English Puritan & Reformed

The Character of the Beast

John Smyth (d 1612) · 43,879 words · 195 min

The source for this document is https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A12552.0001.001

Project Note

This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.

The source of this document is the Early English Books Online (EEBO-TCP) website. Those books were transcribed in a character for character manner and can be very cumbersome to read since there was no standard spelling during that time. Many spelling variations such as "unlesse", "vnlesse", and "vnles" regularly appear.

This project was conceived to clean up those books as much as possible and make them more accessible to the interested reader, leading to the creation of a massive list of variant spellings and their corrections. This was used to clean up the text, but is of course only as complete as the list itself. Because of the nature of the original transcription, some words have missing characters or places where the original language (e.g., Greek) was not transcribed. This effort does not change that. Be aware that the original transcription can also be faulty and in some cases entire sentences may be missing.

Although this is no substitute for a properly compared, proofed, and scholarly edition, I believe that the result is a document which is far more accessible, particularly for searching for terms using standard spelling. The document has been cleaned and presented in what I hope is a pleasing and useful format for the vast majority of Christian brothers and sisters who just want access to read these spiritually nourishing works.

However, a word of warning: The Puritans were a very diverse group of people and their age was characterized with godliness, but also much upheaval, disputation and strife. They disagreed on many doctrines and some of these works contain less orthodox or Scriptural views than others. The reader is strongly advised to read with discernment, particularly if it is unknown whether author is trustworthy.

This project took a huge amount of time and skill to bring to fruition. I would particularly like to thank David Jonescue for the initial list of Puritans he found on EEBO and the concept behind this project as well as the continuous, unceasing efforts toward seeing this complete. Without his labor, this would not be available. Alex Sarrouf was invaluable in providing the initial list of over 7,000 spelling variations he had identified and corrected, as well as continuing to review more than 16,000 additions to that list for any typos.

Logan West
(with David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf)
www.puritansearch.org

THE CHARACTER OF THE BEAST OR THE FALSE CONSTITVTION OF THE CHURCH.Discovered IN CERTAYNE PASSAGES BETWIXT Mr. R. CLIFTON & John Smyth, concerning true Christian baptism of New Creatures, or New borne Babes in Christ: &nd false Baptism of infants borne after the flesh.

Referred to two Propositions.

1. That infants are not to be Baptized.
2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptism.

Revelat. 13.16. And he made all both small & great, rich & poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads.

Revelat. 14.9.10. If any man receive the mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.

Revelat. 21.5. And he that sat upon the Throne said: behold: & make all things new.

Printed. 160 • .

TO EVERY ONE THAT LOVETH THE Truth in sincerity Salutations.

It may be thought most strange, that a man should oft times chandg his Religiō: & it cannot be accounted a commendable quality in any man to make many alterations & chandges in such weighty matters, as are the cases of conscience: but if constancy be commondable in anything, it is most commendable in the best things which is Religion: & it inconstancy be worthy reproof in matters of inferior estimation, it is much more blameable in matters of Salvatiō: In respect whereof the wisest & most Religions men have been always most constant in there profession & faith: & inconstant persons cannot escape the deserved imputatiō of folly or weakness of judgment therein.

This must needs be true, (& we confess it) if one condition be admitted, that the Religon which a man chandgeth be the truth: For otherwise to chandge a false Religion is commendable, & to retain a false Religion is damnable. For a man of a Turk to become a Jew, of a Jew to become a Papist, of a Papist to become a Protestant are all commendable chandges though they all of them befall one & the same person in one year, nay, if it were in one month: So that not to chandg Religion is evil simply: & therefore that we should fall from the profession of Puritanism to Brownism, & from Brownism to true Christian baptism, is not simply evil or reprovable in itself, except it be proved that we have fallen from true Religion: If we therefore being formerly deceived in the way of Pedobaptistry, now do embrace the truth in the true Christian Apostolic baptism: Then let no mā impute this as a fault unto us: This therefore is the question: whither the baptism of infants be lawful, yea or nay: & whither persons baptized being infants must not renounce that false baptism, & assume the true baptism of Chr: which is to be administered upon persons confessing their faith & their sins: This being the controversy now betwixt us, & the Seperation commonly called Brownists: For the glory of God, the manifesting of the truth to our own nation, & the destruction of the man of sin, we have thought good to publish this present treatise, wherein the whole cause is handled: Let the indifferent reader jud • of the whole & give sentence without partiality: & I doubt not but he shall be const • ayned to give glory to God in acknowledging the error of baptising infants, to have been a chief point of Antichristianism, & the very essence & constitution of the false Church, as is clearly discovered in this treatise: Now happily some man will wish that the controversy had been with the Rabbyes of the Seperation, & not with Mr. Clifton whom thy calūniate to be a weak man, unable to deal in so great a controversy well, let the Reader take notice, that although it be Mr. Cliftons p • n, yet it is not only Mr. Cliftons cause & defense, but his allegations & reasons are the best p • ea of the greatest Rabbyes themselves: & if they think that they can say better they may now speak, for by publishing an • wer to their reasons: we do challendg all the Seperation in special to the combat. Be it known therefore to all the Seperation that we account them in respect of their constitution to be as very an h ••• ot as either her Mother England, or her grandmother Rome is, out of whose loins she came: & although once in our ignorance we have acknowledged her a true Chu. yet now being better informed we revoke that our erroneous judgment & protest against her, as well for her false constitution, as for her false ministry, worship, & government: The true constitution of the Chu. is of a new creature baptized into the Father, the Son, & the holy Ghost: The false constitution is of infants baptized: we profess therefore that all those Churches that baptize infants are of the same false constitution: & all those Chu. that baptize the new creature, those that are made Disciples by teaching, men conse • ing their faith & their sins, are of one true constitution: & therefore the Chu. of the Seperation being of the same constitution with England & Rome, is a most unnatural daughter to her mother England, & her grandmother Rome, who being of the self fame genealogy & generation, (that of the prophet being true of her, as is the Mother so is the daughter) she dare notwithstanding most impudently wipe her own mouth, & cal her mother & grandmother adulteresses. He in therefore we do acknowledge our error, that we retaining the baptism of England which gave us our constitution, did cal our mother England an harlot, & upon a false ground made our Seperation from her: For although it be necessary that we Seperate from England, yet no man can Seperate from England as from a false Chu. except he also do Seperate from the baptism of England, which giveth England her constitution: & whosoever doth retain the baptism of England doth with all retain the constitution of England, & cannot without sin cal England an harlot as we have done: & this we desire may be well minded of all that Seperate frō England: For if they retain the baptism of England, viz the baptism of infants as true baptism, they cannot Seperate from England as from a false Chu. though they may Seperate for corruptions▪ & whosoever doth Seperate from England as from a false Church, must needs Seperate from the baptism of England, as from false baptism: For the baptism of England cannot be true & to be retained, & the Chu. of England false & to de rejected: neither can the Chu. of England possibly be false except the baptism be false, unless a true constitution could be in a false Chu. which is as impossible as for light to have fellowship with darkness: It is impossible that contraryes or contradictions should be both true: & so it is impossible that a false Chur. should have a true constitution or a true baptism: To say thus:

England hath a false constitution.
England hath a true baptism, is as much as to say thus.
England hath a true constitution.
England hath a true constitution, which is to contradict:

But the Seperation they say England hath a false constitution, & is a false Chu. & to be Seperated from: & yet they say also: England hath a true baptism (that is a true constitution) which is not to be Seperated from: For a true constitution & true baptism are one & the same: So is a false constitution & a false baptism: So that the speeches & actions of the Seperation are cōtradictory in this particular. Finaly, they that defend the baptism of infants cannot with any truth or good conscience Seperate from England as from a false Chu. though they may separate for coruptions: & they that do Seperate from England as from a false Chu. must of snecessity Seperate from the baptism of England, & account the baptism of England false, & so account the baptism of infants false baptism: Therfor the Seperation must either go back to England, or go forward to true baptism: & all that shall in time to come Seperate from England must Seperate from the baptism of England, & if they will not Seperate from the baptism of England their is no reason why they should separate from England as from a false Church: & this is more at large proved in the second question of this discourse, whither the Reader is to be referred. Now concerning this point of baptising infants we do profess before the L. & before all men in sincerity & truth that it seemeth unto us the most unreasonable heresy of all Antichristianism: for considering what baptism is, an infant is no more capable of baptism then is any unreasonable or insensible creature: For baptism is not washing with water: but it is the baptism of the Spirit, the confession of the mouth, & the washing with water: how then can any mā without great folly wash with water which is the least & last of baptism, one that is not baptized with the Spirit, & cannot confess with the mouth: or how is it baptism if one be so washed: Now that an infant cannot be baptized with the Spirit is plain, 1. Pet. 3:21. where the Apostle saith that the baptism of the Spirit is the question of a good conscience into God, & Heb. 10.22. where the baptism which is inward is called the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience: seeing therefore infants neither have an evil conscience, nor the question of a good conscience, nor the purging of the heart, for all these are proper to actual sinners: hence it followeth that infants baptism is folly & nothing. Again: John's baptism was the baptism of repentance: infants have not repentance: & therefore cannot have the baptism of repentance. That infants cannot have repentance is evident, seeing repentance is knowledge of sin by the Law, sorrow for sin by the gospel, mortification of sin & new obedience, all which are as much in the basen of water, as in the infant baptized. Now I confess the Pedobaptists have many shows of reason for the maintenance of their heresy, & one man shapeth them into one form, another man into another, as every man's wit & learning teacheth him, but indeed they are all built upon the self same sandy fondacions, the wresting of some places of Scripture: all which (in a manner) are discovered in some measure in this treatise: whereby the reader may perceive the manifest perventing of the scriptures from their true sense: Now because men cal for antiquity, & except they see antiquity they will not beleve, though the Scriptures be the most ancient, I have thought good therefore to propound two pregnant testimonies of Antiquity (besides that which is alleged in the pag. 30. & 31. of this treatise) against baptism of infants: that men may know that this truth also hath her footsteps among the Fathers.

