or in 〈◊〉 . 13. ● . their forehead . And that this baptising of infants was before the beast was , we have shewed out of the scriptures , and it may appear out of Origine , Tertullian and others , that speak of infants baptisme to be in practise in the church , before their tyme , as in the former part of this writing is observed . And it appeares both by the * Revelation . And that of the Rev. 13. ● . 10. 11. ● . 17. Apostle in 2 Thes. 2 , 3. that the man of synne arose not to this height and power to make small and great to receive his marke until there came a departing first . And seeing this marke of Antichrist was such as smale and great , rich and poor , free and bound did receive , it can not be , the baptising of infants . For then onely the smale should be sayd to receive it . And therefore the marke must be such a one , as shall agree to all persons “ great and smale , rich and poor , bound and free , and be received of them Rev. 13. ●6 . Rev. 14. 9. in that condition and state . And it must be such a marke , as they that worship the beast and his image shal receive by a † willing and actual consent , the which can not be applyed to infants : for neither can they worship the beast or give voluntarie consent to receive his marke in their hands or foreheads . An.

2. Antichrists baptisme false ( as I have sayd ) in the definition , is none of Gods ordinance , no not in the hands of the most faythful Minister , but Gods word is the Lords ordinance though in the mouth of the most vile Iudas or Antichristian , yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000. heresies .

The same Lord that gave his word to his church , ordeyned also baptisme 〈◊〉 . to be therein . Indeed if baptisme had been devised by Antichrist or any man els , it were not to be reputed for true baptisme at al , but that baptisme which is found to be in the Antichristian assemblies , is not Antichrists , the contrarie is proved before . Answ.

So that in this respect al●● it followes not , that Gods word may convert in popery , therefore Antichrists baptisme may seal , &c.

It wil follow , that as the word in Poperie , so baptisme in that Apostasie retayned since the primitive constitution of the church of Rome in the Apostles dayes , & as the word in poperie may convert , so baptisme may seal them that are Christs , being converted , for God can as wel blesse the one as the other . Gods word doth convert in Babilon , yet is not the promise any more annexed to that outward ministerie of Antichrist , then that blessing , * * Gen. 1. bring forth fruit and multiplie , is by Gods ordinance tyed to unlawful conjunctions , but it pleaseth the L. by the ministerie of his word & ordinance to effect his own work in al such as shal be saved , though through the hands of apostates .

3. You say , If Antichrist had retayned the Lords true baptisme , &c. viz. Answ. that he had baptised persons confessing their sinnes and fayth in the Trinitie , it should not have been repeated : But seeing he intendeth in baptisme to sett an indelible caracter upon them , which is the marke of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth &c. hence I conclude , that hee hath sett upp his owne idoll of abhomination , and cast the LORDS holy ordinance away , &c. Ergo , his baptisme is anullitie or rather a seal of perdition ▪ &c.

Your self by your heresie setts up an idol of abhomination , and casts away Rep. the Lords holy ordinance of sealing his covenant to his people & their seed . And here againe you destroy one of your reasons which you brought against the baptising of infants , which was , * * Caracte● pag. 52. because they were members of a false church . for you confesse , that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes &c. it should not have been repeated . So that to be members of a false church shal not hinder the efficacy of baptisme . Againe if Antichrist intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace , ex opere operato , to infants , and therefore setteth upp his owne idoll ( as you say ) what say you to his baptising of the Indians which are of yeares ? For he intendeth the same thing . And yet his so baptising of the elder sort , &c. you wil not have repeated . So by your own opinion to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace , ex oper● operato , is no good reason to prove the ●●erating of childrens baptisme , for then should it do so in the elder people confessing their sinnes &c.

As for the promise made by others for the partie baptised , I place ( as a devise of man ) amongst the accidental corruptions of this sacrament .

Concerning persons confessing their sins & fayth , whom you make the onely subject of baptisme , I hav answered before . And here tel you that the scripture mentioneth † † 1 Cor. ● . Act. 16. persons that were baptised ; yet sayth not a word , that they confessed their faith & syns . And you can never prove that al in the familie of Stephanas , Lidiah , &c. did confesse their sinnes and fayth : but to al that you say here , answer is given before .

IIII. Argument .

THose holy things , which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people , through the hands of prophane persons are not to be rejected for the authors sake . Ezra . 1 : 11 , But the scriptures and baptisme , hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people . Therfore not to be rejected for the Authors sake .

If it be objected against the Minor , it is not true baptisme but false that is administred in the Assemblies of Antichrist : I answer , though it may be sayd to be false in regard of some humane devises used in the administration thereof : yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter , forme , and author thereof , which causeth it to have a true being .

Mr Smyth .

I answer directly that if it could be proved that baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist Answ. is appointed by Christ , and that water is the true matter of baptisme , and the true forme is washing into the Trinitie , I would yeeld unto you , but this you have not proved &c. but to deal something more fully , &c. ● . water is not the matter of baptisme , but onely the instrument . &c.

R. Clyfton .

First I have proved that baptisme which is administred in the Antichristian Rep. churches is not to be iterated : but that Christ appointed baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist , I do not affirm ; onely this I say , that Christ ordeyned this sacrament for his church , which becoming Apostate & yet reteyning the same , is notwithstanding baptisme , because it is of God . And so I affirme that Christ is the Author of baptisme , which the Antichristians pollute by their administration thereof , as God was the author of that circumcision observed in the apostate church of Israel . And therefore as circumcision received of the Israelites in their Apostasie , stood as the seal of Gods covenant to so many as repented : So baptisme received in Babylon confirmeth the promise to al Gods people departing thence , and returning to walk in the wayes of the Lord .

But concerning the matter and forme of baptisme you charge me to have sayd in my answer to your second Argument , That water is the matter and the forme washing with water into the Trinitie . In calling water the matter ▪ if so it had pleased you , you might have understood my meaning , viz. that I understood thereby the outward signe or element , whereof in Poperie was no change . They used the same which Christ ordeyned . And in calling it the matter , I did not intend the subject or partie baptised ( which I know must be also one that beleeveth , or the seed of such , ) but considering what Christ ordeyned to be observed in this Ceremonie , I found these : water , and the baptising therewith into the name of the father , &c. The former I called the matter or element wherewith the partie is baptised , meaning that material outward signe , that Christ ordeyned in this sacrament as in the other , he hath done the like . For it was not in my thought to intend , that if the water be administred with this forme of words , that it is baptisme without a fit subject to be baptised : Nay I hold it an error in the Papists which baptise their bells , and wil have bread consecrated ( as they speak ) to be a sacrament , though it be never received but layed up in a box .

Concerning the subject of baptisme or matter ( as you terme it ) I wil not contend : but in that you denye the Infants of beleevers to be fit matter of baptisme , the contrarie I affirme and have proved before .

2. I say that washing into the name of the father of the sonne & of the Holy Ghost , Ans. is not the forme of baptisme : for to wash a Turke , Jew , Foole , madman or Infant into the Trinitie is not true baptisme , &c.

I answer , first , I know that formes can not consist without their subjects , Re. & therefore I say , the forme of baptising is reteyned in Poperie , applied to infants , though corruptly in that standing . Secondly , I stand not to defend , that to baptise an unfit subject is true baptisme : but this , that the baptisme of Apostates is not to be iterated when they repent and turne to God no no more then the circumcisio of the Israelites in the like cause , 2 Chro. 3● . 6 . -11 . 21. as before I have shewed .

3. That infants are to be baptised , I have already proved . And to baptise a Iewe , Turke , Foole &c. continuing in their infidelitie , madnes &c. we do not affirme it lawfull , nor yet the baptisme of Apostats , for all such abuse that holy ceremony being guilty thereof , as they are of the body and bloud of Christ , that receave it unworthely 1 Cor. 11.

The true forme of baptisme consists in 3. things 1. washing with water 2. a new Ans. creature , 3. into the name of Christ or into the Trinitie .

This might also be graunted , saving that by new creature , you mind onely ●p. such as are of yeares , and so appere to vs new creatures by their profession , excluding infants , who also must be so accepted of vs in respect of the covenant , whereof they are partakers , as wel as theire parents . Also the children of the faithful may be estemed new creatures , seing they are holy : and are so to be accounted til they manyfest themselves otherwise , which may be the case of old persons , as of S. Magus &c. And the Apostle in the place alledged , speaketh of such as are of yeares ; and by the speach of a new creature , implyeth a special vse and fruite of the thing signified by the outward signe , and so is not a part of the external forme of baptisme † as by Mat. 3. 11 man it is administred .

But if an infant &c. be washed with water into the Trinitie . I say there is neither An. true matter nor forme : And so al infants baptised by Antichrist &c. are to renounce it and to receave Christs marke of baptisme &c. and when they shal manifest a new creature &c. and then be baptised into the Trinitie , this is not Anabaptistry , but the true apostolick baptisme : and so Christ , Iohn , and Christs Apostles were Anabaptists , with you Sir . &c. for they baptised men that were washed before , a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes , Heb. 9. 10 &c. if it be blasphemy to say Christ , John , or the 〈◊〉 Apostles were anabaptists , though they were oftentymes some of them baptised into the Messiah in type &c. so shall it be blasphemy in them that cal the true Christianes Anabaptists &c.

Sir , if you mind wel your comparison it holds not , for those washings ●p. vnder the law were proper ordinances of the old Testament , declaring their repentance † and clensing from their dayly sinnes , and pollutions by faith Joh. 13 10 in Christ then to come : But baptisme ( whereof we speak ) is an ordinance of the Gospel , and that but * one , as their circumcision likewise was , and Ephe. 4. 5 therefore being once administered ( though in some corruption ) is Anabaptisme , to be iterated . And it is such a washing as preacheth 〈◊〉 vs the purging of our sinnes by Christ . And therefore it is not 〈◊〉 often washings under the law that can make men ANABAPTISTS : for you know in what sense people now are called ANABAPTISTS viz. for their reiection of the baptisme of the Gospel which they have received , and Baptising themselves agayne , as you have put in practise . And seing that which was administered in the Popish Assemblies , is Baptisme ; it wil be no blasphemy in vs to cal them ANABAPTISTS that have there with bene once baptised and do recounce it , and take to themselves a new of mans invention . What els is here sayd , is answered before .

And thus I conclude the confirmation of this fourth Argument , that although the POPISH CHVRCHES be apostate , the MINISTERY WORSHIP AND GOVERMENT false ; yet the word and baptisme therein reteayned ( being the Lords ordinances ) are not to be reiected with their pollution , but ( purged from these staynes ) stil to be retayned , and with Gods people to be caried with them out of spiritual BABYLON as the Iewes did the vessels of the Lords house out of Babilon of Chaldea . For the precept concerning Apostate Churches is † † Hos. ● . Rev. 1● to take away their fornications , and not the things of God polluted therewith .

V. Argument .

IF Antichrist be not the author of Baptisme , but of some humane devises annexed unto it in the adminstration therof : then are we not to pluck vp the wheat with the tares , Mat. 13. 29. & to cast away that which is Christs with Antichrists ; but to separate from that which is mans invention , and still to retayne that which is of God . But to baptise with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost , Mat. 28. 19 is from heaven , Mat. 21. 25. and not from Antichrist . Ergo , we ought not to cast it away , but those traditions wherewith Antichrist hath polluted it , as examples , K. Iosias , and before him K. Ezechias , when both the land and Temple were polluted , 〈…〉ng . 21 , 7. & 23. 4. did not pul downe the Temple , but appointed the Preists to clense it , who did so , and brought out all the uncleannes that they had found in the house of God , 2 Chron. 29. 16. - 18. and 34. 8. For in reformation of things , difference must be put betweene those things whereof God is the authour , and such as are devised by man : the former is to be purged from all profanation , & the things stil to be reteyned : the other quite to be abolished . This rule in all reformation of religion ought to be followed .

Mr Smyth .

I answere , that as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple , the Iewes Ans. built it agayne : so when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Church , then must we build it vp agayne . And when he hath destroyed true baptisme , then must we rear it up againe , therefore seeing Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme , and hath reared vp a baptisme of his owne , it must therefore be abolished , &c.

R. Clyfton .

First I answere , that baptisme in apostate Churches , though it be polluted , yet can not be sayd to be vtterly destroyed , And therefore your answer is not sufficient to prove the rebaptising of them that were baptised in the Antichristian assemblies . 2. In reiecting of that baptisme altogether , and baptising a new , you doe renounce that which is true therin , by your owne confession . viz. To wash with water , into the name of the father , and of the sonne , and of the holy Ghost , in that in your new baptising of your selves you repeate it agayne , which you ought not , if it be of God ; and so indeed you reteyne not any truth in it at all .

3. As for your comparison of a false Church or Ministery with baptisme , it is not equal : for if you vnderstand by false Church and Ministry , that which is devised by man onely : then the constitutions thereof are not of Gods ordinance ; as in Iereboams Preists , and as in Provincial or Diocesan Churches , wherein not one beame , rafter or stone , is appointed by the lord , and therefore can not be reteyned with the purging away of the corruptions therof . But in baptisme , ( I meane that which is administred in Popery ) there remaynes , the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie , which you with the tares pluck vp and cast in to the fyre .

4. Wheras you say . That in the false baptisme , Church , and Ministery , the corruptions ar essential and the truth onely accidental , and those accidental truthes must ●● reserved and iterated . I demaunde of you what be these accidental truthes in a false Baptisme , Church and Ministery , that are to be iterated ? and how you prove such iteration of accidents in baptisme : if you say , That to baptise with water into the name of the father &c. be an accident to baptisme , then is it not of the essence therof , but Christ maketh this applied to a right subject , the † † Mat. 2● . 19. form of baptism : And your self a little before have so * * Charac● pag. ●4 . written , ●ow if it be of the forme ( which gives the being of the thing ) how is it an accidet ? for you say , necessarily for having true baptism , we must repeat washing into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost , which are but accidents . And further you say , a Turke so washed is not baptised . How prove you this repeating of washing into the name of the Trinitie & c. ? and how doth the baptising of a Turke prove this forme of washing to be an accident to the ceremony of baptisme ? seing without this washing with water into the name of the Father &c. it cannot be baptisme .

And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptised , may be called an accident ( as al such formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced ) yet to baptisme it selfe , I meane , to the external ceremony it is no accident or adiunct , but is of the very essence and being thereof , and without which it cannot be baptisme . And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident , I do not conceive , otherwise then as before , I have observed in respect of the party baptised , els might the ceremony of baptisme be for substance , without this washing with water into the name of the Trinitie . But whether it be of the essence , of baptisme or an accident , look with what warrant you do repeate it .