Tertullianus lib. de baptismo adversus Quintillam. hath these words: Then which nothing is more plain.

Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione, dispositione, etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi vtilior est precipue tamen circa parvulos: Quid enim necesse est, si non tam necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? qui & ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt, & proventu malae indolis falli. Ait quidem dominus. Nolite illos pro hibere ad me venire: veniant ergo dum adolescunt: veniant, dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur: Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocensaetas ad remission̄ peccatorū. Cautius agitur in secularibus vt cui substantia terrena non creditor, divina credatur. Norint petere salutem, vt p • tenti dedisse videaris.

That is to say in English.

Therfor to defere & not to hasten baptism is more profitable for the condition, disposition & age of every person: but especially as concerning young children: For what necessity is there to bring suertyes into danger for the baptising of infants, if there be no such necessity of hastening the baptising of infants: Seeing the sureties ofttymes are disabled to perform their promise both by reason of mortality, & of the evil disposition of some children whē they come to years, for wh • me they promised in baptism. Indeed the L. saith, forbid them not to come unto me: Therfor let them come to Chr. but let them come when they are grown, when they learn, & when they are taught to what they come. Let them by baptism be made Christians when they can know Chr. by instruction: why doth the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins: we deal more safely in worldly matters: Shall we commit heavenly things to young children unto whom we dare not commit our earthly substance? let thē first know how to ask salvation that so we may seem to give to him that asketh.

Euseb. Ecclest. Hist. Lib. 10. Chap. 15.

Athanasius his baptising of children in spirit that answered according to the custom of the Catechumen, is aproved by Alex. lib. of Alexa. & his Clerks: whence it is to be noted that these children baptized by Athanasius were unbaptized, & yet knew the manner of baptism, as being children borne in the Chu. So that by this place & all other places of the Eclesi. Hist. where like mention is made of the childrē of Christians first Catechized & then baptized, it may easily be discerned that baptism of infants was not yet vniversaly received, but by little & little prevailed, as other Antich heresies have done: in respect whereof Origen, August. Cip • ian, & all the Papists with one consent acknowledge it a tradition of the Church.

And thus much for the Testimonyes of Antiquity which hereafter shall be produced more plentifully upon further occasion offered: if the Seperation or any other dare adventure the trial of the matter out of Antiquity: but there is one, & indeed but one argument which the separation principally stand upon, & that is the covenant which say they if it be answered they must ned • yield unto the truth: now although this Argument be answered in this writing even to the satisfaction of every indifferently minded man that • oveth & seek •• the knowledge of the truth more then the defense & justification of error: yet seeing many things are variably alleged concerning the covenants made with Abrah. & his feeds, & concerning Abrah. Fatherhood & concerning circumcision which is called a se • le of the righteousness of Faith: I have thought God to refer these particulars to moreful discourse entertained upon occasion with another of the Mrs. of the sep • ration, not doubting but very shortly through God's goodness that treatise also shall be published, wherein the reader shall find larger instraction & satisfaction c • ncerning the forsaid particulars of the covenants or Test. & other matters thereto aperteyning. In the mean t • me I desire the reader to make use of this writing & to read without prejudice or pa tiality, & I doubt not but that through God's mercy much light of truth shall shine in his • art even by this present discourse: & for the separation who are the sti •• est & most obs • inate adversaries of this truth of the • . I could wish as the Tyrant wished concerning the people o • Rome, that all their he • ds were joined into one, & all their strength comprised into one writing, that with the sword of the Spirit it might be smiten of at once, that so we might have an end of this controversy, & that we might not be troubled & charged with the writing & printing of many books: Howsoever it be, we profess our readiness to employ our time & cost for the manifestation of the truth, & we desire the Sep. that they will not in craftiness withdraw from the combat, as hitherto they have done in the mater of the translation, worse. & the Presbytery: but we require them in the fear of the L. that seeing they have suffered so much for so much truth as they profess, they would not now subtly (being guilty in their consciences of their dishability to defend their errors) draw back, & pretend excuses as they do: but we require them, nay we chardg them, yea we challendg them to the defense of their errors: Loe: we protest against thē, to be a false Chu. falsely constituted in the bap. of infants, & their own unbaptized estate: we protest against them to have a false worse, of reading books: we protest against them to have a false govern • 〈…〉 protest against them to have a false Minist. of Doctor Teachers: Finally, we protest against them that seeing their constitution in is false, therefore there is no one ordinance of the L. true among them: These things we have published, & of these things we require answer. For we proclaim against them as they proclaim against their own mother England: That the Seperation the youngest & the fairest daughter of Rome, is an harlot: For as is the mother so is the daughter: Now furthermore we desire the Sepera. & all men that they would not impute unto us untruths, & condemn the innocent without cause: For we disclayme the errors commonly, but most slanderously imputed unto us: we are indeed traduced by the world as Atheists by denying the Old Testament & the Lord's day: as Trayters to Magistrates in denying Magistracy: & as Heretics in denying the humanity of Christ: Be it known therefore to all men, first that we deny not the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but with the Apo: acknowledge them to be inspired of God & that we have a sure word of the Prophets whereunto we ought to atend as unto a light shining in a dark place: & that whatsoever it written aforetyme is written for our instruction, that we through patience & comfort of the Scriptures might have hope: & that we ought as Christ counselleth to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament, as the men of Berza did, because that in them we may find everlasting life, & that they do testify of Christ: This we believe according to these Scriptures. John. 5.39. Act. 17.11. Roman. 15.4 • 2. Timoth. 3.16. 2. Pet. 1.19. yet nevertheless we affirm all the ordinances of the Old Testament, viz: The Church, Ministry, Worship, & Government of the Old Testament, to be abolished all which were Types & shadows of God's things to come, but the body is in Christ. Col. 2.14.17.20.

Secondly we acknowledge that according to the president of Ch. Disciples & the primitive Churches, the Saints ought upon the first day of the week which is called the Lord's day, Revel. 1.10. to assemble together to pray prophecy, praise God, & break bread, and perform other parts of Spiritual Communion for the worship of God, there own mutual edification, & the preservation of true Religion & piety in the Church & that we might be better enabled to the forsaid duties we ought to Seperate ourselves from the labors of our callings which might hinder us thereto, & that according to these Scriptures, John. 20.19. Act. 2.1.41.42. & 20.7. 1. Cor. 16.1.

Thirdly, concerning Magistrates, we acknowledge them to be the ordinance of the L. that every soul ought to be subject unto thē: that they are the ministers of God for our wealth: that we ought to be subject unto them for conscience sake: that they are the ministers of God to take vengeance on them that do evil: that we ought to pray for thē that are in authority: that we ought not to speak evil of thē that are in dignity: nor to despise government: but to pay tribute, tol, custom, &c. & that according to these Scriptures, Rom. 13.1-7. 1. Tim. 2.2. 1. Pet. 2.13-15. 2. Pet. 2.10. Iud. us. 8. but of Magistrates converted to the Faith & admitted into the Chu. by baptism, there may many questions be made, which to answer 〈…〉 can 〈◊〉 if we would: when such things fall out, the L. we doubt not will direct us into the truth concerning that mater, in the mean time we are assured according to the Scrip. that the Kings of the Earth shall at the length bring their glory & honor to the visible Church, Revel. 21, 24.

Finally, concerning the Flesh of Chr. we do beleve that Chr, is the seed of Abra • . Isaac, & Jacob, & of David, according to the Prophecyes of the Scriptures, & that he is the Son of Mary his Mother, made of her substance, the holy Ghost over shadowing her: So have other children there bodily substance from their parents: also that Chr. is one person in two distinct natures, the Godhead & manhood, & we detestg the contrary errors: our grounds of Scripture are these: Gen. 22.18. & 26.4. & 28.14. Psal. 13.2.11. compared with Act. 2.30. Rom. 1.3.4. Heb. 1.8.—10. & 2.11.14.16

Breefly to conclude let the Seperation be advertized: That whereas they do so confidently through their self love & self conceit, fil there mouths with heresy & heretics, as if thereby they would fear babes: That herein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors: do not the Papists cal the Protestants heretics, & cal for fire & fagot? do not the Protestants proclaim the Seperation Schismatics & Heretics, & judge them worthy the gibbet? not the affirmation of mē without proof, but the evidence of willful obstinacy in error maketh men heretics: And let them take heed that they notwithstanding their Syrenes songs prove ne • cages full of most ugly & deformed Antichristian Heretics: Thus desiring the Seperation not to be wise in their own eyes through pride, but to become fools that they may be made wise through humility, & desiring the forwardest preachers & professors of the English nation well to weigh what is the true constitution of the Church, & what is the subject of true Christian baptism, & accordingly to measure a true & a false Church, I cease: wishing the light & love of the truth to every •• e that Readeth.

JOHN SMYTH.

CERTAYNE REASONS PROPOVNDED TO Mr. Rich. Clifton: concerning the two propositions following.