For suppose I should graunt as much as you desire , that this forme of washing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptisme , yet the Lord having commaunded that accident to be but once vsed without repeating , how can you iustifie the iterating of such accidentall truthes ( as you call them ) for if it were of God in that baptisme administred in Popery ( as you confesse ) then can you not repeat it . Therefore your iterating of it , argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord : And so you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptisme as you pretend to do .

UI. Argument .

AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sathan and all his instruments shal never be cut of : So he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the law & Gospel , the seales thereof for the comfort of the faithful . And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ , whereof they were partakers , in the Apostate Church , and devising a new , do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking vpon them to baptise themselves without al warrant from the word , for I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptise him selfe without special commaundement from God , as Abraham had for circumcision . Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptisme . Mark . 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling . Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be sayd the tymes be extraordinary , I answere , the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule , whereby we may in extraordinary tymes , have a sure warrant out of the world to informe vs in every thing that we ought to do .

Mr Smyth .

I answere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus , Ans. If the gates of Hel shal never prevayl against the Church , then there hath alwayes bene a●rue Church , and antichrist could never make the Church false : and so you of the sep●ration have sinned most shamefully in callinge the Church of antichrist false : verum ●rimum : Ergo secundum .

Rich. Clyfton

First I deny that your Argument is of like nature , neither wil your false Re. relating of my words give you this advantage : for it is one thing to say , that God hath preserved the seales of his covenant , and an other to say , that these seales cannot be abolished through the malice of Sathan . I know the outward seales and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Sathan , if the Lord would have permitted it . For as Antichrist , ( Sathans instrument ) hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to abolish them out of the church : As the worship , Ministerie , Government , Censures , &c. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptisme : and if God had not otherwise disposed , could have foysted in a new forme of baptisme in the roome of it .

2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16 , 18. that there should alwayes continue a true visible church upon the earth , which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt : for the Scripture † † 2 Thes. 3. - 7. Re● 13. 11 , - ● & 18. 4. speaketh to the contrarie . But the promise of Christ to his church is this , that the gates of Hell shal not prevaile against it , that is , against his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Christ : this promise the Lord performeth to everie true visible Church , so long as they cleave unto him & continue faythful , and to his invisible for ever : even in the very dayes of Apostasie , Sathan did not prevaile against the elect of God . The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in al the tyme of Antichrist , as even Re●nerius the Popes Inquisitor acknowledgeth , whose Testimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true understanding , yet doth it not follow , that that church from which we did separate , was that true church , or yet that this true church , was alwayes visible . But I come to your second answer which is more properly ( as you say ) solvendo .

That the covenant is sayd to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existance Answ. in the world in an established church : but in respect of the stabilitie of it in regard of Sathans inalice &c.

This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not : for Rep. I did not intend in saying , the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Sathan , that there was alwayes a true visible church walking in all the commandements of God , but this I mynded , and do say , that the covenant of God could never be cut off through the malice of Sathan , but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes , yea through the great Apostasie of Antichrist . You say .

There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme , and so no true baptisme . Ans.

This consequent will not follow , for though the church of Antichrist was no true church : yet everie thing therein was not so : for the Scriptures ( though by them abused ) even in that Church were the true word of God , ●ep . and so baptisme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned , though corruptly administred .

I deny that the covenant , Church , or baptisme was visible alwayes . An. ●epl .

Baptisme , which was appointed to be a seal of Gods covenant hath ever since the first institution of it , been visible , & that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasie . And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen , wher is no apparance of Christianitie , for in them remaynes some kind of visibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or lesse , accordingly as they are more or lesse corrupted : For if all visibilitie should cease , they should cease to be called Apostate , and indeed become no churches .

And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footsteps of that image of God , wherein he was first created : so in churches degenerate from the truth , remaynes some remnants of Gods ordinances that were given to his church . The covenant is spoken of , and preached in those Apostate churches . And baptisme likewise administred , but not in that puritie and light , as they are in true churches . And as in the heavens , when the sunne is shadowed with clouds or mist , the proportion of it may be discovered in the mist or cloudes , & be perceived to be the sunne : So is the covenant of God and the seal thereof , wading through those foggie mysts of Popish errors and Antichristian superstitions discerned & seen to be from heaven , of al the people of God , whose harts the Lord opens to apply them aright . Which if it were not so , God could not have his people in Babylon , or church in the wildernes .

As you take upon you to set up a true church ( as you say , but we say a false church ) An. & wil not be sayd to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel &c. ( for you in your self conceitednes wil reiect them as Heretiques , if there be any that dare so say of you , forsooth : ) So the Anabaptists ( as you cal them ) do not set up a new covenant and Gospel , though they set up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had ●verthrowen .

To passe by the manner of your speeches which well might be amended : Rep. I answer , first , that for the setting up of churches , it is the Lords work and not ours , † † Ioh. 10. who gathereth his sheep into his fold , and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to joyne together to walk in his ordinances , who also inableth us hereunto , accepteth us to be his people , and * * Eph. 2. to be citizens with the Sainctes and houshold of God . Therefore it cannot properly be sayd of us that we sett up a church : but that God buyldeth us up to be his Temple . And being thus “ “ Mat. ● 20. gathered together in his name , we have the † † Mat. 2● 20. promise of his presence , and are assured of our standing , and that we are a true visible church of Iesus Christ , ( though it please you to call us a false church , ) and doubt not to approve our calling against you and al our adversaries . And whereas you account it self conceiptednes in us to reject for Hereticks such as bring in damnable Heresies : it were good for them , whom we so reject to look into their estate , and not wilfully to abyde in their errors to their perdition .

For the Anabaptists , whom you say , do not set up a new covenant and Gospel , though they set up a new baptisme . What they do , both their writings and practise shewes : but howsoever they perswade themselves to retayne the old covenant and Gospel , yet is it not so ; for whosoever receives not that Gospel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham , and pretends to receive a Gospel or covenant , they receive a new covenant and Gospel . But the Anabaptists receive not the Gospel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant . Therefore it is a new covenant and Gospel which they receive . For that Covenant which was given to Abraham , was given to him and to his seed , to the Iewes and their seed : but the covenant which the Anabaptists plead for , is a covenant that should be made to the parents and not to their seed , & therefore is not the same , but a new and strange Gospel , never heard of in the dayes of Abraham .

Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a sealed covenant to * * Gen. 1● 10. - 13. The A● baptists ●ny baptis● to be a se● of the cov●nant , & indeed t● have no outward s● led covan● at al. him and to his natural seed : but that covenant which the Anabaptists wil enter into and receive , is an unsealed covenant , at least but sealed onely to the parents and not to their seed : and so is not the same but a new Gospel .

In my former answer I sayd , that it can not be shewed that any man did ever baptise him self without special commandement from God &c. and you thus replie . I say , as much as you have to set up a true Church ▪ wherein you answere not directly to the point , but shift it of , with saying , that you have as much power to set vp baptisme , or baptise your selfe , as we to set vp a Church : for suppose we have not this power to set vp a Church , then how is your action of baptising your selfe iustified ? But how we have power , for that we have done , I have formerly shewed , viz. that we have power by the Lords commaundement to * come out of babylon , to obey the truth reveiled ●ev . 18. vnto vs , and to ioyne together in the † feloship of the Gospel , to walk in al the wayes of God . This is that we can do , and all that we do is by Phil. 1. 5. divine commaundement , for if the Lord had not so inioyned vs , our coming together should have bene but an assembly of our owne devise , and no Temple for the Lord . Now if you wil make your argument ( which stands vpon comparison ) answerable , you must bring like warrant from the Scripture , that you being vnbaptised , may baptise your selfe , or els that which we have done shal be iustified to be of God , and your baptisme prove but a vayne fansie . Further I desire it may be shewed , that baptisme , which is a part of the worke of the Ministery , can lawfully , and by warrant from God , be administred by any , but eyther by extraordinary authority , as by Iohn , Ananias , the Apostles , Prophets , Evangelists : or ordinary , as by Pastors and Teachers . Or that a person vnbaptised without speciall commaundement from heaven ( for ordinary rule there is none ) may baptise himselfe , and having so done without any further calling to office , take vpon him to baptise others . And to do this , I would knowe , if it be Cor. 4. 6 not † to presume above that which is written . For if you that baptise your self ( being but an ordinary man ) may this do , then may an other do the like and so every one baptise himselfe . You that stand so much for commaundement and example , shew vs eyther of these two if you can , or any sound reason out of the word ? or els consider wel , if that you be not fallen into that , which you would condemne in others , viz. the practising of an vnwarrantable action . But you say .

A true Church cannot be erected without baptisme &c.

If this be so as you say , then eyther that baptisme which we receaved in the Antichristian assemblyes is baptisme , or els one that is no member of a Church may induce the forme ( as you cal it ) vpon Disciples , to make them a Church , and this have we neyther commaundement nor example for . He that was the first Minister of baptisme stode then a member of the Church of the Iewes , & had also commaundement to baptise : but this new doctrine teacheth that one that was never member of any Church shall baptise & make a Church , & that without commaundement from God . Now you say a Church can not be erected without baptisme , because baptisme is the visible forme thereof , consider you ; ( that are so barren of proof for the administring of Baptising to your self , that you can not shew one good reason to warrant it to be lawful ) if by condemning & reiecting of that baptisme which you received in Antichristianisme , you overthrow not your new Church : for if a Church can not be without baptisme , and you not able to prove your new baptisme from the scriptures , which have reiected the old : Then is your assembly an idol : And so while you condemne other Churches vniustly , for false , yours proves more false then any .

But concerning baptisme , which you call the visible forme of the Church : I answer , 1. the forme of a Church is common to all together . 2. If Baptisme be the forme , them it may come to passe , that one man may be a visible Church as he that first in the company baptiseth himself , he is a Church being baptised , for he that hath the forme upon him , must needs be the thing formed , And so Mr Smyth was a Church , when he baptised himself , which is absurd to think .

But concerning the matter & forme of the Church , this you have written , That * * Paralels● &c. pa. 11● two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament : and therefore have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament , induced vpon them . Againe , speaking of the exiled English Church at Amsterdam , you say , that they have reduced the Church to the Apostolike constitution , Differenc● &c. in the Preface . which consisteth in 3. things , 1. the true matter , which are Saincts onely . 2. The forme , which is the vniting of them together in the covenant . 3. the true propertie , which is communion in all the holy things . Thus you contradict your self : here you teach us that vniting of people together in the covenant is the forme of the Church . And in this writing , that baptisme is the forme . Certeynly the holy Ghost * * Act. 2. 3. 39. Ephe. 4● 4. 5. distinguisheth baptisme both from the covenant and the body . But to contend about the forme of the Church , is here not to the purpose ; seing both you and we graunt that a Church must consist of baptised persons , you contending for your new devised baptisme , we holding that baptisme which wee have already received .

Further you reason for the erecting of your baptisme

That when al Christ visible ordinances are lost , eyther men must recover them agayn Ans. or must let them alone , if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues as the Apostles did , then men are FAMILISTS , or if they must receive them , men must begin so to do . And then two men ioyning together may make a Church , ( as you say ) why may they not baptise , seing they can not conioyne into Christ but by Baptisme . Mat. 28. 19. compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christs commaundements must be obeyed : Ergo , this commaundement , &c.

First for the visible ordinances of Christ , his Church hath right unto them , and his people are to have the vse of them by such means and Ministery as he hath appointed : but every man may not take upon him the administration of these ordinances , but * they whom the Lord hath given Heb. 5. 4. authoritie and office thereunto . God is not the † author of confusion Cor. 14. but of order . It wil not follow because the Church is to have baptisme therefore any one may administer it when al are vnbaptised . Thus might Ieroboam plead for the * Preists that he made of the lowest of the people , King . 12 that it was a necessity seing al the Priests of Levi were departed , and as at this d●y they plead in England for their vnpreaching Preists , that eyther they must have such , or be without service and Sacraments , which plea , as we condemne in them : so do we the administration of the Sacraments , or other of Gods ordinances without warrant from the Lord . And therefore they must be let alone til they may be had by that rule that Christ hath left vs for the injoying of the same . For this I am sure of , that the word of the Lord is perfect , and CHRIST hath left vs certayne direction for the practising of al his ordinances at all tymes . Now if the Scripture have not shewed who shal baptise in the Churches arising out of Apostacy , then who dare take vpon him to give direction ? And though we are not to loke for extraordinary men ( which to do , say you , were familisme ) yet must we loke for ordinary meanes : men must not do that which they are not warranted by the word , though the thing be to be done .

Secondly , for two being ioyned together in covenant with the Lord , to walk in his wayes , they have * warrant so to do ( if there be no visible Church for them to ioyne unto ) although I do not approve that every two Mat. 18 or three shall ioyne together & so walk , when they may conveniently ioyne to a Church set already in the wayes of God ; neyther may they attempt any thing beyond their measure & calling , least they fal into the sinne of Corah &c. And as for two baptising themselves or one an other , that can they not do without calling from God . And therefore you not having calling herevnto , & being as you say vnbaptised , I pray you tel me how you are authorised by Christ herevnto , & conjoyned into his name ? The Admistration of Baptisme is by Christ † † Mat. 19. Ephe. 4. 11 12. commaunded to his Apostles and Ministers of the word , as before is shewed .

As for your reason which is : That els they can not conioyne into Christ , but by baptisme . I answer , we may be ioyned into Christ , by being vnited in one spirit into his covenant of life . And though persons that were never baptised , be received into the Church by baptisme , yet wil it not folow , that such as are baptised in apostate Churches 〈◊〉 , must any more be baptied , than they that being circumcised were recircumcised when they ioyned to the Church of the Iewes . And baptisme is not our graffing into Christ , but the signe or seale thereof , and so are those Scriptures which you alledg to be vnderstode . And as you say ▪ The commaundement of God must be obeyed , and so this commaundement . It is true , being done according to the order and way that Christ hath appointed , & therefore you break the commaundement , to baptise your self & others without commission from Christ , & are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes & Pharisees , * * Mat. 15 3. who transgressed the commandements of God by their traditions : so you do in this your new baptisme transgresse Gods commaundement , to magnifie your own devised practise . Look well to it , the Lord hath thus pronounced upon such transgressors , † † Mat. 1. 5● In vayn do they worship me , teaching doctrines mens precepts . & the Psalmist sayth , “ “ Psal. 11● 21. cursed are they that do erre from thy cōmaudemēts : the which iudgement of God you may behold in your selves ( if God so open your eyes ) who of one company , are now at least divided into 3. ech one refusing communion with other , & stil increasing in new errors .

But for the baptising of a mans selfe , you say ,

There is as good warrant as for a man churching him self , for two men singly are Ans. no Church joyntly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church vpon themselves : So two men may put baptisme vpon themselves .

This phrase of Churching a mans selfe , is not the phrase of the holy Scripture , Repl. it is the Lord that † † Mat. 2● 19. Act. 1 46. 47. E● 4. 11. 12. calleth men out of the world & gathereth them together by his word , and buildeth them vp to be his Church as Christ sayth . * * Ioh. 10. other sheepe I have which are not of this fold , them also I must bring and they shall heare my voice . And they whose harts the Lord openeth , do willingly obey his voice , and beleeving , † † Act. 2. 42. walk together in his wayes as before I have observed . To passe by your strange phrases , the scripture thus speaketh , that the Eunuch , Cornelius and others received baptisme administred unto them by the Ministers of Chr. but that they or any other , did ever put baptisme , that is , ( as I understand you ) administer it upon themselves , I never read thereof in the scriptures : unlesse we should think that Iohn B. did it , who if it were so , had his calling extraordinarie from heaven .

As two persons unchurched have power to assume the church , ech of them for himself Ans. with others in communion : so each of them unbaptised have power to assume baptisme for himself with others in communion .

These things would do wel if they were proved . Concerning 2. persons or moe coning into communion together , I have before set down what I think . And now for assuming of baptisme , if you mean therby receiving of it , ( being lawfully administred ) them I grant , that they which are unbaptised † may ●cts . 10. & 8. 12. ● & ought to receive baptisme in the communion of the Saincts . But that 2. persons or moe may take and baptise themselves or one another in your communion , I abhorre as an humane invention . As for the examples of Abr. and Iohn B. administring the Sacrament upon themselves , if so it were , yet serve ●en. 17 , ● . 13. ● 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. & ● 25. - 27. ● . 13. - 15 nothing to your purpose : for Abrabam had a * special commandement to circumcise : so had Iohn for his “ baptisme warrant from God . But wil it follow because these 2. administred the Sacrament upon themselves , therfore who list may consecrate his hands to that office ? What is this ●ls that you plead for , but to overthrow that order that Christ hath ●et down in his Church , to make every one a Minister of the Lords Sacraments . Concerning the Proselytes , that they did every one circumcise themselves , is not proved by that of Exo. 12 , 48. for it is sayd there : when a stranger shal dwel with thee & wil observ the passeover of the Lord , every male shal be circumcised unto him . This scripture saith not that every one did circumcise himself , but that every male should be circumcised : Neyther if the Lord had sayd , as the Translation is , let him circumcise al the males that belong unto him , had this proved that al the Proselytes had done it themselves ; for it is sayd of Iosua , that the Lord bad him make sharp knives , † & return & circumcise the sons of Israel the second tyme. And 〈◊〉 . 5. 2. yet wil any think that Iosuah did himself circumcise every uncircumcised male in Israel ? or rather , that the Lord commanded him to see that it were done . And so that commandement given to Proselytes was , that they should cause al their males to be circumcised , or els they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Passeover .

But graunt that this was a special precept to the stranger to circumcise himself and his familie , the Lord laying this upon him , he had good warrant so to do : but seing the Lord hath commanded the administration of baptisme to the Apostles and Ministers of the word , now it is to presume above that which is written , for any man to take upon himself , to administer baptisme to himself or to others . Neyther is this to follow the example of the Proselytes , if they had done as you alleadge : for then the Master onely and none els circumcised , and he circumcised but his familie . But this new opinion inableth any man , be he Master or servant to baptise himself , and also to baptise others that are not of his familie . Note wel how this example serves to your purpose .

Howbeit for circumcision , I take it , that it was administred by the Levites after that they were called of office , because † † Num. 8. 14. - 18. they were appointed in the roome of the first borne of Israel for the service of the Lord . And as I have heard , the Levites amongst the Iewes , do circumcise at this day .

But one thing more I would aske you , whether by two assuming baptisme in communion , you mean that two consenting together may the one baptise the other , at one and the same instant , or that one shal baptise the other first , and then he that is baptised , baptise him that was his baptiser , and what rule or warrant you have so to do ? and do not with obscure termes seek to set a colour upon your errors to deceive the ignorant .

As concerning the administration of the Lords Supper , to a mans self in communion with others , & prayer prophesying & praysing of God uttered for a mans self as wel as for others , of every unclean person washing himself at the door of the Tabernacle going to sacrifice , of every master of a familie administring the passeover to himself & all his familie , the Priest dayly sacrificing for himself & others . All these proves not your desyre .

For as touching the administration of the Lords supper , it appertaines to the Ministers of Christ to do it & not to every man . And by vertue of their office they do administer , and as they are members of the church , they participate of those holy things with the rest of the brethren : And this is Gods ordinance : your case of baptising one another , is not alike : for there he administreth the Sacrament that hath no calling , and he that is unbaptised himself , presumeth to set the seal upon himself or upon an other . Also in the Lords Supper al are agents according to their estate and nature of the action : but in the receiving of baptisme we are onely patients .

As for praying , prophesying and praysing of God , uttered for a mans self as wel as for others ; this is Gods ordinance that men should † pray & ●at. 6 , 6 , ● &c. ●ph. 6. 18 ● . 2. 42. ● . 47. Tim. 2. 1. praise God for themselves and others , and is not onely a work of the ministerie , ( save in publike ) but a general duty apperteyning to * all the brethren : but the administration of baptisme , is appointed to the Ministerie . And there is great difference between our prayers and sacrifices offered to God , and the Lords Sacraments and word ministred unto us , the former we are commanded to doe our selves in our due place : the other is from the Lord unto us , and we are the subjects to receive the same by the administration of Gods Ministers , and al these things are the commandements of God .

Concerning those in the old Testament , that being unclean did purifie or wash themselves , they did thereby shew forth their continuall & voluntarie repentance and fayth to be clensed from their pollutions and sinnes by Iesus Christ . Ioh. 13 , 10. Neyther did they this without the Lords Lev. 13. ● . & 15. ● . 27. commandement . For were not the * purifyings of the unclean prescribed by Moses ? shew us the like warrant for the new baptising of your selves , and the controversie is ended ; and unlesse you do it , what do all these examples prove for you ? seing al these were done by warrant of the word , and you have no scripture to alleadge for your doings . And for the Priests washing themselves in the Laver , “ “ Exod. 30 ●● . 21. God so commanded . But the Priests ( you say ) washing in the Laver at the door of the Tabernacle was a type of baptisme the doore of the church . would you then have us to think that every one coning to the Church : should baptise himself , yea & that also every tyme they come to publike worship ? For if you hold thus , you might also thus reason from your similitude . But similitudes and allegories must not be pressed further then the intendement of them , & proportion of fayth wil suffer . That washing , no doubt did signifie that such as come into Gods presence to offer any sacrifices , must be clean and holy : & the water in the Laver might wel be a type of the blood of Iesus Christ , & of regeneration ▪ in him , teaching that al the faythful ( being made Priests unto God ) should be washed from al their sinnes in the bloud of Christ , and sanctified in him to the service of the Lord . And that therefore they should continually repent of their sinnes and have fayth in Iesus Christ , that so through him , they and their works & service , may be accepted of the Lord , and they in the end be received into his heavenly kingdome . But this wil not justifie your baptising of your selves , for besides that which is answered before , the Priests were commanded to wash their hands & their feet themselves , for such use as is aforesayd . But in the new Testament we are appointed to be baptised by the Lords Ministers , as hath bene declared already . The same answer may be given to that of the Priests sacrificing for themselves , that they had the word for their warrant , and were first to offer for their owne sinnes and then for the peoples . And this was an offering up to God : but baptisme is the Lords ordinance to be administred to us , and therefore in this respect also , your reason is not alike .

Lastly , for that of every Master of a familie administring the Passeover , the same is to be mynded , as in the former instances . And seeing they were altogether to eat of one food , ( which shadowed out Iesus Christ and our Redemption by his death , ) it lay upon the father of the family , not onely to do the things of ministration parteyning to him , but to partake also himself of the same common food and banket with the rest . Moreover , although the master of the familie did so as then was appointed to be done by him : yet wil it not follow that every man may now administer baptisme to himself and others . The Master did that then for himself and his familie , by the † † Exo. 12. 3● 4. - 10. commandement of the Lord , who was as a Bishop & a Priest in his owne howse , and besides him none in the howse might do it . But after that God had to his church by Moses given lawes and ordinances , and the Priests to do the service of the Lord : the * * 2 Chr. 3● 17. & 35. 1● 11. killing of the Passeover was performed by the Levites and Priests : which teacheth us that it is not in every mans power to be a Minister of the Lords ordinances , save they that have calling thereunto . And therefore I marveil that you will bring in so many instances so unfitting to your practise : all which examples might have taught you rather the unlawfulnes of your action , they being al done by warrant , & yours without altogether .

Lastly , you say , A man cannot baptise others into the Church himself being out of the church . Then I pray you Sir , resolve me how you can baptise your self into the church being out of it , yea and where there was no church ? or how you could baptise others , your self being out of the Church ? or how two can baptise themselves to be a church that are unbaptised and without the church ? And what conclusion is this to say , A man can not baptise others into the Church himself being unbaptised : therfore it is lawful for a man to baptise himself with others in communion ? If you have no better warrant for the practise of your doings , then these reasons which you have already alledged , youn●ed not to boast of your Plerophory of your Practise . But what is now become of your plerophory and ful perswasion about it , seing you have already chaunged your mind againconcerning your baptising of your self , & for this cause & other the like matters , are by some of your people excommunicate , . It were good for you to remember and keep that saying of the Apostle , It is good alwayes to be zealous in a good thing . Gal. 4. 18.

Mr Smythes Reasons for Anabaptisme of Elder people , Answered . R. Clyfton

THus having set down Reasons to prove that Apostates or Antichristians converted ar not to be rebaptised : let vs come to the examination of the reasons alledged to the contrary , the first whereof is this .

1. Because Churches are to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist , as they were first erected by the Apostles : but in the constitution of Churches the Apostles receved in the members by baptisme . Ergo , so must we do now .

Answere

The estate and constitution of people now , is not a like to the state of the Gentiles or Iewes in the Apostles tymes , they differ in divers respects . First l the people then both of Iewes and Gentiles never had bene themselves , nor were ever of the posteritie of those that had bene members of the Church of Christ vnder the Gospel : seing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches . But we are now the posteriety of such parents as were members of the Church planted by the Apostles , els could we not have Apostated 2. That people which the Apostles gathered into Churches were never baptised : And baptisme coming in steed of circumcision , and being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant ; it was fit that they which beleeved and became the seed of Abrah: should so enter in to covenant they & their seed as he & his seed entered , that is , as he & his , were received in by circumcision : so they & theirs should be receved in by baptisme : Act. 2. 38. 41. & 8. 38. But we are a people that ar already baptised , & the seed of them that were baptised , & had received the Gospel . And ( although through Antichrists deceaveablenes both we and they were taynted with many corruptions ) yet had they or might have in that Apostasie , and so we also , so much faith , as thereby both we and they might become the people of God . Apoc. 18. 4.

And concerning the constitution of Churches , here it is to be noted , that the constitution of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the imediate direction of the H. Ghost , And so serveth for a continual rule of establishing Churches to th' end of the world : which forme or frame layed downe by them , no man hath power to alter or change . 1. Cor. 4. 14. 1 , Tim. 6. 14. But the constituting of Churches now after the defection of Antichrist , ma●● more properly be called a repayring , then a constituting of Churches ; which through Apostacy have bene ruinated , or a gathering together of the dispersed sheepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches ( the patterne whereof is shewed vnto vs in the word ) For ( as before hath bene noted ) our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches : And so it wil not follow ( as is aledged ) that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessaryly must be by baptisme , as in the primitive tyme it was : except onely of such persons as have not bene baptised before .

And herein I take it , lieth the deceat of this Argument that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming ou● of Babylon , and them that came to the fayth from amongst the Gentiles , equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme , the one being an apostate Church , the other no Church , the one partaker of the word & sacraments ( though with much corruption ) the other partaker of neyther at all : the one professing Christ & teaching many truthes of God , & so many as the elect thereby might come to faith , Apo: 18. 4. The other neyther professing Christ , nor teaching any truth of God , whereby any might be converted to Christ , and become Gods people , in that estate of Gentilisme .

And thus having made playne the different estate of the first planted Churches and ours in Apostacy , I answere 1. That Churches now are to be constituted . ( if repayring be not a fitter speach ) as in the Apostles tymes , & that all such as are received in as members being vnbaptised , must be received in by baptisme : but for such , as were baptised in Apostate Churches , their ▪ repentance is sufficient without rebaptization , as it was to the Apostate Israelites , who vpon their repentance & returning to Ierusalem were received of the Church , without any new circumcision . And therefore to adde a second baptisme , with the Anabaptists , is to Apostate from Christ , and not to enter into his covenant .

And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme , they could do no otherwise , seing the whole world was vnbaptised : but if they had mett with any that before had bene baptised into the name of Christ , as they that received the baptisme of Iohn , and as we are , I make no question they did not , nor would not have rebaptised them . And therefore the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme , them that are already baptised .

Mr Smyth .

As in the former point for baptising of infants , you are compelled to runne to the old Testament : and from thence to fetch the cheif corner stone of your building , viz. from circumcision : So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new testament of Christ , &c. and set vs againe to schoole to Moses , as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach vs his new Testament , but we must go learne the new Testament , of the old Testament , Christ of Moses , the Gospel of the law . &c.

Rich: Clifton .

Before you come to answer my exception against your reason , you prefix Answ. as it were for a ground , certayn thinges which you intreat me and al the Seperation , especeally the leaders , wel to weigh and ponder , and not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors . In which your great observation . 1. you charge me to be compelled to runne to the old Testament &c. What my answere is to this your reason shal be iustified . Now where you except about the former point for baptising of infants against my running to the old Testament to fetch my cheif corner stone , &c. If I have done evil herein , beare witnes of it : but if I have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles , who proved that which they taught by the Scriptures of the old Testament , why impute you this unto me to disgrace ? search these * * Mat. ● 23. & 2. ● 15. 28. & 3. & 22. ● 32. Joh. 23. & 5. 3● Luk. 24. 2● Act. 2. 2● & 3. 22. & 4 : 25. 26. & 18. 28. Ro● 4 , 3 , 6. & 7. 9. & ● 11 with d●vers othe● places quoted in the margent , and see if the things of the new testament , were not proved out of the old . Yet notwithstanding I have used other reasons from the Scriptures of the new Testament , to prove the baptising of infants , as in my answer is to be seen . But my corner stone ( as you please to call it ) fetched from the old testament , is so ponderous , as you can not remove it .