1. That infants are not to be baptized.
- 1. Bicause there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any infan • s that were baptized, by John or Christ's Disciples: Only they that did confess their sins, & confess their Faith were baptized. Marc. 1.4.5. Act. 8.37.
- 2.Bicause Christ commandeth to make Disciples by teaching them: & then to baptize them: Mat. 28, 19. Ion, 4.1. but infants cannot by doctrine become Christ's Disciples: & so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptized.
- 3. Bicause if infants be baptized; the carnal seed is baptized: & so the seal of the covenant is administered to them unto whom the covenant aperteyneth not. Rom. 9.8. which is a profanation.
2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by Baptism.
- 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 baptism: go: So must we do now.
- 2. Bicause true baptism is but one: but the baptism of Antichrist is not true baptism, & so not that one baptism of Christ: but all members of Christ must have true baptism.
- 3. Bicause as the false Church is rejected & the true erected: the false ministry forsaken, & the true received: So false worship, (& by consequent baptism) must be renounced, & the true baptism assumed.

John Smyth

Mr. Rich Clifton.

AN ANSWERE TO TWO ANABAPTISTICAL opinions: viz.

1. That Infants are not to be baptized.

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

ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to undertake this business against him that was deer unto me: yet being thereunto provoked by the sending to me these two positions with certain reasons annexed under the Authors own 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 brieffe answer to these opinions, which by the Churches in all ages have been & are condemned for heretical: the practice whereof I could will he might never have be • allen to any of mine own country, especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth. And ch • efly unto him, to whose charge both I & divers others had once purposed to have committed our souls had he not besides these broached some former opinions, both erroneous & offensive, whereby the truth (for which we suffer) is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked & many hindered in our own country, that shall hear thereof, of whom we had great hope that they would have walked in the same faith with us. Not withstanding for as much as I am informed, that the author hath promised upon the sight of his errors to confess the same, I do the more willingly take upon me this labor, praying the Lord to give a good issue, to his glory, for hi • mercies sake Amen. Now I will come to answer the positions with the reasons thereof, & first concerning the former, which is this.

John. Smyth.

A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truths, viz:

1. That infants are not to be baptized.

2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true church by baptism.

These two truths are by you, Sir; in your answer entitled Anabaptistical, which reproach I do no more account of thē you do of the imputatiō of Brownism, nor then Paul did of Heresy: but rather as Paul professed himself joyful in susteyning that blasphemy for the truth, & you rejoice in that you for the truths you profess, are calumniated with such vndeserved imputations: even so do I bless God that I am accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christ his truth: but know you, Si • , for your humiliation that your reproach shall light upon your own head, & that Christ & his truth are by you evil spoken of.

In your preface you avouch that you are provoked to write, I mervayle you should so speak: seeing your conscience telleth you, that you did make the first request or motion to Mrs. By water: & I could do no less then I did, for if I had refused the motion, it would have been thought that I distrusted the cause: & whereas you allege, Iud. 3. for justifying your course in answering, I say you pervert the Scripture: for although you are to contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given to the Saynts, yet you are neither to plead for Baal, but to lett him plead for himself, neither are you to contend for defense of Antichristian errors, but rather as you have in a very good degree rased the Temple of Antichrist, even so you should now proceed to undermine the very foundation, & to blow it wholly up at once: which is done by entertayning the baptism of Christ to be administered upon persons confessing their sins, & confessing their faith: neither will it help you to say that these two truths have been condemned for heresy by the churches in all ages, for if the Apostles age afford contrary to the succeeding ages, I say that which is most ancient is the truth: & you know that many of your truths whereto you are come, have been condemned for heriticall in as many ages as these truths which I defend.

Again, whereas you affirm that by the broaching of these opinions & some former erroneous & offensive, the truth is like more to be blasphemed, & therefore you could wish that we your comtrymen & friends had never fallen into them: I answer, that although I shall not rejoice that any truth be evil spoken of, yet if it shall fall out by occasion of publishing the truth that wicked men blaspheme, let them know that Christ is a rock of offense, & a stone to stumble at: & if any be hindered from the truth by publishing the truth, it will be their corruption & sin, & the truth or the publishing of the truth is not in fault: but if you fear hereby that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground, I say, it is that which is appointed to perdition, & to perdition let it go: I will never use means to support it. Finally although I have professed my readiness publicly & privately, to forsake my errors upon their discovery. (& as I have already practiced for the which I am reproached among your brethren) yet I never professed my readiness to be perverted from the truth, which you cal heresy: & therefore if you did undertake to write upon this ground, you might well have spared your pains, & saved yourself from so grievous a sin as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions, & by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth, by blessing your labors in opugning at: & this briefly shall suffice for your preface general.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

1. That infants are not to be Baptized.
Answer.

Touching this first position, that Infants are not to be baptized, I read that Auxentius one of the Arians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denied the baptism of Infants, & next after him Pelagius the heretic, against whom Augustine & others of the ancient Fathers have opposed & condemned for heresy, & that according to the Scriptures, which by God's grace we shall together with them also f • rther manifest, & prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulness of baptising infants, which first I will undertake, & then answer the reasons to the contrary.

Gen. 17.20. God made his covenant to Abraham & to his seed: from whence I reason thus.

2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commanded to be sealed to him & to all his seed, yea even to infants.

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

Therefor that is commanded to be fealed to us &c to our seed, yea even to our infants, for so was that to Abraham's.

The Major cannot be denied, see Gen. 17.10.11.12.

The Minor is likewise as true, for the Apostle speaking of this covenant, Act. 2.39 saith, the promise is made to you & to your children, & to all that are a far of, as many as the Lord our God shall cal. In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant & promise that was made to Abraham, which they that were a far of, that is the Gentiles believing, do receive & were baptized into. And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations, Gen. 17.4. also Gal. 3.13.4. Christ is said to redemne us from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ies. Chr. that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, see verse. 8.9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant (for otherwise Abraham's covenant should not be an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17.7. seeing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a time, Rom. 11, 15.17.20.) it must follow that the same must be sealed to us, & to our infants, (else is it not the same) & that by the commandment of God. For the abolishing of circumcision, & the bringing in of baptism under the gospel, doth not abrogate or disanulle the commandment of sealing the covenant to the believing parents with their infants, which was once commanded to Abraham, but only showeth a changing of the outward sign. And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles believing so doth the seal thereof to them & to their seed, as that did to Abraham & to his seed: The outward ceremony only changed.

John Smyth.

Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point, affirming that baptism of infants was denied by Auxentius the Arian, & by Pelagius whom Augustine & others refuted & condemned for heresy, & that by Scripture: I say that one heretic condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake & whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answer I can prove that Augustine, Cyril, Cyprian, Origen, Nazianzen, Ambrose, & many others were almost as gross heretics (if he be an heretic that holdeth an heresy) as Auxentius & Pelagius, & you yourselves account thē all Antichristians: & therefore the ancient practice of pedobaptistry in ancient antichristian Churches is no more to be respected then the ancient practice of the Prelacy & read prayer in the fame: but these are but Florishes: let us hear your arguments from the Scripture proving.

1. That infants are to be baptized,

Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10. & is framed thus:

That covenant which God made with Abraham, he commanded to be sealed to him, & to all his seed, yea even to infants.

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

Therfor it is commanded to be sealed to us, & to our seed, yea evē to our infants for so was it to Abraham's.

To this argument I make answer thus: first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments (for a covenant & testament is all one in the originals though the English words are two): one covenant was made with Abraham & his carnal seed & of that covenant was circumcision a seal: another covenant made with Abrahā & his Spiritual seed, & of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seal: for the carnal covenant had a carnal seal upon the carnal seed: the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seal upon the Spiritual seed: For things must be made proportionable, & circumcision which was a carnal seal, could not seal up the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed, for to say so, is to leap over the hedge & to make a disproportion betwixt the type & the truth.

These things being thus distinguished let thē be remembered & applied orderly & the argument will appear of no value: for the major is thus to be understood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with Abrahā & his carnal seed, was to be sealed up to his infants with a carnal seal, viz: circumcision: if it be not so understood it is false: Now the minor, if it be assumed out of the major, (as it must be, else it is a Sophism) is very false & flatly contradictory to the Scripture: for we under the gospel do not receive that carnal covenant which was made to Abraham & his carnal seed, whereof circumcision was the carnal seal: but that carnal covenant & seal together with the subject of that seal, viz: a male of 8. days old is taken away by Christ's cross: & in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant, & the Spiritual seal viz: the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seal, & the Spiritual infant, viz: a new borne babe in Christ, in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed, signified by that carnal infant.

That all these particulars are so: I prove unto you plainly by these places of Scripture.

1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham, Gal. 4.24. For Agar that is the Old Testament, & Sara that is the New Testament, were both married to Abrahā, & Abraham had them both.

2. There are two seeds: Ishmael (of Abraham & Hagar) who typed the carnal seed borne after the Flesh: & Isaac (of Abraham & Sara) who typed the Spiritual seed borne by promise verse. 23.

There are two seals: Circumcision a seal of the carnal covenant upon the carnal children: Gen. 17.11. & the Holy Spirit of promise a seal of the Spiritual covenant upon the Spiritual seed, 2. Cor. 1.22. Eph. 1.13. & as circumcision was a seal from God to the carnal seed of the promise & from the carnal seed to God in obedience: So the Spirit of promise is a seal from God to the Spiritual seed of the promise, & from the Spiritual seed to the Lord in obedience, Eph. 1.13. John. 3.33. these things are evident: but now you, I am persuaded of mere ignorance, mistaking the covenant, do make circumcision a seal of the everlasting Spiritual covenant, which is an error, & thereupon you build all your false building of pedobaptistry which is as a house built upon the sand by the foolish builders.

Now for your places of Scripture I expound them in order.

Gen. 17.10.11.12. this place proveth that circumcision was a seal of the carnal covenant made with the carnal seed, & not a seal of the Spiritual covenant made with the Faithful: For the Spirit is the seal thereof, who is therefore called the Spirit of promise, & the seal. Eph. 1.13. & if the place of the Rom. 4.11. be objected to prove that circumcision sealed the righteousness of Faith to Abraham: I answer, that is not the scope of the place: but this: viz: that circumcision had one specialty in Abraham differing from all other, that by circumcision he was sealed up to be the Father of all the Faithful as concerning the matter of their justificatiō, namely, that as he was justified by his actual Faith so should all the believers be justified by their actual Faith whither they believed in their uncircumcision or in their circumcision.

Act. 2.39. the promise is offered to the impenitent Jews, & to their posterity, & to the Gentiles a far of: & it was exhibited only to so many as yielded obedience to the Faith: & whereas in rehearsing the Apostles speech, you say, the promise is made I say, therein you ad to the text. For if you intend that the promise of the Spirit was exhibited to all the Jews & their infants, & to the Gentiles believing & their infants & that this place afordeth it, I say the place doth not intend any such thing but only an offer of the Spiritual covenant, to the carnal Jews & their children, according to the Flesh, & also the Gentiles: but a true conferring or exhibiting of it to so many as should be effectually called by the offer of it in the preaching of the Gospel.

Further whereas you seem to assume that seeing the covenant was made to Abraham & his infants, it is therefore made to us & our infants. I deny that ever the covenant Spiritual was made that is conferred to all Abraham's infants according to the Flesh: neither therefore is it made that is conferred to all our infants: this you should prove, but it is undone: I confess the promise was offered to all Abraham's carnal seed under that carnal covenant of the Old Testament, & so it is offered now to all our carnal children by the preaching of the gospel in the New Testament: but as the Spiritual covenant was only exhibited to the Faithful, the true seed of Abraham, so is it now only exhibited to the Faithful which are the only true seed of Abraham, who is the Father of us all, & we all his children, & justified by actual Faith as he was: in respect whereof infants wanting actual Faith cannot be truly said the Children of Abraham but are that they are in secret to the Lord whatsoever they are.

Thus much for the Scriptures by you alleged in your first argument: From that which I have answered I reason against pedobaptistry thus.

1. As it was with Abraham the Father of the Faithful, so must it be with the Children of Abraham, Rom. 4.11
But Abraham the Father of the Faithful first believed actually, & being sealed with the Spirit of promise, afterward received the sign of circumcision.
Ergo: The Children of Abraham the believing Gentiles, must first believe actually, & be sealed with the Spirit of promise, & then receive the baptism of water.

2. As in the Old Testament, the carnal children were carnally circumcised & so admitted into that Church of the Old Testament: So in the New Testament the spiritual children must be Spiritually circumcised, that is in heart, & then be admitted by baptism into the Church of the New Testament.
But the first was signified by type:
Ergo the second is verified in the truth.

3. As in the Old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten & borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents, & then were carnally circumcised, & received into the carnal covenant. So in the New Testament Spiritual infants new borne babes in Christ, must be Spiritually begotten & borne by the immortal seed of regeneration, by the Spiritual parents, & then being Spiritually circumcised they shall by baptism with water be received into the New Testame
But the first was signified by type:
Ergo the second is verified in the truth.

4. If the carnal infants in the Old Testament were circumcised, then the carnal infants in the New Testament must not be baptized: because that as circumcision is abolished which was the sign or seal, so the infant is abolished which is the subject of that sign or seal, & a proportionable infant introduced: which is one regenerate by the Spirit & 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 baptized.

5. As in the Old Testament when the male appeared the 8. day, there was a painful circumcising & mortifying of the superfluous forskinne when the party was received into the covenant actually: So in the New Testament when the Lord Ies. Ch. (typed by the male) appeareth: & when there is a painful circumcising & mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of the heart, the party so qualified shall be by baptism received into the New Testament actually.
But the first was signified by type:
Ergo the second is verified in truth.

And this shall suffice for answer to your first argument.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Col. 2.11.12.

If circumcision belonged to Faithful Abraham & his seed, yea to such as were but infants, then doth baptism also appertain to all believers & to their feed being infants.

But the first is •• ue, Gen. 17.10. Ergo the second.

The consequent will •• llow, seeing baptism cometh in place of circumcision sea • ling up unto us & •• ou • seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham & to his seed, Coll. 2.11.12. & that in as large & ample manner (if not more ample) then to the Israelites, for of them only were the males circumcised, but by baptism are both males & females sealed. And this must follow necessarily, or else the covenant by the coming of Ie. Chr. should be more restrained, • hen it was under the law, who came to ratify & confirm that wholly, as the Apostle saith, 2. Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him, yea & Amen, &c. For God gave it with the seal thereof, to Abraham & his infants. & if Christ should give it unto us only & not to our infants, this were to lessen & infringe the covenant, & not to con •••• all, but to take away part of that which God before had given.

John Smyth.

Your second argument followeth: from Coll. 2.11.12. which is framed thus.

If circumcision belonged to Faythful Abraham & his seed, yea to such as were but infants: then doth baptism also aperteyne to all believers & to their seed being infants.
But the first is true, Gen. 17.10.
Ergo the second.

The reason of the consequent is double: 1. for that baptism cometh in place of circumcision as a seal of the same promises to us & our seed: Col. 2.11.12. 2. For that the covenant must be as largely sealed up to us as to thē, therefore to our females as well as males, & infants as well as persons of years: For the covenant in Christ is not lessened but of as large extent now as then: 2. Cor. 1.20. Seeing in Christ all the promises of God are yea & amen.

I answer that this argument is built upon the same false ground with the former a mere mistaking of the covenant, & seal, & seed: & their is manifest violence committed upon the Scripture by perverting & wresting it to false consequents: first therefore I deny the consequence & I give reasons of my denial.

1. Bicause circumcision did not aperteyne to Abraham & his infants as a seal of the everlasting covenant of life & Salvation, but of the external temporary covenant of the land of Canaan, & of obedience to the Law of Moses: & therefore though circumcision aperteyned to Abraham & his carnal infants as a seal of the external covenant yet it doth not follow that baptism belongs to the Faythful & their carnal infants as a seal of the Spiritual covenant of the New Testament made in respect of Christ.

2. Secondly because the believers do not occupy Abraham's place in the covenant of the New Testament, because Abraham is the Father of all the Faythfull, but no man though never so Holy hath that perrogative to be the Father of the Faythfull: Therefore Abraham receiveth the Faythfull into his bosom. Luk. • 6.23.

3. Thirdly, because the infants of the faithful do not possess the place of the true children of Abraham the Father of the Faithful: but possess the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the Fleshe, & therefore the disproportion being in all these particulars the consequence of the argument is weak & insufficient,

But if you will make true consequents you must reason frō the type to the truth proportionably, & not from the type to the type as this argument importeth: neither must you confound the covenants & seals as you do: but must make all things distinct & proportionable the one to the other as thus.

Abraham the Father of the carnal infants: Abraham the Father of the Faithful: Carnal Abraham & his carnal seed, carnally circumcised: So Faithful Abraham & his Faithful Children, Spiritually circumcised. The carnal infants of the Old Testament carnally circumcised: The Spiritual infants of the New Testament, that is, men regenerate baptized.

Thus you se the disproportion of your argument, & the true proportion that you ought to have made if your argument had been good.

But let us see the reasons of your consequence, & the Scriptures you do produce for the confirmation of them: you say that baptism cometh in the • ome of circumcision as a seal of the same promises to us & our seed: I utterly deny it: & I prove the contrary unto you: Seeing that the circumcisiō of the heart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh: Rō. 2.29. & circumcision made without hands cometh in the place of circumcision made with hands, Col. 2.11. compared with Eph. 2.11. & circumcision the seal of the flesh, hath the H. Spirit of promise which is the Spiritual seal to succeed in place thereof, Eph. 1.13.14. which seal of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, as circumcision of the flesh was an earnest of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the carnal Israelites: & I desire to be informed in all the Scriptures where baptism is called a seal, for I deny that the baptism of water is the seal of the New Testament, though I cannot deny that the baptism of the holy ghost is the seal.

I say therefore that the seal of the Spirit must go before the baptism of water: & as all the ordinances of the New Testament are Spiritual, & yet visible, so is the seal of the New Testament Spiritual, & yet visible: & thervppon men being visibly sealed with the Spirit as Cornelius company was. Act. 10.47. may challendg the baptism with water, as Peter there teacheth: this visible seal of the New Testament is confession: as in the Old Testament circumcision was their confessiō: & baptism is not a seal but a manifestation of the seal. You see therefore that baptism is not the seal of the New Testament, & that circumcision did not seal up the everlasting covenant to Abraham, & all his carnal seed: now the place of Col. 2.11.12. which you produce to prove that baptism cometh in the rome of circumcision, is not so to be construed, but the Apostle teacheth the virtue of Chr. circumcisiō & baptism, which is mortifying & burying of sin & resurrection from sin: & the Apost. doth not intend to teach that in the New Testament baptism succeedeth for circumcision: but he teacheth the virtue of Ch. circumcision & baptism in the Faithful: so that seeing circumcision was a seal of the promises of the Old Testament to the carnal seed, & that the Spirit is the seal of the promises of the New Testament to the faithful seed of Abrahā, therefore neither doth baptism of water succeed circumcision, neither doth baptism with water seal up any promises to the Faithful, but only doth visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of, viz: of the Spirit of promise.