Concerning the forsaking of the new Testament , it is not I , but your self Mr Smyth that sinns therin , by casting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of salvation . And as towching the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets , Christ himself set us to schoole to learne of them the things † † Ioh. 5. 39 . that are witten of him : and yet this you fault in me as if it were not lawful to prove doctrines and ordinances of the new Testament , out of Moses & Characte● pag. 44. the Prophets . But I pray you Sir , that findes fault to be set againe to the schoole to Moses , why say you “ we must attayne to and learne all that the school-Maister of the old testament could teach vs . Do not you herein set us to school to Moses ? But it seemes you are past Moses teaching , I would wish you were not past Christs also . The old Testament is not so abrogated , that withal , the † writings of Moses and of the 2 Tim. 3. ● . - 17. Pet. 1. 9. - 21. Prophets , cease to be in force to teach us that live under the Gospel . And if they be in force to teach , then are we to learne and to be taught by them .

As for Christ his faythfulnes in teaching us his new Testament , ( which you think is diminished , if we labour to prove any of the ordinances thereof from the Scriptures of the old Testament ) know you , that we hold Christ * * Heb. 3. 2. to be faythful to him that hath appointed , even as Moses in al his howse . And yet no disparagement to him or the new Testament , ( but rather an honour ) to prove the parts and observances thereof , from Moses and the Prophets . For he that bad us Search the scriptures , did also himself to the two disciples that went to Emaus , “ “ Luk. 24. ●● . beginne at Moses and at all the Prophets and interpreted unto them in al the Scriptures the things which were written of him . Which practise of Christ , as it doth teach us that we may learn Christ and the new Testament out of Moses and the Scriptures of the old Testament : so doth it manifest his faythfulnes , that taught and fulfilled al that was prophesied of him , not imposing upon his church any new doctrine not heard of before . Baptisme under the Gospell is proved out of the old Testaments the Iewes did not think it strange to be at the coming of the Messiah , Ioh. 1. 25. And Mr. Smyth sayth , that the Iewes baptismes were into the Messias to come in type . Ergo , our baptisme being the thing typed , must needs have warrant from the old Testament , and then it is no disgrace to goe to school to Moses to learn it .

And first I would know why we may not as wel with the Papists , fetch one high Repl. Priest from Moses , succession in the Ministerie from Moses , succession in the Church from Moses , as a succession in baptisme from Moses : and in effect you fetch a succession of the Church from Rome , for in fetching a succession of Baptism● from Rome , which is the forme of the church , yea and in fetching a succession of the matter of the church , which is the seed of the Parents baptised , you of necessitie make the church of Rome a true Church .

First , for the Priesthood of Moses , the Ceremonies and such like ordinances Answ. of the church under the old Testament , they are † † Heb. 7. 12. &c. & cha. ● . & ch. 9. ● cha. 10. Col. 2. 16. 17. removed by the coming of Iesus Christ , and therefore there cannot be any succession thereof under the Gospel , save in Christ : but of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham , and sealed to him and his seed before the law was given , is no abrogation thereof . There is an everlasting continuance ( which you call a succession ) not onely in the Church of the old Testament , but also under the Gospell as the Apostles do * * Gal. 3. 8 ▪ 9. Act. 2. 3 . witnes , as also “ “ Mat. 28. 19. a continuance of the sealing of the same . And therefore we must plead such a succession both of the covenant and sealing thereof from our father Abraham : seing it is the † † Gal. 3. 8. 14. - 17. 28. & 4. 28. same wherein we of the Gentiles are comprehended .

And this difference between this Covenant and the law and ordinances of the old Testament , if it please you to take notice of , will answer your question about succession . Yet I would not have you mistake me , for although I hold in this sense a continual succession of the people of God partakers of this covenant of salvation , I affirme not that there hath been alway , and at al tymes known established churches , keeping soundly all the ordinances of Christ , and making visible profession thereof . In the Apostacie of Israel the Lord had his seven thowsand that never bowed their knee to Baal , to whom this covenant belonged , and so had he in “ “ Rev. 18. 4 . antichristianisme .

Again , we fetch not a succession of Baptisme from Moses , otherwise then the Apostles have taught us . Col. 2. 10. - 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21. The sealing of the covenant was commanded to Abraham , and never repealed ( save onely the outward signe changed , as before is sayd . ) And as we fetch no otherwise succession from Moses or the old Testament , then hath been sayd : No more do we succession of the Ministerie , or of any other ordinance of Christ , but in like manner and upon like warrant . 2. Concerning fetching of succession of our church from Rome because of our Baptisme : I answer , 1. that Baptisme , as also the Scriptures were given to the Church of Rome when she was a true church and she retayning them in her Apostasie , we receive them as Christe word and baptisme , though continued through her corrupt Ministerie and estate . 2. If ( according to your terming ) succession of Baptisme be graunted , ( being an ordinance of God , ) yet will it not followe , that therefore we must reteyn the whoredomes of the church of Rome ( which we are commanded to separate from , Rev. 18. 4 ) because we retein baptisme , but rather thus , as we have baptisme from Christ , so are we to have the constitution of our church , & what is polluted in eyther by Antichrist ▪ to reject .

3. Our retayning of baptisme administred in the Apostate churches , doth no more prove that we fetch succession of our church from Rome : then the Israelites , that were circumcised in the church of Ieroboam , returning to Ierusalem did fetch the succession of their church from the Apostate church of Israel .

If it be objected that this people now separated from that Apostacy , were matter of that false church : and so we fetch a succession of the matter of our church from a false church . I answer , that al such of Gods people that stand members of those Antichristian assemblies must be considered two wayes . 1. in respect of us and their outward standing , so are they members of those Assemblies : 2. in respect of the Lord and their election ; so are they no members thereof , but the matter of Gods invisible church in tyme becoming visible . As on the contrarie in a visible church , al the people thereof in our account are held true members , yet † hypocrites 1 Ioh. 2. 19. in the Lords account , are no members or matter thereof . And as the Apostle sayth of Antichrists , if they had been of us , they should have continued with us : so I say of Gods people in Babilon , if they had been of that Antichristian church they should have continued with them , but by their coning out , it appeares that they are not of them , and therefore we cannot be sayd to have the matter of our church by succession from Antichristianisme : but by the gracious work of God in his people of al ages , and ( to use your word of Succession ) as it were by a secret and hidden succession , even from the Apostles tymes . And thus it wil not follow ( as you say ) that we make the church of Rome a true church .

If Infants of the church of Rome have true tytle to Baptisme , by reason of the fayth Repl. of some of their Auncestors that were faythful , then are they the true matter of the visible church . &c.

We do not say that the Infants of the church of Rome , have tytle to An. Baptisme by reason of their Ancestors fayth , but do afferme that in respect of that Apostatical standing , neither infants nor their parents have right to any of Gods ordinances : neither is it inough that people be elected , and thereby to have right to Gods covenant &c. before God : but to be members of the visible church and partakers of the holy things , there must be a * * Rev. 18. 4 visible going out of Babylon : “ “ 2 Cor. 6. ●6 . f●r what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols . the vessels of the Lord must be caried out to Ierusalem , & then are they in their due place , and shal have their true vse , which in their Romish standing they could not have ; albeit in Babylon they were the vessels of the Lord . And herein are you deceived , that if any of the ordinances of God be reteyned in the hands of Autichristians , these ordinances must eyther make them a true visible Church , or be none of his , and when they are brought out thence have no vse .

These thing , may also answer that which followes : For upon this that we deny Baptisme administred in Poperie to be iterated , you would conclude these absurdities to follow . viz.

That infants of the Church of Rome are a true visible Ch: in the constitution & essential Repl. causes therof . That the Church in the new testament commeth by succession of carnal genealogie through the church of Rome to our dayes . That the matter of the church , viz. Infants descending of baptised parents , is by genealogie , & the form of the Church , viz. baptism vpon those infants , is by descent , and therefore the Church is by succession . I demaund , why may not the Ministerie be by succession as wel as the Church , and England and Rome true Churches , their Ministery true , &c.

To all which particulars , I answer thus , 1. Infants may be members Ans. of a visible Church , but that a visible Church can stand of infants onely , we deny . 2. Neyther Infants nor the elder sort standing in Antichristianism , can be the matter of a true visible Church , being so looked vpon according to that estate and respect . 3. Baptisme ( which you would have the form ) hath his true use in the visible Church of Christ , and to Gods people . 4. let the people of God in Babylon and the Baptisme that there they receive , be compared with Gods people in the apostate Church of Israel , & with their circumcision : And it will appeare that the infants of the Church of Rome are not a true visible Church , in the essential causes therof , any more or otherwise , then as they were in Israel . Concerning the Churches succession by carnal genealogie , I answer , that as the covenant was made with Abraham and his seed ; so vnder the Gospell , doth the promise belong to the parents & their children . And that God had “ “ Apoc. 14. & 4. his people in all the tymes of Popery that were within his covenant : Neyther is this to hold succession of visible Churches , but ( to vse your terme ) a succession of true beleevers in all ages , though not alwayes known in publick , it being the lot of the † † Rev. 1. 13. 14. Church to be persequuted by the Dragon and driven to flee into the wildernes , for a time , times , & half a time . And therefore seing the matter of the visible Church is not alwayes , nor otherwise seen to descend from baptised persos by genealogie , then as it did from parents circumcised in Israel : there can be no other succession visible of the Church , or Ministerie , then is incident to such estate , but as in Israel there was * a breaking off , of both : so hath King . 12 33. ●ev. 11. 7. 12. 14. ● 13. 7. 8. it fallen out under the new Testament , a † surceasing of succession of true visible Churches and of the true Ministerie in the apostasie of Antichrist . And this may satisfie you why we may not returne back againe to churches continuing in Apostasie .

But where you say , you hear some are mynded to take up their former ministerie and returne back againe into England . You should have done wel , eyther to have forewarned such , ( if you knew in them a purpose to sinne ) els not so easily to have received the report thereof to make it publike , and so to cause suspition to arise against any brother undeservedly . For myne own part , I know none of the church to have any such thoughts . If any that have left the fayth , as you have done , and departed from the church , or for their sinne justly cast out , so do purpose , what is that to us ? look to it your selves .

And truly for my part , I hold it as lawful to retayne the church and Ministerie of England , as to retayne the baptisme , and when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of England , I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church & Ministerie of England &c.

It may be you speak truer of your estate , then you think . But whatsoever Ans. your perswasion is , I mynd a difference to be put between baptisme administred in churches standing in Apostasie , and the constitution and ministerie of these churches : For baptisme being the ordinance of God , may not be repeated , as before is proved : but those Assemblies that consist of confused multitudes and are not set in the wayes of God , that have a false Ministerie and worship , we have a speciall commandement * to separate Rev. 18. 4 Cor. 6. 17. from , as we have from al corruptions of Gods ordinances : but in no scripture to reject the ordinances themselves for any pollution that is upon them .

Now it is further to be remembred , that we in retayning baptisme , do not retayn the corruptions wherewith it was administred , but that which is of God therein : Neyther do we hold it lawful for them that are come out of Babylon , to returne thither to fetch Baptisme . And to make this difference to appeare more playnly , Let be considered the example of those Israelites that returned to Ierusalem , who cast not of theire circumcision , yet might they not iustify for true , that apostate Church or Ministery from which they did separate , or continue in the communion thereof without sinne .

But because I know the Ministerie and Church of England is false , therefore it must needs be , that Baptisme , which is the forme of the Church essentially , &c. Repl.

For the Ministerie of the Church of England , whether it be true or false , Ans. is not the thing controverted between you and me : but that baptisme in an apostate Church is false essentially I deny , and your self confesseth * * Char● pag. 35. that if it be administred by Antichrist to such as confesse their faith and sinnes , it were true and not to be repeated : which opinion of yours can not stand , if the essence of baptisme be destroyed . For your wish , that the Lord would open all our eyes of the separation to see and our harts to understand , that all the old Testament was carnal , to type out & to teach them heavenly things : & therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs the new Testament , &c. It hath pleased God , ( and we are thankful for it ) to open our eyes to discern of your carnal doctrine , & to understand the truth , which you labor to obscure by your strange expositions . As for the old Test . which you cal carnal , & the church carnal : I tel you agayn and againe , that al the ordinances under the old testament , were spiritual in their ordination and right vse , as the † † Rom. 7 law it self is holy & spiritual , and therefore are called “ “ Heb. ● ordinances of religion , and the Tabernacle , Mikdasch , to teach that it was of an holy vse for the Lord . The old † Ioh. 1● Ephe. ● 19. & 3. 1 Cor. 10 4. Eph. 4 Church also was a spiritual house , notwithstanding , that the first testament had ordinances of religion which did shadow forth things to come , for in substance both it , and the Church under the Gospel are * * Heb. 1. - 10. the same , onely differing in the outward administration of the covenant . To the former Church holy things were administred , under types and figures : to the latter more simply and in the playn manifestation of the truth . Now to prove your carnal and typicall Church , you say :

The matter of the old Church , was a carnal Israelite , and the forme , carnal circumcision Re. a carnal seal . Gen. 17. 10-14 . But the matter of the Church of the new Testament is a true Israelite , the forme is the circumcision of the hart , a new creature , the holy spirit of promise , whereby we are sealed , which is manifested by confession & baptism in water . Act. 10. 47. Ephe. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 27. & 6. 15. Io. 3. 5. Mat. 3. 6. Rom. 10. 9. Act , 8. 36. 37. &c.

Concerning your carnal matter and forme I haue answered , pag. 12. and have also proved that God did require of that his people Israel to be † † Exo. ● holy and “ “ Rom. 2. 29. D● 10. 16 Jer. 4. 4 Ans. spiritual . And for the forme of the old Church , I have shewed likewise that they became * * Gen. Deut. 2● 10 - 15. a Church & people of God , by vertue of Gods covenant made with them , wherevnto circumcision was added as a seal to confirme the same , which they also received , pag. 12. 13. 23. &c. The form of the Church can never be wanting , the Church continuing to be a Church : but circumcision may be wanting , and was wanting to all the Israelites 〈◊〉 in the wildernes by all that space of 40. yeres , and yet I hope they were 〈…〉 bers of his “ “ Psal. 43. Church all that time notwithstanding .

That which you set downe for the forme of the new testament , viz. Circumcision of the hart , a new creature and the spirit of Christ , is internal , proper to every true member both of the old Church and new : yea this forme ( if it be so called ) belongs to Gods people in Babylon and to all the members of the invisible Church : but that outward forme of a visible Church , which we are to know it by , must be visible , and such as we can discerne them to be a people of God from all other assemblies . But this new creature and inward graces , you wil say are manifested by confession and baptisme in water : so may it also , where baptisme is not had as it might be in Israel when they could not have circumcision . Also the forme of the Church , must be one indivisible thing common to the whol , that gives the being thereof , as before I have observed : but confession and baptisme as it is particularly applyed to every member , as to the * Eunuch , Paul &c. so may it rest in one man , if all the rest should dye or fall away , who could ●ct . 8. ● 9. 18 not be a Church , and yet he hath that , which you set down to be the form of the Church . Wherefore Gods people ioyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel , must have one general form , whereby they receive the denomination of a Church , & that is their solemn entring into communion vnder the covenant of the Lord vniting together , to walk in all his wayes & to be his ●eu . 29. ● 13. ● . 18. 20 ●i . 1. 5. ● . 2. 42 ●ifferenc ●he pre● . people , which all that ar afterward † added to the Church must promise to observe . And such a communion do we hold for a Church ( & so “ did you ) For as many stones may be hewen & squared , & so be fit matter for an house , yet have not those stones the denomination of an house , vntil they be ioyned together in one forme : No more people confessing Christ , are to beheld a visible Church vntill they be ioyned together in such a forme , as Christ hath commaunded . But to follow you in your comparison of these two Churches , speaking of the Iewes thus you say . Their carnall Church in the matter and forme , came by carnall genealogie , and so they all of them were gendered vnto bondage vnder the rudiments of the world . Gal. 4. 24 . -25 . vnder the carnal Testament . Our Church in the matter & forme thereof is by spirituall generation , that is the genealogie of the faithful , of Abraham the father of vs all . Gal 3. 7. 9. 14. Rom. 4. 10. 11. Their parents in that carnal Church , was carnal Abraham , and carnal Agar , &c. our spiritual parent is Abraham spiritual &c. Their Ministery was a carnal Ministery by carnal genealogie &c.

First I deny that eyther the matter or forme of the Church of the ●● . Iewes came by carnal genealogie , as you apply it : They were made a Church and people of God through the everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham and his seede , els could not the Proselyts and their children have bene matter of that old Church , seing they descended not by carnall genealogie from Abraham . Agayne , that Church must be of the same nature with the covenant which gives the being thereof , but this † † Deut. 13. conf. w● Luke 1. 7● 73. 74. Cor 6. 1● covenant is spirituall : Ergo the Church also is spirituall .

That place of Gal. 4. 24. 25. which you cyte to prove that old Church to be carnal , you missaply , as before I have shewed , pag , 14. Secondly I deny that Hagar was the mother of the Israelites after the flesh , though Abraham was their father , neyther was Ismael the type of the Israelits as they were by nature the seede of Abraham , but of such Israelits and others vnder the Gospel , that by the works of the law sought to be iustified , whereby they came in bondage to the law as the Apostle witnesseth . See the exposition of Gal. 4. 24. 25. in pag. 14.

As for the spiritual genealogy , both vnder the law and the Gospel , I do approve to be the true seede of Abraham , but not in your sense , that excludes the infants of the faithful from the covenant , which of vs are to be * * Mat. ● Act. 3. accounted the children thereof , as wel as these that outwardly professe their faith .

And concerning the Ministerie of the old Church , although none could be Preists † † Exo. 28. but of the line of Aaron , yet was the “ “ Num. 6-19 . D● 33. 8-● tribe of Levi chosen by God himself for that office . And God * sanctified them to the service of his name , and to the Ministery of holy things .

Lastly , you charge vs , with an introducing of a carnal line into the Church , to be baptised , & by succession fetch baptisme vpon the carnal line through the Church of Rome , &c. “ Numb ▪ 19. 1 Cor. ● 13.

Of this I have spoken before , and I answer further . 1. that we do not introduce any other carnall line into the Church to be baptised , then the Lord himself introduceth , that is , the children of the faithful . And this is not ( as you say ) to set up Iudaisme in the new Testament , seing all the people of God , of al nations and ages are bound vnto it : for we know no other covenant , by which we become the People & Church of God , but that same , which was made with Abraham and his seed .

Concerning the carnall lyne ( as you cal it ) though in respect of vs it may seeme to stop in Apostacy , yet the Lord continueth his promise to his elect therin . Neyther by this our retayning of baptism do we iustify Rome to be a true church , nor make our selves Schismaticks : seeing we cast of her adulteries , and keep that which is Christs ordinance , by her polluted . Also you charge us , To be fallen from Christ , and become a new second image of the beast never heard of before in the world . For being fallen from Christ look that it be not your owne case . Of the image of the beast I † read , but not of a ●ev . 13. ● . 15. & ● . 9. new second image , and therefore no marveil though it be never heard of in the world . ( as you say ) and if it had been by you unspoken of also , by so applying of it unto us , your sinne had been the lesse . And thus much in answer to your premised ground . Next you set down the summe of my exception .

First I say , that the new Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affairs ●l . and occasions that befal in our tyme in the new Testament , as the old Testament was for the occurrents that befel under the old Testament , seeing Christ is as faythful as Moses , and the new Testament as perfect as the old . Gal. 3. 15. and therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostalike constituting of Churches and our constituting of them , in respect of the persons to be admitted into the church , and in respect of baptising , and not baptising , or rebaptising of them , he could & would have done it ▪ &c.

The sufficiencie of the new Testament we acknowledge , & of the books Answ. thereof for that use wherefore they were written . But it seemes that you confound the new Testament or covenant of grace with the books thereof : for you reason thus , that the new Testament ( meaning the bookes thereof ) are sufficient for direction of al affaires of the church . And your proofe out of Gal. 3. 15. is of the covenant it self , and not of the books thereof . And afterward you alleadge as a reason for the same end , that the new Testament is perfect and sealed with the blood of Christ , thus deceiving the Readers with an homonomy of the word Testament .

The books of the new Testament were al unwritten when Christ sufferred and had sealed the covenant of Grace . This Testament had been perfect , if there had been never a book written . The historie of the Gospel was written * * Ioh. 20. 31 Rom. 1. 1. 2. & 16. 25. 26. that we might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ promised and foretold in the holy Scriptures of the Prophets , and that beleeving in him we might have eternal life .

Concerning the faythfulnes of Christ , it consisteth in “ “ Luk. 1. 70 & 24. 27. ● Pet. 1. 10. ●1. 12. Act. 26. 22. & 13. 29. fulfilling of those things which Moses and the Prophets had sayd should come to passe . And if he give us direction for all the affaires and occasions that fall out in our tymes , eyther out of the books of the new Testament or old , we ought to be thankful to God , and accordingly to use them , and not bynd him , or our selves , onely to the writings of the Apostles : Seeing Christ is the Author as wel of the doctrine & writings of the Prophets , as of the Apostles . 2 Tim. 3. 16 , 17. 1 Pet. 3. 18. 19.

Againe , concerning the difference between the Apostolicke constituting of Churches and ours , which you charge us with : I answer , we plead for no difference , neyther do we practise contrarie to the first planting of the church ( witnesse Mr. Smyth . Differences , in the preface lin. 12. ) ●ns . ● for as then such as were to be received into the Church , did confesse their fayth , and so with thir families were baptised , so wee hold , that all such that are unbaptised , and to be added to the church : must enter thereinto they with their families , after the same manner , as in the Apostles tymes . And we do acknowledge that all churches which have Apostated , are to be reformed according to the patterne and platforme layd downe by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures . But this difference we put between persons that were never baptised , and such as have received baptisme in an Apostate church : affirming that the former are to be adjoyned to the Church by baptisme , the latter not to be againe baptised : which if it had been necessarie , the Lord no doubt would have commanded , when he bad his people to goe out of Babylon . But seing he sayth not a word of the renuing thereof , we are to content our selves , and to practise as the Holy Ghost † † 2 Chr. ● 5. - 13. else where doth teach us , by the example of the Israelites in an other like case . Now if you can shew us eyther commandement or example or any good reason in all the new Testament , to rebaptise them which have been baptised in Apostate churches , we will receive it and practise it : if not , why do you plead for it , & without warrant do rebaptise your selves , & also affirme so confidently , that all things be so manifest in the APOSTLES writings , that upon every occasion that falles out in our tymes , we have direction for it .

Lastly , it is not wee that adde to this new Testament ( as you charge us ) or that bring in a new CHRIST , a new Church , a new Covenant , a new Gospell , and a new Baptisme : but you your selves are guilty of this sinne , for you by your new devysed baptisme , have rejected the seal of GODS Covenant , and consequently the covenaunt it self , and so the Author of it . And as IEROBOAM † forged the eight moneth out of his owne hart , for to keep a feast unto ●in . 12. the Lord : so have you forged a church of your own invention , and the receiving in of members into it . And that which you would impute unto ●v . 22. ● . us , is fallen upon your selves , even that * woe for adding to the word .

Secondly , I affirme that ( as the holy Ghost sayth ) the Antichristians are in condition equal to Pagans , not called Israelites or Samaritanes , but Babylonians , Aegyptians , Sodomites , Gentiles : But the holy Ghost knoweth what and how to speak : And therefore as the Babylonians , Aegyptians , Sodomites and Gentiles washings were nothing , no more is the Baptisme of Antichristians any thing ▪ &c.

I have Answered to this before pag. 150. 151. And shewed that the Iewes , which were called the people of “ Gomorah , and their Rulers the Princes of Sodome , should then stand in the same estate with Pagans , and 〈◊〉 10. in condition be equal unto them , and their circumcision voyd , if the holy Ghost , in so terming them , did mynd as you doe . This is a strange kind of reasoning , that because the Antichristians resemble the Gentiles in some filthie practises , for the which the spirit calls them Sodomites , &c. therefore their condition in al respects , is as theirs . Christ called Peter Sathan , shal we thereupon conclude , that therefore Peter was as Sathan in al respects , because in his counseling his master to favour himself , he was like him ? Of Iudah it is sayd , that she was more † corrupt in al her wayes , then Samaria and Sodome , shal we say ( because the Lord thus speaketh ) that Iudah was now to be recircumcised ? If the holy Ghost calling the Antichristians Sodomites &c. should teach us thereby , that he esteemeth no otherwise of the church and Baptisme , then of the Synagogues of Babylon , the washings of Aegypt , then of the worship of Sodome and the Pagans ( as you say ) then must he needs teach us , the like to esteeme of the churches of the Iewes , and of the circumcision , when he calls them the people of Gomorrah , and more corrupt in her wayes then Sodome , as before I have observed .

For your comparison of the Gentiles washings , with the baptisme of Antichristians , affirming , that as the former were nothing , no more is the other . This is not to compare things alike : for the washings of the Gentiles were of mans invention , and baptisme is the ordinance of Christ . And therefore it wil not follow , that because mens devises are nothing , when any of them turne to God ; that baptisme also ( God , ordinance prophaned in Popery ) is therefore nothing , when any such Apostates repent and returne to Sion . No more is this a good reason to prove that the Holy Ghost did fore see , that the Antichristians would abolish true baptisme , by baptising Infants , because he calleth persons Apostating , Babylonians , Sodomites , Gentiles .

Thirdly , whereas you say that repayring the Church now after the Apostasie of R●pl . Antichrist is a fitter speech then constituting , herein do you both tax your selves of the vse of that word , constitution , and playnly signifie that you incline to maintain the Churches of England or Rome to be true churches , wherein whether you do not forsake your first fayth , and turn with the dogge to the vomite , look you unto it . &c.

If it had pleased you to have taken my whole answer , you had neither Ans. cause to have excepted against the word , repayring , nor yet have gathered thereby any inclination in us , to maintayn any thing that is corrupt eyther in the churches of England or Rome , much lesse ( as you say ) to forsake our first fayth , and turne with the dogge to the vomite . But you that thus speak , it were good to take heed , you be not the dogge that vomits out your blaspemous errors , to the dishonour of God and offence of his people . If the word of repayring , had been so faulty , you had done better to have manifested the untrunes thereof , then to have bewrayed your evill thoughts in the unjust censuring of others .

But concerning repayring or reforming , let the indifferent Reader judge , if it be not more proper to us , then to constitute or plant , for who knoweth not that there is but one constitution or planting of the church under the Gospel , which is founded by the Apostles . And other forme or frame can no earthly power devyse then that which the Apostles have left us . And seing at the first they did constitute churches in divers partes of the world , and those churches ruinated by Antichrist : shal not the restoring of them to the first patterne of the Apostles , be properly called a repairing ? seing they did not cease utterly to be no churches , but are churches in corruption or ruine . But I wil not contend about words , for that which I strive for , is , to have the church in that forme as the word prescribeth , both for people , worship , goverment , and what els appertaynes thereunto .

Fourthly , I say that the Iewes that were converted to the sayth & new Testament Rep. of Christ , by Christ , Iohn and the Apostles in your account , were in a farre better estate then Antichristians , for they , as you say , were of the same body with the church , of the new Testament , and their circumcision was a seal of the new Testament , as you say , and they were in Christ Iesus , as you say , and were washed I doubt not many of them into the Messiah &c. and why might not they by Iohn , Christ , or his Apostles be admitted into the church without baptisme : If therefore Christ , Iohn and the Apostles would needs baptise them , and so by baptisme constitute them into the new Testament , that had al these prerogatives in your iudgment : much more wil they have us to constitute Antichristians converted into the true church by baptisme .

This your reason is alike the rest , nothing good , for albeit that the Ch. ●ns . of the Iewes was a true church , yet had it not Christ exhibited in the flesh afore this tyme , wherefore it was meet , seing the Priesthood and ceremonial administration of that Church was changed , and the † old was to cease , ●eb . 8. 13 that the Iewes , as wel as the Gentiles should be partakers thereof alike ; that therby they might acknowledge Christ their Messiah to be come , whom they looked for . And as it was required of the members of the old Church , that they should * beleeve in the Messiah to come : So was fayth “ required ●en. 15. 6 ●m. 4. 11. ●k 2. 25. ●or. 10. 3. of them that should be admitted into the church of the Gospell , wherein both Iewes & Gentiles should be alike received & baptissd into his name .