Again: in your second reason you would infinuate a restraynt in the New Testament, 1. baptism be not due to infants seeing circumcision was due to infants in the Old Testament: I answer many ways: 1. Seeing that baptism doth not succeed circumcision, this alegation is nothing to the purpose: 2. Seeing baptism is both to male & female it is larger then circumcision which was only upon the male: 3. seeing that baptism is both to Jew & Gentil, therefore more large then circumcision: but these things are almost nothing to the purpose: Therfor I say more pertinently, That the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is now as large as ever it was. For that was never made with Abraham & all his carnal children, but only with Abraham & the Faythful, & so it continueth in the same tenor still: & it is enlarged now since Christ's coming only in respect of the clearer, & more universal publication o • it: for then the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ was shadowed out darkly in types, now since Christ it is preached plainly: then it was only to the Jews, now to all nations, Mat. 28.19. besides I affirm that circumcision was never a seal of that covenant that God made with Abraham in respect of Christ, for the Holy Spirit of promise is the seal of it: but circumcision only was a seal of the external covenant: & the seal of the Spirit is as large as the seal of the Flesh For all the carnal Israelites were carnally sealed, all the true believers are sealed by the S •• ri • all the males were carnally sealed, all that have the male Christ formed in them (whither men or women) are sealed by the Spirit: For in Christ there is neither male nor female Gal. 3.28. all the carnal seed were carnally sealed whither young or old, so all the Spiritual seed are Spiritually sealed whither new borne babes in Christ, or perfect men that are come to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ: & so the covenant is not lessened, taking things in their due proportion, & not perverting them. & whereas you say in Christ all the promises of God are yea & amen, 2. Cor. 1.20. thereby insinuating that in the New Testament the covenant must be as large as in the old, I confess it to be as large, but this place is strayned to the proving thereof: For the meaning of it is that unto the Faythful all the Lord's promises are verified, but his promise was never that all their carnal seed should have baptism as a seal of life & salvation, but that all the believers should have the Spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seal.

From that which I have answered to your second argument I reason thus.

1. If all the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlasting covenant in respect of the actual possession of it, then they never had title to the seal of the everlasting covenant.
But all the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlasting covenant in respect of the actual possession of it: Seeing that Abraham's children according to his actual Faith were only under it, Rom. 4.11.
Ergo: all the carnal infants of Abraham never had title to the seal of the everlasting covenant, & therefore not to baptism.

2. If baptism doth not succeed circumcision, then baptism doth not pertain to carnal infants though circumcision pertained to carnal infants.
But baptism doth not succeed circumcision, because the seal of the Spirit is correspondent to the typical seal of the Flesh, & baptism with water is only the manifestation of the seal.
Ergo, baptism doth not aperteyne to the carnal infants.

3. If circumcision did not seal up the everlasting covenant to Abraham & all his carnal infants: then (by your proportion) baptism doth not seal up the everlasting covenant to the Faithful & their carnal infants.
But circumcision did not seal up the everlasting covenant to Abraham & all his carnal infants.
Ergo: (by your proportion) baptism doth not seal up the everlasting covenant to the Faithful & their carnal infants.

4. If believing parents do not stand in Abraham's rome to convey the covenant to their infants, then though they be baptized themselves, yet their children shall not.
But the believers do not stand in Abraham's rome, to convey the covenant to their infants: For no man is the Father of the Faythfull as Abraham was, & he did never convey the everlasting covenant to his carnal infants.
Ergo: though believing parents be baptized themselves, yet there infants shall not be baptized.

5. If infants of the Faythful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham, but only occupy the place of the carnal children: then though the true children of Abraham, 1. the actual believers be baptized, yet the infants shall not which cannot actually believe.
But the infants of the Faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham, seeing the children of Abraham do the Works of Abraham, John. 8.34. which infants cannot do.
Ergo though actual believers be baptized, yet infants shall not.

And thus much may suffice for answer of this second argument which you see is as weak as the first being built upon the same sand.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Marc. 10.13.14. &
Mat. 19.13.14.

3. They that are of the Kingdom of God have right & title to all the Holy things thereto belonging, & may perticipate of so many of them as they are capable to receive.

But the infants of believing parents are of the Kingdom of God.

Therfor the infants of believing parents have right & title to all the holy things thereto belonging, & may participate of so many of them, &c. And consequently of baptism, seeing they are capable of that.

The major proposition I think will not be denied, it is written 1. Cor. 3.21.22. Al things are yours, &c. Rom. 9.4.

The assumption is Mat. 19, 13-17. For of such is the Kingdom of God, meaning that this Kingdom stood not only of such as being of years that believed, but also of their infants. And this he declareth not only in this saying, but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their coming unto him: by commanding to suffer them to come, & by putting his hands upon them, & blessing them. Mat. 19.13.14.15. For would Christ have blessed them that were not of his Kingdom? or do not the blessings appertain only 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 baptism. I answer, they are as capable thereof as the infants of Israel were of circumcision, being both partakers of the same promises with them. & in all respects as capable of the outward seals of the covenant, as they were. And therefore the infants of believers are to be baptized.

John Smyth.

Your third argument followeth, from Marc. 10.13.14. Mat. 19.13.14.

They that are of the Kingdom of God, have right & title to all the holy things the • to belonging, & may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive.
But the infants of believing parents are of the Kingdom of God.
Ergo, the infants of believing parents have right & title to all the holy things thereto belonging, & may participate of so many of them &c. & consequently of baptism, seeing they are capable of it.

The major you say is written, 1. Cor, 3.21.22. Rom. 9.4.

The assumption is proved Mat. 19.13.14,

To this argument of yours I make answer diversely: first you have not proved that the visible Chur. & all the ordinances thereof pertain to infants of the faithful: For the infants of the Jews that were presented to Chr. were not infants of believers for ought that I see: neither can it be proved that they were infants of the Jews, but their is some likelihood to the contrary: seeing the disciples repelled thē that brought thē: it may be they were the children of some of the Roman soldiers, or some Canaanitish persons: but suppose they were children of the Jews, how is it proved that their parents were believers? seeing that the people of the Jews were for the most part stiffnecked & uncircumcised in heart. & if they had bē the childrē of beleving Jews that were baptized by John. or Chr. disciples- (by your doctrine the infants were already baptized) what need was there to bring thē to Chr. except it were for popish confirmation? & so hence you cannot conclude baptism. I avouch constantly against you that either they were not the children of Jews: or that they were not the infants of beleving Jews or if their pare • ts believed, yet it followeth not that therefore these infants were of the Kingdom of God, or to be baptized: for Chr • doth not say, of these, but, of such is the Kingdom of God: & so he doth expound himself Mat. 18 3-6. besides how can you prove that by the Kingdom of God Chr. understandeth the visible church of the new Test. or how can you prove that Chr. blesseth none but members of the visible Chur? or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham aperteyneth only to the members of the visible church? or that from this particular of Chr. praying for infants Mat. 18.13. baptising of infants followeth? or how cā you prove that Christ obtained for them, & prayed for remission of sins, the H, ghost, faith, everlasting life? for many were brought to Chr. for releef of bodily infirmities.

Secondly: I deny that, because Christ blessed some of the infants of the Jews or Gentiles upon special entreaty, therefore it may hence be concluded that generally the covenant & seals of the covenant (as you cal baptism) doth aperteyne to them: for there is not the same reason of all infants, as of some specially blessed: as of John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Sampson.

Thirdly if baptism doth aperteyne to infants because Chr. blesseth some particular infants, & because Chr. saith the Kingdom of God doth aperteyne to such, then the L. supper also: for if you say, they are not capable of the L. supper in two respects: 1. for that they cannot eat it, 2. for that they cannot examine themselves: I answer they must have it as soon as they can eat it: & they cannot confess their sins & faith, & so cannot be baptized.

Fourthly: I would know why the Apo. put infants back, & why Chr. did not command them to be baptized: Surely, if they had been the infants of believers, or if the Apo. had known Chr. mind for baptism of infants he having so fit an opportunity would have put it in practice: but the deep silence of baptism in this place where there is so just an occasion doth instruct us evidently that Chr. either did not deal faithfully which to say were blasphemy, or th •• he never purposed the baptism of infants.

You see therefore by that which hath bē answered that both your major & minor are weak & the Scriptutes alleged by you do not confirm them: for the place 1. Cor. 3.21.22. declareth that all things are yours: that is theirs that actually believe & are baptized: & all the ordinances of the visible church are theirs both in title use & possession: So that hence you must needs prove if your arg be good that infants must have the use of all: only your caution helpeth you, viz: that they may partake so many means as they are capable of: but where is this caution expressed in all the scriptures do you think that the members of the Church are not capable of all the means of salvation? but I avouch unto you that this place pertaineth only to baptized persons not to persons unbaptized, & therefore it fitteth not your purpose.

Rom. 9.4. The covenants & promises pertain to the Israelites: I deny the word aperteyneth, it is put into the Text, & perverteth the meaning of the Apo. For Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnal Israelites were all actually within the covenant of grace & salvation by Chr. being really possessed of it, but that under the outward covenant & promise whereof they were really ceased, the Spiritual covenant & promise was offered & presented unto them, the one preaching the other, the law being a scholemr. to Christ.

Lastly, whereas in the answer of an objection you intimate that infants now are as capable of baptism as infants were of circumcision, being both equaly capable of the covenant & seals, I answer: that baptism is not the seal of the covenant of the new Test. as circumcision was the seal of the old Test. & that infants of the old Testa. were capable of circumcision absolutely seeing that to be circumcised there was nothing required but a foreskin apt to be cut of: but to baptism in the new Test. there is required actual saith & repentance confessed by the mouth, Mat. 3.6. Act. 4.37. & 10.47.

From this answer I collect arguments against pedobaptistry thus.

1. They that are not members of the visible Church, have no title to the holy things of God, & therefore are incapable of them: & so of baptism.
Infants 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 infants were believing Jews, or if they were believers their infants were already baptized with their parents according to your doctrine, & so Christ cannot intend baptism to aperteyne to them, but the rest of the ordinances.
Ergo: Infants of the Faythfull have no title to the Holy things of God, & so are incapable of them, and by consequent incapable off Baptism.

2. If the Apostles by putting back infants presented to Christ declare plainly that infants were not to be brought to be baptized of Christ: then infants were not baptized by Christ, nor commanded to be baptized by him.
But the first is true: that the Disciples put back infants presented to Chr. &c.
Ergo: The latter is true: that infants were not baptized or commanded to be baptized by Christ.

3. If the persons presenting infants to Christ to be blessed & prayed for: do not desire baptism for them: then they knew no such custom used by Christ to baptize them.
But the first is true: that persons presenting infants to Christ to be blessed & prayed for, do not desire baptism for them.
Ergo: they knew no such custom used by Chr. of baptising infants.

4. If Christ receiving infants, praying for them, blessing them, doth neither baptize them, nor command his Disciples to baptize them: then either Christ's pleasure was they should not be baptized, or else he forgatt his duty, in not Teaching baptism off infants upon so just an occasion.
But Christ receiving infants, praying for them, blessing them, doth neither baptize them, nor command his Disciples to baptize them: neither did forgett his duty in not teaching baptism of infants occasioned.
Ergo: Christ's pleasure was (and is) that infants should not be baptized.

5. They that are not actualy possessed of the promises or covenant, are not actually to be invested with baptism.
Infants are not actually possessed with the covenant: Seeing they perform not the condition, viz: confession of their sins & their Faith actually.
Ergo: infants are not to be invested with baptism.

This shall suffice for answer of your third argument.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

1. Corinth. 7.14.

Iff the children of believing parents be holy, then are they with in the covenant off Abraham, and so consequently have right to the seal thereof.
But the first is true, 1. Cor. 7.14.
Ergo the second.

Touching the former proposition. I take it, that none will affirm holiness in any that are not of the covenant, for in that respect, Israel was called a holy nation. Exo. 19.6.1. Pet. 2.9. & all others unclean, Act. 11.3. & 10.15. that were without. Iff infants be within the covenant, then cannot the seal be denied to such, seeing the Lo. hath joined the promise & seal together, Gen. 17.10. which no man may or ought to Seperate, Mat. 19.6.

What can be objected against the assumption, I see not, seeing the Apostle plainly affirms, but now are your children holy. Unless it may be said, as of some I have heard, that as the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, so are the children viz: to the use of their Father: but this to affirm is a great abusing of the Scripture. For the Apostle in that place answering an objection that the Faithful is defiled by the society 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 said to all the Faithful, I will be thy God, & the God of thy seed. As for that other strange exposition, that the Children of a believing Father are no otherwise sanctified then the unbelieving wife is unto her husband, viz: to their Fathers use only, that cannot stand with the meaning & purpose of the Apost. For so much may be said of an unbelieving servant, that he is for the use 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 believing Father, neither is the objection removed by this answer.

If it be further pressed that the vnbeleving wife is said 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 God's covenant, & therefore she is said to be sanctified in her husband, the Apostle respecting their marriage, which though it was contracted before either party believed, yet stands firm & not dissolved when either of them is called to the Faith, so that the believing husband may lawfully use her as his wife, if she be content to dwell with him, 1. Cor. 7.12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or Seperate to such use to their Father, as the wise is to her husband. And therefore are the children called holy, because they are the seed of a believing Father.

John Smyth.

Your sourth argument is from 1. Cor. 7.14. thus.

If the Children of believing parents be holy: then are they within the covenant of Abraham, & so consequently have right to the seal thereof.
But the first is true: 1. Cor. 7.14.
Ergo the second.

I answer: First denying your majors consequent: Seeing that all the nation of the Jews were holy, & yet not within the covenant of Abraham, I mean as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ: that they were not all within that covenant is plain, Rom. 9.6. all they are not Israel which are of Israel: us. 7. neither are they all Children because they are the seed of Abraham, us. 12. God revealed, that the Elder should serve the younger, Act. 7.51. ye have always resisted the holy ghost, as your foreFathers have done so do you: if it be objected that the place of the Romans is spoken in respect of God's secret election, & not of man's knowledge, I answer, the us. 12. is plain of that which was revealed unto the Church, & yet Esau was holy & circumcized when he was borne, being not under the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ: & for proof of this point that the whole Church of the Jews was not under the possession of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ: but only under the offer of it, I use these reasons.

1. 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 off the Old Testament.
Faith & repentance is the condition & obedience of the matter or members of the New Testament, Marc. 1.15.
Ergo: Faith & repentance is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the Old Testament.

The reason of the major is evident, seeing that as the ministry, worship, & government of the Church of the Old Testament was of another nature then the ministry worship, & government of the New Testament is, so the constitution, viz: the matter & Form of the Church of the Old Testament was of another nature, then the constitution that is the matter & form of the New Testament is: Seeing therefore that the ministry, worship, & government of the Old Testament was carnal, the constitutiō must also be carnal: Therfor the matter & form must be carnal: Therfor Faith & repentance was not required to the matter of the Old Testament, but only a carnal holiness, viz: The circumcision of the foreskin, whereby the carnal form, that is the carnal covenant or commandment was induced upon them, & whereto they were tied in obedience, Heb. 7.16. Gal. 5.3.

2. Secondly. The type, shadow, figure, similitude of a thing is not the truth, the substance, the thing itself: True is nature & reason.
The constitution, viz: the matter & form of the Church of the Old Testament is the type, &c. The constitution or the matter & form of the church of the New Testament is the truth, &c. Heb. 10.1. & 9.19.23.
Ergo: The constitution, viz the matter & form of the Church of the Old Testament, (that is the members, & covenant) is not the truth: that is the members are not truly holy, but ceremonialy holy, the covenant is not the everlasting covenant, but the typical carnal covenant or commandment: & so true holiness that is Faith & repentance was not required to the menbers or matter of the Church of the Old Testament.

3. Thirdly, that which was not nor could not be accomplished, performed, effected or produced by the walking or communion of the Church off the Old Testament, was not required, or exacted, or presupposed to the constitution of the Church of the Old Testament.
Justification & Faith, Sanctification & 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: justification & Faith, Sanctification & repentance were not required to the constitution of the Church of the Old Testament: & so by consequent, the members of the Church of the Old Testament were not truly holy in their constitution.

4. That which brought not perfection & life to the members, presupposed not Faith & repentance to the members: and so not real or true holiness.
But the Old Testament, the Law, & the obedience of the Law brought not perfection & life to the members of the Church of the Old Testament, Heb. 7.19. Gal. 3.21.
Ergo: The Old Testament, or the Law, or the Church of the Old Testament did not presuppose, Faith, Repentance, or true Holynes in the members.

5. That which was a Schoolmr. only to teach Christ, did not presuppose that the Scholars had already learned Christ or put on Christ, which is only done by Faith & repentance.
The law or Old Testament was a Schoolmr. only to teach Chr: Gal. 3.14. Rom. 10.3.4.
Ergo, The Law or Old Testament did not presuppose that the Scholars had learned Christ or put on Christ, which is only done by Faith and Repentance.

6. That which was hidden, kept secret was a Mystery, & not revealed the members of the Church of the Old Testament, in their constitution were not endued withal.
Faith, or obedience to the gospel was a mistery, & not revealed, but kept secret from the beginning. Gal. 3.23. Rom. 16.25.
Ergo, The members of the Church of the Old Testament were not endued with Faith or obedience to the gospel in their constitution.

7. Ther is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, Rom. 8.1.
Ther is condemnation to them that are under the Law, Gal. 3.10. For it is the Ministry 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: & so the members of the church of the Old Testament were not truly holy.

Finally, the whole disputation of Paul to the Romans & Galatians concerning justification by Faith in Christ without the works of the Law doth evidently confirm this excellent truth. Teaching that seeing the utmost obedience of the Law did not effect or produce justification, therefore of necessity it followeth that the Law or Old Testament did not presuppose it, or true holiness in the members thereof: For it had been a vanity to have given them a Law which should not or could not preserve & produce that which was in them in there first constitution: wherfor I do boldly defend against all men, that the Church of the Old Testament in the matter or constitution of it was not really Holy, but only Typically: & therefore the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or sanctified, or in actual possession of that everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham in respect of Christ: but only under the offer of it in that typical Testament given to Abraham, & afterward assumed written & amplified by Moses, John. 7.19-23. compared with Heb. 8.8.9.

Having sufficiently confirmed this truth, I return in particular to answer your objections saying still that the nation of the Jews was holy, not truly but typically & that their holiness was this, that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted, they were trained up, or Schooled to Christ, being by all the ceremonial law & Old Testament, or carnal commandment, as it were by so many means consecrated or dedicated to that holy cad & purpose, which was tiped & shadowed by those figures & similitudes of heavenly things. Therfor as the word sanctifying or hallowying is usually taken in the old Testament for the setting of anything apart to a holy use: so were the people of Israel holy: even an holy natiō above all the nations of the Earth, See: Exod. 19.10.14.15. Job. 1.5. Deu. 14.1-4. compared with Act. 21.28. & for the place which you aledg, Ex. 19.6. to prove the Israelites an holy nation, I say, that either the meaning is that they were typically, holy, trained up to holiness, or that they by attaining the end of the law should attain true holiness in Christ: So that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holiness of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham: So that though infants be under offer of the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, yet shall not baptism be administered upon them, as your consequent doth import, because that in the Old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually feased upon that external covenant: & therefore none in the New Testament shall be baptized but those that are actually possessed of the covenant of the New Testament: but the actual possession of the promise is by obedience to the Faith: For by Faith (saith the Apostle. Gal. 3.14.) we receive the promise of the Spirit, & we receive the Spirit by the hearing of Faith preached, Gal. 3.2. & Faith cometh by hearing of the word preached, Rom. 10.17.