As for the Apostate church of Antichrist , it is such a one as acknowledgeth Iesus Christ to be come , & professeth the Gospel , though corruptly . And baptisme received in the Apostate church hath his use unto such as Acts. 8. 37. & 2. ●1. 44. Cor. 10. 3 repenting , turne to the true church of Christ , because baptisme is an ordinance of the new Testament , appointed by the Lord himself . And though the beleeving Iewes were in Christ members of his mysticall body , and their circumcision a seal of the righteousnes of their fayth , yet was their fayth in † Christ to come : and circumcision did seal up unto them Christ to come . And therefore al this being but by fayth in the Messiah to come , it was necessarie , that they should also receive him now being come , and be baptised into his name , if they would continue members in his body . And so this may answer you , why Iohn , Christ , and his disciples did not admit the Iewes , as members of the church of the Gospell with out confession of fayth in CHRIST now come , and Baptisme in his name . And yet we may receive into our Church , them that have been baptised in the Apostate Churches without iterating of baptisme , upon the confession of their fayth and repentance . Neyther is this , to offer indignitie to the LORDS ordinances in the old TESTAMENT , ( as you do seeme to charge us ) for wee honour them in their place , and right use , as the Lord then appointed them , and your self , I suppose wil not say , that you offer indignitie to those ordinances of the Lord although you acknowledg that baptisme received in Popery , is not be to repeated , being administred to such as are of yeares , upon their owne profession of fayth .

Agayne &c. I deny that ever the English nation or any one of our predecessors were of Re. the fayth of Christ , shew it if you can , but we came of a Pagan race , til Rome the mother came and put vpon vs her false baptism . And therefore though the Romanes might plead this , yet England cannot plead it , , and so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing , and our case simply Paeganisme .

If al this were graunted that you say , yet is the state of England in as Ans. good case as Rome , seing she by your own confession hath Rome for her mother , † † Ezech 44. and as the mother , so is her Daughter . If England partake with Rome in her Apostacy and whoredomes , she must nedes be a member of her . But I pray you Sir , wil you admit of that baptisme in Rome without new baptising of such as shal come from thence ? if you do , you overthrow your owne position , viz , That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme . And if you doe not , why put you this dissimilitude betwene England and Rome which serves not to the question in hand ?

But you desyre me to shew if I can , that the Englishe nation or any one of our predecessors were of the fayth of Christ : it may be I cannot shew , that any of them were Anabaptists before you , which you falsly call the fayth of Christ but I can shew to them that wil heare , that our English nation receaved the fayth before Rome fel into this Apostacy .

First , Gildas affirmeth * * Act. Monu● Book . 2. p. 95. Gildas li● de vict. Aurelij Ambros● that Britayne receaved the Gospel in the tyme of Tiberius the Emperour vnder whome Christ suffered . And then was not Rome “ “ Rom 1. apostate . And further he sayth , That Ioseph of Aremathea after the dispersion of the Iewes , was sent of Philippe the Apostle from France to Britayne , about the yeare of our Lord , 63. And remayned in Britayne all his time , who with his fellowes layed the first foundation of Christian faith among the Britayne people . 2 † † Tertul. con . Indeos Tertullian testifyeth how the Gospell was dispersed abroad by the sound of the Apostles , & there reconeth up the Medes , Persians , Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia , Iury , Cappadocia , Pontus , Asia , Phrygia , Egypt , Pamphilia with many more , at length commeth to the coast of the Morianes and all the borders of Spaine , with divers nations of France : And there amongest 〈◊〉 other reciteth all the parts of Britayne , and reporteth the same to be subiect to Christ .

And also reckoneth vp the places of Sarmatia , of the Danes , the Gerrmanes & Schythians with many other Provinces and Isles : in all which places , sayth he , reigneth the name of Christ , which now beginneth to be common . 3. † Origine sayth , that Britayne did consent to Christian religion . 4. * Nicephorus , saith , That Symon Origin . ● . 4. in ●…ch . ●icep . li. ● . ●●0 . Zelotes did spread the gospel of Christ to the west Ocean , and brought the same into the Isles of Britayne . 5. In the time of the Abbot of Cluniake , the Scots did celebrate their Easter , not after the Romane maner , but after the Greeks , as he testifieth to Barnard . Which argueth that they had received the faith , and not from Rome . 6. Also it appeareth by a letter of Elutherius Bishop of Rome written to Lucius King of Britayne , anno 169. that Lucius had received the faith of Christ in his Land , before he sent to Elutherius for the Romane lawes : for so do the words of the letter purport , which are these :

Ye have receiued of late through Gods mercie in the Realme of Britayne , the law and faith of Christ : you have with you within the Realme both the partes of the scriptures , out of them by Gods grace take ye a law , and by that law , through Gods sufferance rule your kingdome of Britayne , &c. And thus was fulfilled in Britayne as wel as in Isa. 42. 4 other lands the words of the Prophet , who sayth , “ he shall not fayle nor be discouraged , ( speaking of Christ ) til he hath set iudgement in the earth , and the Iles shall waite for his law . And it is also further written of this King Lucius , that he did not compel the heathen , but imbraced such as by the word were converted . Which is to be observed concerning the constitution of the Churches then . For it is sayd , that he founded many ▪ Churches , and gave great ritches and liberties to the same . And because of this imbracing of the faith , it caused those great troubles that fel out between the Britaynes which were Christians professing the faith , and the infidels , who brought in the Romanes which exercised much crueltie amongest the Christians . In Dioclesians tyme the Churches of Britayne were greviously persecuted & many sufferred for the faith of Christ , as Albanus , Iulius , Aaron , Amphibulus & many more .

And thus if it please you to take notice from these writters , you may see that this English nation were of such as professed the faith of Christ and and not of a Pagan race , til Rome came and put vppon vs false baptisme , as as you say , neyther that our case is simply paganisme , if these things be thus , as is aforesayd .

Next whereas I sayd that repentance of such as were baptised in Apostate Churches was sufficient without rebaptization for their admittance into the church &c. You answer . That the Churches of Antichrist were false , and Rep. the churche of the Israelites was not false . The churches of Antichrist were false , because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised , which was not that one seed , unto the which the promise was made ▪ that is the faythful ▪ &c.

I have shewed before how wel you agree with your self concerning the Ans. church of Israel , which here you say was nor false , and yet have published to the contrarie . As for your grounds or reasons of the trunes of the Israelitish church , and falsenes of Antichrists , whatsoever you can plead for the one , the like may be alledged for the other . If Israel in her defection be accounted a true church : then must Rome also in her Apostasie . Certayn it is , that both are to be esteemed Apostatical Churches , and this is that which we testifie . And towching Israel , if the carnall circumcision alone of the Israelites , had ben the sufficient constitution of that church , to keep it free from being Apostate , they continuing it ; why should the Lord bidde tel her , † † Hos. 2. ● that she was not his wife , nor he her husband . Or did the * * 2 Chro. 13. 14. Priests and Levites wel to leave their suburbes and possessions , to leave that church to goe to Iuda and Ierusalem ? but hereof before .

2. For the matter of the Antichristian churches , which you say was false , because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised . I answer , that they were not therefore false or Apostatical ▪ because infants were baptised ( whose baptisme is proved lawful already ) but for that they brake covenant with God , forsoke their first love ( as now you do ) and followed strange lovers , “ “ Rev. 17. 2-6 16. ● 18. 2. 3. 9 ▪ 24. shed the bloud of the Saincts , were a cage of every unclean and hatefull bird , &c. and these are the sinnes which they are charged with , but never is it imputed to them for sinne , their baptising of Infants .

Wherefore an Edomite or Ismaelite coming to be a proselyte of the Iewes Church Rep. that had omitted circumcision , is a true president of the Antichristian Apostasie . &c.

This is against your self , for if they were uncircumcised , they ought to Answ. be received into the Iewes Church by circumcision . And so if any be unbaptised , they ought now to be received into the ch. by baptism . But tel me if an Edomite or Ismalite having circumcision & becōing a proselyte , was recircumcised ? Now if the Edomites & Ismalites turning to the fayth , eyther were uncircumcised , or being before circumcised were not recircumcised , what is this to the purpose , to prove that Antichristians must be rebaptised ? You adde also , so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church . Why say you not rather , the Proselytes were types of the Gentiles , that under the Gospel are converted to the fayth , and admitted into the true church ? As for their being types of Antichristians , you know there is a great difference , seeing the Proselytes were uncircumcised afore their convertion , but the Antichrists are baptised already . But if this be your thought that Proselytes , & their entrance into the Iewish Church were types of Antichristians converted and admitted into the true Church , then I trust you wil , that the thing typed be answerable to the type : But you know , when a Gentile or Edomite was converted to the profession of the Iewes , and became a proselyte , he was received 〈◊〉 12. into the church of the old Testament with his familie , and † al his males must be circumcised , as wel as himself . Why admit you not that the Proselytes of Antichristianisme ( as you call them ) should enter into the church with their children , according to the type propounded by your self .

Moreover , whereas you say , that if the Apostles had met with such as we are , they would have received us into the Church without baptisme . I answer , if such an example had been left us , we would then have rested satisfied : but seeing the Apostles have left no such example or precept , therefore you are stil in your Apostasie & having not repented of , nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme , are still unseparated , do still retayne the mark of the beast , and are subiect to the woe that the Angel threatneth to persons so marked .

Example is left of such as were circumcised in the Apostasie of Israel , & were not circumcised againe when they came to the church of Iudah , and ●s . this is written for our learning . Rom. 15 , 4. That baptisme is but † one , & not to be iterated , the scripture teacheth no precept nor example for rebaptising . And therefore we may not forsake our baptisme ( howsoever you cal ●ph. 4. 5. or esteem it ) seeing we know it is not to be repeated , but upon our repentance it sealeth unto us the covenant of salvation , & is effectual for the confirming of our fayth .

As for Apostacy , whether we stand therein or no , let it be tryed by the word , we know you an unequal judge , that hath apostated from the fayth . And for the marke of the beast , and the woe that followes , we know it is due to them to whom it belongs . And if this marke were the baptising of infants , as you say it is , then the Angel should threaten the woe to such as keep the commandements of God and fayth of Iesus , which is directly contrarie to the Angels speech & intendement . But it were good for you to take heed lest while you shoot of such thundering peeces against others , they do indeed recoyle upon your selves .

Of M. Smyths second Reason for Anabaptisme of elder people . R. Clyfton .

Now let us come to the 2. Reason which is this :

2. Because true baptisme is but one , but the Baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme , and so not that one baptisme of Christ . But al the members of Christ must have true baptisme .

Answer .

1. There is but one fayth and one baptisme , Eph. 4. 4. and therefore it is sufficient to be once baptised , as it was to be once circumcised .

2. That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme , I graunt , and do also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme , and what then ? must it follow , that now such as are baptised , must be rebaptised , els cannot be members of a visible church ? I deny it , and do further answer , 1. That the baptisme which we received in the Apostate church is no more Antichrists , then the word that we received therein : For Antichrist did never ordeyn a new kind of baptisme , but did onely pollute with his inventions that holy ordinance of Christ . And therfore if this baptisme that we have received , be called the baptisme of Antichrist , it is to affirme an untruth , seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Christ , who commanded his Apostles to baptise all nations with water , in the name of the Father , and of the Sonne , & of the H. Ghost . Mat. 28. 19. And the same baptism for substance is stil reteyned in the Apostate churches , and none other .

2. This baptisme may in some respects be called true baptisme , as before I have noted in my first reason against rebaptising ▪ for 1. it hath Christ for the Author . 2. it hath the true matter outward signe or element , which is water 3. the true forme of administring the same , which is , baptising into the name of the Father and of the sone , and of the holy Ghost , all which is practised in the popish Church : Neyther is any baptised into the name or fayth of Antichrist , but into the fayth or profession of Christ . And therefore our baptime is the baptisme of Christ , and to us that repent , true baptisme , and so consequently not to be iterated .

M. Smyth .

I make Answer , that seeing Infants are baptised , which is the false matter of baptisme , and seing in them there is not the question of a good conscience unto God . 1 Pet. 3. 21. nor the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience . Heb. 10. 22. which is the forme . Seeing they cannot expresse , credis ? credo : abrenuncias ? abrenunci● : which is the forme of baptisme , even the mutual contract betwixt God and the partie baptised , expressed visiblie in confession : therefore the baptisme is not Christs , but antichrists . &c.

R. Clyfton .

This is the summe of your reply to my answer , that Baptisme administred in the Antichristian assemblies is of no use to the penitent , and is not baptisme at all , because both matter is false , and the forme is wanting . Of the matter ( whereof you speak ) which are Infants , and of the lawfulnes of the baptising of Infants , I referre you for answer to the former part of this writing : Also for the matter & forme of baptisme , to that which hath been spoken thereof in this latter part . Onely thus much concerning that which you here insert to the forme , To be the question of a good conscience vnto God , the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience , to expresse Credis ? Credo , abrenun 〈…〉 ? abrenunci● . I wil answer , first , that which the Apostle speaketh to such as were of yeares , he applyeth to infants . 2. In a good and true understanding we may and ought to think , that children have their harts sprinkled from an evil conscience , by the spirit of God , in the bloud of Iesus Christ , els how could we hope they should be saved , seeing by nature they are the children of wrath . Eph. 2. 3. but yet by grace the kingdome of heaven appertayns unto them . Mat. 19. 14. 3. Although a good conscience be it which ministreth assurance of comfort to the baptised , yet is not that the forme of this sacrament , as now we speak of it . First , because hypocrytes in the church receive the outward signe , as S. Magus did , of whom it is sayd that he was baptised : & yet neyther Simon nor any hypocrite are sprinkled from an evil conscience . 2. That which is required in the receiving of every sacrament and in al parts of the worship of God , & in the whole course of our life , cannot be the proper forme of one particular sacrament : But a * * Deut. ● 16. 1 Cor. ● 28. 29. 3● good conscience is required to be in the receivers of every sacrament , &c. 3. There is an outward baptisme , wherof “ “ Mat. 3. ● Tit. 3. 5. Iohn and the Ministers of the Gospel are the disposers : and “ there is an inward baptisme which the Holy Ghost ministreth , which is † † Hebr. 1● 22. 23. the sprinkling of the hart from an evil conscience , and is indeed the thing signified by the outward washing . But we must consider of Baptisme as it is external , and so to have an external forme & matter .