Secondly, I answer concerning the consequent of your Majors consequent that it shall not follow that because children are under the covenant (as you suppose, but we deny) that therefore they thal have the outward sign or seal thereof: for you know under the law the females were actually under the covenant of the old Testament, & yet were not signed with the seal: & before the law was given all that were actualy under the covenant until the time of Abraham had no external sign or seal thereof. if you say in opposition to the circumcision of the female that she was incapable of it: I answer the L. had abundance of Spirit, & if it had been his will that all under the covenant should be partakers of the sign or the seal thereof, he could in wisdom & would undoubtedly have appointed such an external sign or seal that might have been administered upon all under the covenant, but seeing the L. chose out the male only for circumcision, the by he purposed to teach in a type that only the male (that is, one that is in Christ) shall be sealed with the Spirit of promise under the new Test. But if you say in oposition to that before the Law, that there was no seal or sign appointed by God for them under the covenant, because the L. thought it not meet or needful. I say that herby it appeareth that, to be under the covenant, was not the cause of title to the seal, but the particular express commandment or will of God: & so the insufficiency of your consequent appeareth, which importeth that to be under the covenant is reason sufficient to prove a party to be intitled to the seal or sign of the covenant: & this excellent truth herby is manifested, that if it should be granted that infants were actualy under the covenant yet it could not follow thervppon that therefore they should have the sign of seal of the covenant, which you say is baptism, except it could be proved by express commandment otherwise: for this argument you see proveth it not: Hence therefore appeareth the weakness of your argument, viz: that if infants were holy, & so under the covenant, yet it doth not follow that therefor they shall have the sign or seal of the covenant which (you say, but we deny) is baptism.

But I pass unto your assumption: which you say is evident, 1. cor. 7.14. but now are your children holy: you affirm that infants of one of the parents Faithful are holy: I except many things here first: I desire that you expound unto me what this holiness is which the Ap. here mentioneth: happily you will say it is to be under the covenant, then I demand what it is to be under the covenant? prehaps you will say (though this be to run in a circle) it is to be justified by imputation of Chr. righteosnes. Thē I demand which of these three, viz. to be holy, to be under the covenant, to have Ch. righteousness imputed, is first in nature? happily you will say: First, they are under the covenant. Secondly, they are justified by the imputed righteousness of Chr. Thirdly they are sanctified or holy. Then I proceed, & demand when do infants come under the covenant: when they are conceived: or when they are borne? or when the parents are converted being already borne? It will be answered: That these infants that are begotten of Faithful parents come under the covenant in their conception: & these infants that are already borne come under the covenant when their parents are regenerate: hereby then it appeareth that the covenant is conveyed to the children from the parents by generation, & by filial relation: hereunto add that if it be true that some say, that children under the government of the faithful also are under the covenant, that the covenant is conveyed also by pupilship or adoption & if bondslaves or servants being infants be under the covenant because of their beleving Mrs. then servitude is also a means or instrument of conveigning the covenant from Mr. to Servants: this being propounded then as the truth you hold, that plead for Pedebaptisme, then you maintain, that •• g generation, filial relation, pupilship, adoptiō & servitude are means to bring infants under the covenant, then they are means to bring infants under justification, & under sanctification: So that it followeth that we must account all the infants of believing parents that are childrē by nature & by adoption, all infants of believing Mrs. that are borne in slavery or servitude to be justified & Sanctified, because the covenant is communicated unto them by the foresaid relation: Then I proceed & demand why may not all the infants borne under one King, if his subjects, be all his Servants & Vassals (as they say) be by that relation brought under the covenant, & so be accounted justified & sanctified: For relation of a King & a subject borne so is as near as the relation of a Mr, & Servant, or an adopted Child: And then I demand, seeing the relation of a mā & a wife is nearer a great deal then any relation of adoption or set vitude, why the wife shall not be under the covenant for the relation of marriage: happily it will be said the wife being of years cannot be admitted because of her unbelief • : & I say that infants of parents & Mrs. cannot be admitted, because of their want of Faith being under years: but it will be said that the covenant with Abraham was with him & his seed only: I say, that it was made (by your confession) with him and his adopted infants, with him & his pupils being infants, with him & his Servants being infants: & therefore not only with him & his seed: & seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant, & those that are further of, why shall not those that are nearer as his wife: but you will say because infants do not refuse the covenant, they may be admitted to baptism, though adopted childrē, though pupils, though Servants: but wives refusing the covenant may not: I further insist that as infants do not resist, so they do not consent: & that all the Children, Servants, & Wives, that do not resist, may be admitted, though they cannot make declaration of their Faith & repentance: if you say: not so: because that in them that are of years Faith & repentance is required, but of infants no such thing is required: I answer, first show that by Scripture, & then I say there is no reason why Faith & repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of justification, & Sanctification more then of another, except you will say that God is accepter of persons: & further the covenant is only with Abraham & his seed, not with his adopted Children, not with his pupils, not with his Servants, & therefore in thē Faith and repentance must necessarily be had, & so they cannot be baptized til they show their Faith & repentance which is contrary to your doctrine: besides you cannot show in all the Scriptures that persons may be said to be partakers of the covenant actually, except actually they fulfil the condition of the covenant: & if you say that infants being under the covenant, justified, & sanctified, therefore they have Faith & the graces of God in them, I say that is contrary to the Scriptures which say that Faith cometh by hearing: & that the word is the immortal seed of regeneration, whereby new borne babes under the gospel are regenerate: & if it be said that infants have a kind of Faith wrought in them invisibly, & after an hid̄ manner: I say what God worketh invisibly, & secreatly we dispute not nor regard, but what he worketh visibly & to our knowledge, & by the means appointed for the communion of the Church: For there is but one Faith, which is the common Faith of the members of the Church, which is visibly seen by speaking & confession, according as it written I believed & therefore I speak, Tit. 1.4. & if it be objected that then we do condemn all infants dying before they be converted: I say No: we pronounce nothing of infants, but leave the secret of them to the Lord, who hath reserved secret things to himself: Hence then I conclude that seeing you cannot declare what this holiness is which infants have, seeing they cannot have actual holiness: Seeing you cannot declare that they have Faith or justification, seeing they cannot have actual Faith: Therfor you cannot declare that they are actually under the covenant, by actual Faith & holiness: & so if they be not actually under it, but under the offer of it only, that is it which we affirm, & which will help you nothing to baptism of infants.

Secondly, I desire that you would prove unto me by Scripture, that in this place. 1. Cor. 7.14. Holines signifieth true sanctification, or to be actually under the covevenant, having it really invested upon them, You endeavor to declare it out of the text: For you say Paul answereth an objection, viz, that the faithful are defiled with the Society of the unfaithful, & proveth that the Faithful husband may use the vessel of his unfaithful wise with a good conscience by an argument drawn from the effects, namely, because their Children are holy, & under the covenant: God having said to the Faithful I will be thy God, & the God of thy seed. Well, let us see the force of your reason: your fourth argument was this.

If infants be holy then are they under the covenant.
Infants are holy:
Ergo infants are under the covenant.

Your proof that infants are holy is this.

If infants be under the covenant, then infants are holy.
Infants are under the covenant.
Ergo infants are holy.

I ask you Sir, in good sooth, is this circular reasoning sound: you say infants are Holy, because they are under the covenant, & you say they are under the covenant because they are holy: Let all men judge whither you have proved infants Holy or not.

Thirdly I answer that (Holy) doth not so signify as you expound, neither is the argument taken from the effects, but from the greater to the less after this manner.

If your children (in your own judgment) be holy, & you do not put them away when you are converted to the faith, but use thē still as your Children to all those uses whereto children are appointed, the relation natural of Father & son remaining, though you beleve: then much more the relation of mā & wife remaineth, & you may use your wives, they being of a nearer natural bond then your children.
But the first is true by your own confession, & by the light of nature.
Ergo the second is true by the light of nature much more.

And whereas you say that by this exposition an vnbeleving servant is in as good an estate, & as holy as children in respect of the covenant, I confess it to be so: & you that plead for pedobaptisme say so likewise, seeing that you will have servants under the covenant by their Mrs. Faith: but I would know whither the Apostle speaketh only of infants or of all Children generally: if generally of all Children, then all the Children of the Faithful are holy, yea even those that are unbelievers & then would I know how unbelieving children can be holy, if not as the vnbeleving wife is holy: that is to the use of their parents in the relative duties of children & parents. If the Apostle speaketh only of infants, then he speaketh not so generally as God speak to Abraham saying I will be thy God, & the God of thy seed, for in that speech you say all the seed is comprehended whither of years or under years, yea servants, pupils, children by adoption, &c. So that expound it as you will, it cannot be understood of holiness in respect of the covenant as you pretend: but you will say they are to be esteemed Holy & under the covenant til they manifest the contrary: & I say, that they must manifest that they are Holy before they can be esteemed Holy: & that you cannot prove that assertion from the Scripture: & the people of the Jews Abraham's carnal Children were Holy when they declared the contrary by their sins, Exo. 19.6. compared with Exod. 32.9. & 33.3.5, so are the children of the Faithful holy though they be unbelievers as the wife is holy though an vnbeleever.