Lastly , for the meaning of * * 1 Pet. 3. 2● that place of Peter , I take to be this . That the Apostle in applying the former example , to the tymes following the coming of Christ , would teach , that the peservation of Noah in the waters was a figure of our baptisme , which is a type of our spiritual preservation from the floud of Gods wrath , saying , that baptisme that now is saveth us also by the resurrection of Iesus Christ ▪ And least any might attribute overmuch to the outward Ceremonie by way of correction , he advertiseth us that salvation ( to speak properly ) stands in the forgivenes of our sinnes &c. by the death of Christ , and that baptisme saveth , in that it testifieth and sealeth the same unto us . And this remission of sinnes , is partly signified in putting away the filth of the soule , closely insinuated , when he sayth , not the putting away of the filth of the flesh : And partly in declaring the effect thereof , to wit , the confident demanding , which a good conscience maketh to God . For when we are washed from our sinnes we may cherefully and with a good conscience freely call upon God . Now this being as you see the effect of remission of our sinnes , & internal , how shall it be the outward forme of Baptisme , which is an outward ordinance of Christ ? To your credis and credo I have answered before . Neyther is that which is spoken to them of yeares to be misapplyed to infants , as I have shewed divers times heretofore .

Of Mr Smythes 3. Reason for Anabaptizing of Elder people . The third Reason .

3. Because as the false Church is reiected and the true erected , the false Ministerie forsaken and the true received : So false worship ( and by consequent baptisme ) must be renounced , and the true baptisme assumed .

Answer .

First , I grant that we ought to separate from all false or apostate Churches . Apoc. 18. 4. and to adioyne our selves to a true Church , reformed according to the patterne of the Apostles . 2. Also every false Ministerie is to be forsaken , Mat. 7. 15. 2 Iohn , 10. Gal. 1. 8. and the true Ministers of God to be received . Ier. 3. 14. 15. as did the faithfull in Israel , that forsooke the false Preists set vp by Ieroboam and returned to the Preists of the Lord to Ierusalem , 2 Chron. 30. 11. 3. It is our dutie likewise to renounce all false worship , 2 Cor. 6. 14-17 . Esa. 30. 22. and to worship the Lord as he taught vs in his word . And thus farre do I approve of this reason , but the consequence I must deny , viz. that because false worship is to be renounced , therefore baptisme also . For 1. we are to consider in that baptisme received in apostate Churches two things , first that which is of God therein , secondly , that which is of man : that which is of God , is the substance of baptisme , as before is observed , viz. the same matter and forme which the Lord instituted and likewise the same end , which is the profession of the faith of Christ : and this is not false worship , and so consequently not to be renounced . Againe , that which in the administration of baptisme is devised by man , are those vnwarrantable ceremonies of crossing , annoynting and such like , these are to be renounced as vayne worship , Mat. 15. 9. Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men , and not with their pollutions to be renounced . For if pollution might warrant men to ca●● away with it , that which is ordeyned of God , then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon , have been brought agayne to Ierusalem , nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned , in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges , haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord .

2. I answer , that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God , did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes : And therefore we may no more renounce it , and to assume a new , then they that returned to Ierusalem . 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision , & be recircumcised .

It is obiected of some , that this comparison holdes not , for ▪ Israel was a true Church , and therefore their circumcision was true : But an apostate Church hath nothing t●ue , neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing , and it is not true baptisme to such .

This obiection , in part I have answered before , and now answer further . 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church , but a false : seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world : and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves , ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie , 1. King . 12. 30 . -33 . and 18. 19 . -21 . and so became an Harlot , Hosea 2. 2.

Secondly in the Apostate Church , there be some things true in the substance , as the word and Baptisme , though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises .

3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes . 1. as they stand members of ●●ch a Church : 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers , which received the covenant for themselves and their seed . And though in regard of the former estate , they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant ( for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly ) yet even to such members considered a part from such standing , and as they are the seed of their forefathers , so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament , and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance . For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes . Rom. 11. 28. & this appeareth in that he sayth , come out of her my people . Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed , but that to them belonges the covenant : yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon , as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea . Bondage hinders not Gods grace .

But some may reply , that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers . I answer , the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents , but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors , Exod. 20. ( if we respect herein Gods mercie , ) even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers . Neyther do the members of an apostate Church , cast of all profession of faith , for they beleeve the scriptures , and in Christ , &c. though withall they professe divers errors , and worship the true God in a false manner .

If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church , had forefathers that beleeved . I answer , it can not be denyed , seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels ( for then could it not be called apostate , seing that to apostate , must be in regard of the truth ) but is the ruines of a true Church : and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant .

And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons , as the Lord hath inabled me for the present , wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better . And further intreat that the truth ( which I contend for ) may not , by my weak defence beare any reproch , but that which is falt worthy , let it returne vpon my head . And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written , and both he and they that so practise , may seriously consider of that which is done , and glorifie God by repentance .

March 14. 1608. Rich: Clifton . Mr. Smyth .

In the next place you make answer to my last Argument , which may be framed into this forme . As the false Ministerie & worship are reiected , & the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed . So the false worship , and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced &c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse , yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something , for the further clearing of the point , 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme . 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised . 2. He never ordeyned , that Pagans should be baptised . 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised . Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful , but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist .

R. Clyfton .

Concerning the causes of baptisme , they have been formerly spoken of , Answ. To these particulars , thus I answer brieflly : to the first , that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing . To the 2. touching Pagans , that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes & fayth , I am farre from approving . 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful , ( as you cal it ) I have before proved , that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them , and have removed al your objections to the contrarie .

The matter of baptisme is false : 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should ●ep . be baptised without his own confession . &c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22.

This is true of such as are of yeares , and now at the first to be received ●s . into the church , but not of their infants , or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church : you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents , whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth . Towching the places of 1 Pet , 3. 21. & Heb , 10 , 22 I have answered unto , in the former section .

Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them , for Christ wil not contract ●ep . in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age . Gal. 4. 14.

It is strange how you apply scriptures , would any that is a Scholer or ●ns . made conscience of the truth , ever have applyed this place of the Galathians , to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful ? The similitude that the Apostle useth , comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors , might teach you , that the Lord did contract with that church , how els could it ever have been his wife , and as a wife in one respect , so an heire in an other , as here the Apostle calls that church . And surely she could not be called an heire , if she had not title to an inheritance , and this then must be by covenant . Besides the church of Israel was able , and did covenant with the Lord : You labour to chayn up the Lords grace , and to bynde him that he cannot promise good to the children of the faythful , or save them in Christ , except they do actually by voyce and words of their own speaking , stipulate or contract with the Lord the contrarie † † Deu. 2● 10. - 15. A● 2. 39. is witnessed by the holy Ghost .

3. The Lord did never appoint that baptisme should seal up his new Tectament Rep. to infants . Of this I have spoken before throughout the first treatise . Ans. And for your selves you hold that baptism sealeth up the covenant , neither to yong ▪ nor old , and therefore you might wel have spared this particular . As for that which followes , or that infants should by his baptisme be admitted in to the body of Antichrist , &c. I grant , not into the body of Antichrist , for Antichrist hath no right to any of the ordinances of God : but the question is not what he hath right unto , but whether the Lords ordinance is to be rejected together with the pollution thereof . The Lord did not appoint that Belsha●her , his princes , wyves , and concubines should drink in the vessels of the Temple , or them to be caried into Babylon : but * * Dan. 5. 2 ▪ 3. 4. they being there prophaned , yet were “ “ Ezr. 1. 8. - 11 . caried out thence & served for the use of the Temple . And so do we hold of baptisme , & of the scriptures , rejecting the corruptions that did cleave unto them in Poperie , and applying them with their right use to our selves .

But the end of Christs baptisme is to manifest visibly that the partie confessing his Rep. sinne , is sealed by the spirit unto the day of redemption , that he hath visibly put on Christ , that he is mortified , crucified , risen againe &c. Rom. 6. 1. - 6. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. These ends of baptisme I deny not , but we must not deprive infants of this grace , neither exclude that Ans● special end of baptisme , to wit , the sealing up unto us the pomise of God , which is the thing you can not away with . I know the true beleevers ar sealed with the spirit , ( a seal invisible ) : so were the godly under the old Test . al that are the Lords are in Christ & have his spirit dwelling in them , els could they not be his . And it is true also that the promise of the spirit , hinders not the outward meanes which God hath sanctified for the begetting and increasing of our fayth , for he worketh together with them .

Seeing therefore the matter , forme and end of baptisme in the false church is from man , even from Antichrist , therefore the Lord is not the Author of this baptisme , but the baptisme is Antichrists wholly . And although he useth the words , In nomine patris , & filij , & spiritus sancti , Amen , as the Papists do in sprinkling holy water in baptising of their belles , & as coniurers do in their charmes , yet this can not make true baptisme &c.

How untrue that is which you speak of Baptisme in Poperie , as being ●●s . from Antichrist , and not from Iesus Christ for the matter , &c. I have shewed before . The Papists when they baptise children do intend to administer baptisme , and do baptise them into the name of Christ , and not into the name of the Pope . And though they do in the use of this holy ordinance adde a number of superstitious ceremonies and observations withal , yet keep they the forme * set downe by Christ without devising a new . And Mat. 2● . therefore it is not true to say that baptisme is Antichrists wholly . The abusing of the name of God by papists or conjurers in their baptising of bells and conjurations &c. is their sinne , which we leave unto them selves : the ordinance of God we retayn , which we know their abuse cannot annihilate . And though you except these words , In nomine patris &c. have been prophaned by the Papists , As much may be sayd of the scriptures . And if prophanation be a cause sufficient to reject baptisme , then by lyke reason may the scriptures be cast away . And this also you are in a reasonable forewardnes , ( for no translated scriptures must come in your worship ) yet for some uses , you are contented to receive the scriptures , though they have been prophaned , but baptisme , for no use at all : because say you , it is essentially corrupted in matter , and forme and use , yet not another matter , forme and use : your self hath confessed , † That if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing ●haracter ●g . 53. their sinnes and fayth , into the Trinitie , it should not have been repeated . So that all this florish that you make about the essential corruption in matter , forme and use , stands in this , that you hold that infants are not capable of baptisme , which is proved already against you .

Againe these corruptions in or about the matter and forme of baptisme are accidental , and not the changing of the matter , forme and end , as before is shewed . Furthermore , whereas I sayd , that the Israelites in their Apostasie were a false church , & you answer , If so you understand a false church , Rep● viz. meetings or companies of men assembled together in a wrong place , to a wrong worship , to a wrong Priesthood , I yeeld Israel to be a false church , but I deny that to be the true definition of a false church . &c.

By a false church I understand a church apostate , neither do I describe Answ. a false or an apostate Church , as in the first place you set downe , but such a church I hold to be in apostasie that hath † † 2 The. ● 1 Tim. 4. fallen from the fayth and waye of Christ * * Hos. 2. broken covenant with God , and “ “ 2 Chr. 12. 11. forsaken him , † † 2 Chro. 9. 1 Kin. 28. - 33. 14. 9. that erects a new fellowship amongst themselves of their own invention , and worship God by the hands of false Ministers with false worship , &c. This was the state of Israel , which came to be without the “ “ 2 Chr. 1● 3. true God , &c. and therefore she was a church in apostasie , and not the true * * Hos. 2. ● wi●e of the Lord . That false is contrarie to true , I graunt , but in that sense I never intended to cal Israel a false church , as having nothing that belonged to the true church in it , no more is Antichrists such a one . Yet the having of some of Gods holy things in them in a corrupt manner cannot make them true churches .

Here you indeavour to prove Israel a false church , &c. A true church is discerned in the true causes essential , and so a false church by the want of those true causes essential , Repl. the true essential causes of the church of the old Testament was the posteritie of Abraham , or proselyte circumcised , the want of those things onely made a false church &c.

If this be the true definition of the church under the old Testament , Ans. then what would let that the Ismaelites and Edomites , being circumcised , were not true churches , they were of the posteritie of Abraham , as all do know . That Israel was an Apostate church , is before proved , and by you confessed . As to your essential causes of this church , & your carnal covenant , which is the ground of your definition , you may receive answer before , pag. 12. &c. And this more , 1. That the Israelites and proselytes were a true church so long as they walked in the wayes of God , but apostating , the Lord did cal them an harlot . Hos. 2 , 2. 2. If these be the essential causes of that church as you have set down , then the want thereof makes them not a false church ( as you say ) but no Church .

Lastly , you bring us in a double respect or consideration of members of the church Repl. of Antichrist , &c. I answere , divers things 1. I do not deny but that men may be considered two wayes , visibly as members of Antichrist body , invisibly , as pertayning to the Lords , election and that is the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but I deny that hence it followeth that when they came from their invisible being in Christ to a visible being in the true visible Church they shal enter in any waye but by the dore which is baptism .

First , you graunt a duble consideration may be had of members of Antichrists Church , but not altogether in the same sence as I did propound it . The members of an apostate Ch. though in respect of their outward standing they have no right to the holy things of God , yet as touching the election of God , divers of them may belong vnto him , whom he knoweth for his people , and calleth them out of Babylon , when and as it pleaseth him , even as that speach doth shew vnto vs , which sayth , come out of her my people &c. Rev. 18. 4. God for his promise sake made to Abraham , Isaac , and Iacob did extend his love to their seed and posteritie , to save so many of them as he had * elected : And when Israel fel into apostasie , did remember Rom. 11. ●-5 . this his promise , and called thence such as he had chosen to witnes his truth , and gave them to separate from their false wayes , and to returne to Ierusalem . Also the Lord having graffed the Gentiles in , and † made them partakers of the roote and fatnes of the Olive tree , vouchsafeth Rom. 11. 7. his grace to them and their posteritie . But their apostasie , he hateth , as he did that of the Israelites . And yet notwithstanding he hath his people Rom. 11. 8. in Babylon , whom he calleth out to confesse his name : for the covenant is given to the beleeving Gentiles , as it was formerly to the Israelites and is no more extinguished in the apostasie of Antichrist , then in the apostasie of Israel .

And as for the meaning of Rom. 11. 28. I take to be this , that wheras 〈◊〉 . 11. 28 question might be made of the saving of the Iewes , they being now enemies , &c. Paul granteth that they are enemies in one respect , to wit , of the Gospel , which now they received not , yet that in an other respect , they are beloved of God , to wit , for his election and promise made to the fathers , so as through the grace of his covenant , by which he had chosen that people to himself ; Israel shal be called and ingraffed agayne , and saved from their sinnes , &c. But that promise was to their fathers and their seed , and this ingraffing agayne of the Iewes shal be into that estate , from which now they are fallen , and which before time their fathers were partakers off .

As concerning baptisme , I do not read that it is called the doore of * Ro● 3-4 . 3. 27. the Church , the scripture hath these phrases . baptised into Christ , baptised into his death , and such like . Notwithstanding in some sense it may be called the doore , because it sealed vnto vs Christ , who is the doore , and for that it is the first-ordinance , that eyther such as came to the Church , or that are borne in the Church are made partakers of .

Whereas you intimate that a man being invisibly elect and having Title to the Re. covenant may therevpon , 1. visibly enter into the false Church by false baptism , and then vpon his repentance come to the true Church and enter thereinto not by baptism , but that the dore of Antichrist shall open him the way into the Church of Christ Ans. &c.

I answere , 1. do not your selfe intimate thus much concerning such as being of yeares , and makes themselves profession ; are baptised into Antichrists Apostacy ? 2. My spech was of such of Gods people as are borne † Carra● pag. 52. in Babylon , ( which your selfe calles * members of a false Church ) 3. Baptism that is retayned in the Apostate Church of Antichrist , is not false in that sense as you so call it , but is the ordinance of Christ there poluted , as formerly I have shewed . 4. Gods people comming out of Babylon do no more enter into the true Church without baptisme , then those his people that separated from the apostasie of Israel came to Ierusalem without circumcision , otherwise I do not intimate or speak .

Whereas I say you intimate so much , you teach contrary to Christ , who sayth we Re. must go in by the dore , &c. and that we must first be taught and made disciples , and then be baptised , &c.

The doore is * * Joh. 10. ● Christ , by whome if any man enter in he shal be saved . An. And to be baptised first & after instructed , is not contrary to Christs commandement . The words of Christ you wrest from the true meaning therof to thrust infants out of the covenant and from baptisme , and so your self is guilty of teaching contrary to Christ , as formerly I have proved : and you might aswel deny Baptisme to women by that Scripture , Mat. 28. 19. as to infants : for Christ sayth , Baptise them , vsing the masculine gender , and not the feminine .

Secondly , I say that no man is under the covenant or under baptisme for the parents sake and that is not the meaning of the Apostle , Rom. 11. 28. but his meaning is , that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise of God made to Abraham , Isaac and Jaoob in respect of Chrict .

This place of Rom. 11. 28. I have before expounded , Pag. 218. And that any is beloved for their parents sake , ( otherwise then in respect of gods free promise made vnto them and their seed , ) I meane not . Yet if we consider the Lords dispensation of his covenant , according to his grace of chosing a people to himself , ( of which the Apostle also speaketh , Rom. 11. chap. ) and how he conveigheth the same to the seed of beleevers , then it may be sayd , that God loveth the children for the fathers fake , with whom the Lord had made his covenant so to love them .

Not for that the children shal be partakers of that covenant because of their parents fayth , or because of Gods covenant made with their parents and their carnal infants , but because God elected them in Christ to life invisibly , &c.

The children of beleevers are partakers of Gods covenant , because the Lord of his free gift and mercie giving it vnto their parents , includeth their seed with them , as before I haue proved . And thus we are to respect the external dispensation thereof ; and of this is our question , and not of the particular election , and reprobation of this or that person : For so all are not † Israel , which are of Israel . And many ●●● . 9. 6. Mat. 20. ● 16. & 25 - 11. ●k . 13. 24. ●● . Mat. ● chap. 1. 2. 19. Act. 3. 25 to vs are visibly within the covenant , which are not elected * to salvation . Hypocrites will ly lurking in a visible Church , which shall not be discerned until the last day , yet the holy things of God are administred unto them , and they of vs are to be reputed members , because visibly they appeare to vs so to be . And should we not then thus reckon of the children of the faithful ? the promise being made indefinitely to “ them and to their seed .

Neyther is it the carnal lyne that is beloved of God for his mercie sake , but the spiritual line , &c.

I answer , God for his mercie sake loveth the line of the faithful , because of his promise ( as I haue sayd ) to chose out therof , ( even out of their carnal line so to call it ) such as he wil save by Iesus Christ : And al this line of the faithful so long as they continue in the Church , to vs is holy & spirituall , though in Gods election none be holy to him , but those that he hath chosen : which two things you confounding , make all this doctrine obscure unto your hearers .

But what is this to prove that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant , for the carnal line descending from a beleeving auncestor ? Re.

I do not say that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant unto vs , considered according to their outward standing : but this I say , that Ans. in an apostate Church there be ( though to us unknowen until they come out thence ) of Gods people that are descended of beleeving auncestors , and are beloved and come under the covenant because God wil be found faithful in his promise , & † † Ex. 20. shew mercy to thousands of them that love him .

Or if it were graunted , how doth it follow that the baptism visibly receved in the Re. Antichristian false Church is true baptism sealing vp the covenant to them that the Lord converted in the false Church .

I answer , that while they remayne in that estate they can not make this comfortable vse thereof vnto themselves ; but when such as be converted Ans. in that false Church , do separate from the same , and turne to the Lord , having right to the covenant , they have right also to the seale , and to all the holy things of God , in that they are the people of God . And so as the word converteth , so baptism sealeth , because the efficacy thereof is of God , which can no more be hindered by the wickednes of man , then the word could be hindered from converting them that belonged to the Lord .

Lastly , whereas you fetch the Title to the covenant and to baptism for infants in Re. the false Church , from some ancestor beleeving , 40. generations happily before , according to that Exod. 20. 6. I answer three things . 1. You must prove that some of our Predecessors had that actual faith and were members of true Churches , and this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptisme , thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant and baptisme , by his carnal line . 2. You must by the same reason receave by baptism , if you can come by them , all the infants of the Thessalonians , Galatians , Collossians , Philippians and Churches of Asia that did sometime beleeve . 3. I deny that you expound that place , Exod. 20. truely , for the Lord directly doth require that they , vpon whom he sheweth mercy should feare him and keep his commaundements , &c.

To the first particular , I answer , in that our Predecessors were all in apostasie Ans. yt argueth that they descended from beleevers . Apostasie must be from the faith once publikly defended : And where there is a publik face of an Apostate church , there was formerly a publike face of a church professing the truth , from which they are fallen . And even their retayning of baptisme to this day , is a confirmation thereof . Againe , this is witnessed by them that came out of Babylon , that they are descended from beleevers , whose seed the Lord now remembreth in his mercy , to do good unto . But we are not to stand upon particulars , the general estate sheweth what was the precedent estate of Antichristians : neyther are we to inquire any more into the particular condition of their Predecessors or parents , that come out of Babylon , then they of Ierusalem did inquire into the particular estates of the forefathers of those Israelites , that left the Apostate church of Ieroboam to joyne unto them . For receiving in without baptisme you are answered before .

To your second particular I answer , that the estate of them must be considered , whether these be in Apostasie as Rome is , or be quite fallen from the fayth , and be no churches at all ▪ but as infidels that beleeve not in Iesus Christ and his word : if their estate were but apostasie , and that they beleeved the Scriptures , worshipped God and reteyned baptisme , ( though all these in a corrupt manner ) then should we do alike unto them , as we do to the papists . But if they were become infid●ls , and the candelstick removed from them , so that no stepps of a church remaynes amongst them : then are we to receive both parents beleeving , and their children , into the church by baptisme , as the Apostles in the like case did . Accordingly , for receiving the infants of the Thessalonians &c. if we can come by them , we hold it thus , if their parents returne to the Lord and his church , or if some of the faythful undertake their education as their own children .

In the third particular you deny , that I expound the place of Exod. 20. 6. truly . My words are set down before , pag. 213. And my meaning was this , that concerning those that ar born in an apostate church , the Lord remembreth his covenant made with their forefathers that beleeved , & doth cal of their seed , ( whom it pleaseth him ) to the knowledge of his truth , & fayth in Christ , not regarding their immediate idolatrous and apostate Eze. 18. ● . - 17. ● Chro. 30. ● 11. parents , whose sinne can not * hinder Gods promise : as the Lord did remember to shew mercy to those of Israel that “ left that apostate church , and returned to Ierusalem , as now he doth unto us . And this is all that I alleaged ●his scripture for . But you in a kind of bitternes and detestation of our forefathers , do here againe utterly deny that ever they beleeved .

How religion came into our land , I have shewed before , that there have been & are beleevers in it , I make no question . And whether there have been visible churches in the Apostolical constitution , I leave to be confidered by the histories forenamed , and the great persequutions they suffered for the truth of Christ . And seeing there have been so many Martirs put to death in our nation , for the witnessing of Iesus Christ & his Gospel , mynd well what wronge you do to your native countrie , in denying , that any of them did visiblie beleeve . And of the church of Rome , it is undeniable that it was a true established church in the Apostles dayes .

But you wonder at mee that I should say , that seeing we are Apostates , that we had auncestors that sometime beleeved : and your reason is , because we are departed from the scriptures , not from the fayth of our Auncestors , who never a one of them beleeved in a true constituted Church . There cannot be an Apostasie , or falling away from that we nor our fathers ever had . If we apostate from the fayth of the scriptures , eyther we or our fathers † † 2 Thes. 2. once beleeved that which we are departed from , or els how is our standing apostasie ? .

But our fathers ( say you ) beleeved not in a true constituted church . Indeed I think they did never beleev in such an heretical Church of Anabaptists as you account a true constituted Church , that must have all the members received in by Anabaptisme , their children excluded : but this is certaine , that the general face of a people standing in apostasie , doth argue that there was a face of a church before professing the fayth , as in the examples of Israel and the church of Rome may be seen .

Thus through Gods providence and blessing I am come to an happie end of answering R●p . your writing , wherein I praise the Lord for his mercy , I have received such assurance of the truth that all the earth shal never be able to wring it out of my hart and hands . And therefore I desire you Sir , and all the leaders of the Separati●● to weigh seriously , even ●●twixt the Lord and their owne harts upon their bedds ▪ this which is written &c.

I am sory to see how you deceive your own hart in a false perswasion to Ans. justifie your errors , and most blasphemously as it were to make God a Patron thereof , by praising him for his mercy . that you have received such assurance of the truth that al the earth shal not be able to wring it out of your hart .

Whereas you are fallen from faith , separating your self from the communion of all true Churches , and become a pleader for , & a practiser of old concondemned heresies , into which you are given over of God , for iust cause knowen to himself .

And whereas you desire me and the Leaders of the Seperation ( as you cal them ) seriously to consider of your writings : such counsel for myne owne part , could I wish to your self , to examine your writings by the Scriptures , from the meaning whereof , you have erred pitifully , and to pray unto the Lord that this evil may be forgiven you . And to remember wel how quickly you fell into these errours , not conferring with others or counselling with the word of God , as you should have done : but following your owne deceitful and deceiving ha●● , being strongly deluded by Sathan , who stil doth incourage you in this new walking , that you are perswaded it is th● undoubtedst truth that ever was revealed vnto you . But know you Sir , that the works of the flesh are pleasant , wherof † heresie is one . And 〈◊〉 5. 20. that Satan wil strongly perswade therevnto , when the Lord hath given men over to beleeve lies , that would not receive the love of the truth . And as you confesse that you may err in particulars , ( as you do indeed ) so think also that you may erre in your mayne points of controversie , which were unheard of in the Apostolical Churches of the first age . As you haue begunne to recall your baptising of your selfe ( as we heare ) in some respect , vid in that you baptised your selfe and others without lawful calling , &c. so proceed to renounce it altogether , with all your Anabaptistical errours . And let me say to you , in perswading you to returne unto the truth , as you say to me in moving me to error : As you love the Lord and his truth and the people that depend vpon you , imbrace it , and apply not your self to shift it of : Think it a great mercy of God to offer you any meanes to see your erronious walking . I speak unto you out of my best affection towards you , and that poor deceaved company , for whose fall I have great sorrow of hart . And because you adjure vs in the Lord to shew you your errour , I have done for myne own part what it hath pleased God to inable me for the present , and so have others also taken paynes , if God would give you an hart to be satisfied with the truth .

On the back syde of my answer , was written thus :

If you reply , shew your strength that we may make an end of these uncomfortable oppositions , &c.

Mr Smyth .

Sir , there may be weight in my Reasons and you happely eyther cannot through preiudice , or wil not , through some sinister respect , see the waight of them , I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel , but eyther shew me myne error , or yeeld to the truth , I would be glad to be an instrument of shewing you this truth also : at least , you by shewing vs our error shall discharge a good conscience : if you do not answere among you all , I proclame you all subtilly blynd , and lead the blynde after you into the ditche .

R. Clyfton .

Sir , what small waight is in your Reasons I have shewed in this writing . And though you think I can not through prejudice , or will not through some sinister respect , see the waight of them , myne owne conscience doth cleere me of both these imputations . For the Lord that knoweth the secrets of the hart , is witnesse , that I have not of purpose to mainteyne any untruth wittingly , stopped myne eares , or shut vp mine eyes from any truth revealed vnto me , for any sinister cause or prejudice of your person : but if I did see any further truth , I would ( the Lord assisting me ) receive it with all thankfulnes . Neyther do I hang my faith vpon the persons of men , but upon the word of God , to be charmed by evil counsel , ( evil you call that which condemneth your errors ) but if by any man I receive further instruction or confirmation in the Lords truth , you ought not , nor shall not diswade me from it , call it charming , or what you wil. I would to God you were no worse charmed by the counsel of Satan , then I am by those whom you point at , in these your speeches , I doubt not but we should then walk together comfortably in the house of God .

I have shewed you your error , as you desire . And for this truth ( as you falsely call it ) that you would be glad to impart unto me , I dare not herein make you glad , but wish rather that you might be sory , that wee might reioyce in your conversion . 〈◊〉 any former truthes whereof you have bene an instrument of myne 〈…〉 ction , which you insinuate in this word , also , I am thankful to God for ●● : But if you remember , that truth that you informed me of , was concerning the trunesse of this Church wherof I stand a member , which you now hold to be Antichristian . And therefore if I had not had better ground for my practise , and builded my faith herein vpon the word , your revolting would haue sent me back againe to my former estate .

For your proclayming of vs all subtilly blind , if we answer you not . In this you shew stil the loftines of your spirit , as if men were bound to answer you in every thing you write . Now you are answered both to this and to your other heretical book of Differences , &c. And if you further oppose against the truth , I trust the Lord will arme his Servants to contend for the faith once given to the Saincts . Our cause is Gods , we feare not your forces .

Rich. Clyfton .
FINIS . 1610
Faults escaped .

Pag. 20. line 27. the Christ , put out , the.

Pag. 21. line 3. for him , read , them .

Pag. 80. line 3. for kithin , read , within .

Pag. 130. line 18. for females , read males .

Pag. 139. line 19. read , be saved .

Pag. 173. line 14 , how if , put out , how .

Pag. 149. line 4. for Rich: Clifton , read Mr Smyth . and after line 6. read , Rich: Clifton .

Pag. 181. line 7. put out , In Israel .

Pag. 187. line 20. for many , read , may .

Other faults may easily be discerned .