Finally you say: God hath said to all the Faithful, I will be thy God & the God of thy seed: I deny it utterly: God said that only to Abtaham, Genes. 17.7. & whither you expound it literally, or Spiritually, I avouch confidently against you & all men that the meaning of it is not, that God made his covenant with the faithful man, or the Faythful woman & their infants begotten of their Bodies: but that literally the meaning is, I willbe God unto thee Abraham & thy seed according to the Flesh to give them the Land of Canaan: & so it is expounded Genes. 17.8. Or Spiritually the meaning is, I will give unto Abraham the Father of the Faithful, & all that are his Spiritual seed, everlasting life, which is the true Land of Canaan: The latter which is the truth being signified by the former which is the type: & show me in all the Scriptures that God said to every Faithful man & woman (for you must prove it spoken of women as well as men) that he will be God unto them & their seed: For I would fain know why the covenant should pass unto the infants of the Faithful: it will be said because of the Fathers Faith: this is false doctrine: For the Prophet teacheth that every man shall live by his own faith & that one man's faith cannot convey the covenant of justificatiō to another neither can one man's sin cut of another from the covenant as this doctrine importeth: but the soul that sinneth it shall die.

Neither will 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 doth continue his proper time: For gnolam signifieth any hidden time, or any set time of any length, as 50. years the time of the jubile: But let it be granted that the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. was the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, (which yet I do not see proved) what then shall it follow that because it was with Abraham & the Faithful whither Jews or Gentiles believing actually as Abraham the Father did: Therfor it is made with the Faithful men who is the child of Abraham: & with his children begotten of his body which have not Abraham's actual Faith, & so are not the children of Abraham: I deny it utterly: For the Apostle saith the seed is but one to whom the promises were made, viz: Christ or the actual believers: For Christ dwelleth in the harts of men by Faith only. Gal. 3.16. Eph. 3.17. But if it be made with the Faithful who believe actualy which is one seed whither Jew or Gentil, & the infants of the Faithful carnally begotten of their body, which is another seed, (for they are not begotten of the immortal seed of regeneration:) then the covenant is made with the seeds which are many : & that is directly contrary the Apostles words, Gall, 3.16. Therefore the one seed is persons actually believing, & actually justified by the righteousness of Faith, as Abraham the Father of all the Faithful was, Roman. 4.11. whence this Argument may be framed.

Abraham is the Father of all them that actually believe.
Infants do not actually believe.
Ergo, Abraham is not the Father of infants: & so infants are not under the covenant of Abraham.

Again Abraham's covenant was only to Abraham's one seed, that is only to the believers.
Infants are not actual believers.
Ergo, Abraham's covenant is not to infants: & so infants are not under the everlasting covenant of Abraham.

Again. They that are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.
Infants cannot do the works of Abraham.
Ergo infants are not the children of Abraham: & so not under the covenant of Abraham.

Again. I reason thus:

They that are not under the everlasting covenant made with Abraham shall not be baptized.
Infants are not under the everlasting covenant of Abraham.
Ergo: infants are not to be baptized.

These & many other such Arguments may be colected out of the answer to this fourth Argument of yours: but these shall suffice.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

1. Corinth. 10.1.2.

If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud & in the sea, as well as their parents, what letteth the infants of believing parents under the gospel, to be likewise partakers of baptisma as well as they?

The former the Apostle affirms, 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & therefore good warrant must be shown, that our infants are cut of from this privilege that the Jews Children had. And if the former Baptism of the Jews was a Type of our Baptism, then must there be an agreement between the Type, & the thing Typed, which is not, if our Children be not baptized, as well as theirs.

The depriving of our Children of the Sacrament, is to shorten the Lord's bounty towards his people of the New Testament, that being denied to their children, which God gave to his people, & to their infants under the Law, is to deny them (in regard of their seed) the like assurance & comfort, which the Israelites had of theirs. And so to make our estate worse & more uncomfortable then theirs was: & yet the Prophets prophesied of the grace that should come to us, & did inquire & seach after the same. 1, Pet. 1.10.

Glad tidings were preached to Abraham & his seed to infants of eight days old Gal. 3.8. And this before Christ came in the Flesh, therefore much more he being come, is joyful trydings brought unto us & our infants & so are we to beleve that the grace of God is not lessened either towards us or our children, but enlarged by his coming.

John Smyth.

Your 5. argument is taken from 1. Cor. 10.1.2. framed thus.

If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud & in the sea, as well as their parents, what letteth the infants of beleving parents under the gospel to be likewise partakers of baptism as well as they?

The former the Apostle affirmeth, 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & therefore good warrant must be shown that our infants are cut of from this privilege that the Jews children had: that baptism being a type of our baptism,

To this argument I make answer: by framing the like argument.

If their infants did eat the same Spiritual meat & drink which the parents did eat: then why may not our infants being able to eat & drink, eat & drink the Lord's Supper?

The former the Apostle affirmeth, 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & therefore good warrant must be shown that our infants are cut of from the privilege: & those sacraments were types of our Sacraments.

Again, I answer more properly thus: That there shall be a proportion betwixt the Type & the truth, that baptism of the cloud & sea, & our baptism, viz: that as young & old carnal Israelites were baptized in the cloud & sea, so young & old Spiritual true Israelites shall be baptized by the baptism of reap̄tance: & as the carnal parents with their carnal children were baptized in type: So Spiritual parents with their Spiritual children, that is such as are regenerate by the word & Spirit, shall be baptized with the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, which is baptism in truth.

Further I say: That our infants shall have a privilege fair greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that typical baptism: For they by it were only baptized into Moses & the Law: That by it they might learn Moses, & in Moses the truth in Chr. as it were under a vele: but our infants under the gospel shall have the daily institution & education of Faithful parents, which is infinitely superior to that dark pedagogical baptism, & all the baptisms & ordinances of the Old Testament: Seeing that with open face they may in the preaching of the gospel see Christ Jesus, & not under the vele of Moses.

Moreover I deny that the baptism of the cloud & sea was a type of the external baptism of the New Testament, in the abstract: but it was a type of our baptism in the concrete: that is the baptism of the cloud did Type out our baptism in the 3. parts thereof, viz. 1. The baptism of the Spirit, 2. The declaration of Faith & repentance the antecedent of baptism with water, 3. The outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulars: & all these to be conferred upon infants proportionable to those infants, that is, New borne babes in Christ.

And whereas you further allege that if your infants be not baptized, the Lord's bounty is shortened to us & our infants: our confort is diminished in respect of our infants which they had in respect of theirs: & the gospel is not preached to our infants as it was to theirs: I answer that God's bounty, our confort in respect of our infants, & the preaching of the glad tidings of the gospel is as large & ample every way to our infants as to theirs: For God's bounty of the actual exhibiting and fealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham & all his carnal infants was never extant in the Old Testament: Neither were the parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it upon their infants: & circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached now to infants: but what could the preaching of Christ profit infants either then in types or now in truth? Neither do I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infant anything at that instant, but afterward he was to learn that which the Schoolemr. circumcision upon his Flesh taught him: viz: the circumcision of the heart: & if you say that so infants baptized are to be instructed, I answer, that in the New Testament by baptism we manifest what we have, namely, the inward baptism, whereas in the Old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have, viz: The inward circumcision of the heart, & mortification of the sinful Flesh.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Mat. 28.19.

If Christ gave a commandment for the publishing of his covenant & administering of baptism the seal thereof to all nations: then are the beleving Gentils & 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 will be objected against the Major, that if follows not, that the infants are anymore bound to receive baptism, then they are bound why lest they are infants to receive the word, but the word they cannot receive, ergo. I answer, that the commandments is general to all nations, & therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed to the Lord commanding him to circumcise himself, & all his family, yea the infants, he should grevously have rebelled against God: So whosoever of the Gentiles shall not beleve & be baptized both himself & his seed, shall have no part • or portion in the inheritance of Christ: Seeing he cuts himself of & his seed from the covenant of God, Gen. 17.14.

And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant, (which not withstanding they are bound unto, as they shall come to years of discretion) yet are they capable of the seal, as before is shown, & therefore by virtue of this general commandment. Mat. 28.19. are to be Baptized.

John Smyth.

Your 6. Argument from Mat. 28.1 • is framed thus.

If Christ gave a commandment for the publishing of his covenant & administering of baptism the seal thereof to all nations: then are the believing gentiles & then 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.

The errors of this argument I will discover in order: First I deny that baptism is the seal of the covenant of the New Testament. Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seal of that everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ: Thirdly, baptism therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision, there being only a chandg of the ceremony (as you pretend) the covenant being the same, these three particulars are already proved. Fourthly I deny, that though Abraham who had a special commandment, did circumcise his male infants, therefore Christians upon this general commandment, Mat. 28.19. shall baptize their infants Fifthly, I say rather the contrary is hence proved, because Christ commandeth to baptize only those that are by teaching made Disciples (for so the word matheteusate signifieth) therefore infants are by express prohibition excluded, & it is as if Chr. should say, I will have you make them Disciples & baptize them that are made Disciples by teaching & no other: & so Christ expressly excludeth infants. Lastly, I deny that infants are capable of baptism, for they cannot confess their faith & their sins, neither declare that they are baptized inwardly with the Spirit, & so cannot outwardly by the baptism with water declare the same, but are in every respect unable thereto, & incapable thereof.

Hence therefore I reason against baptising infants.

1. They only are to be baptized that are made Disciples by teaching.
Infants cannot be made Disciples by teaching.
Ergo, Infants are not to be baptized. Secondly I reason thus.

2. Every precept affirmative contevneth a negative under it.
Make Disciples by teaching & baptize them, is an affirmative containing under it, baptize not those that are not made Disciples by teaching.
Ergo, those that are not by teaching made Disciples, are by Christ forbidden to be baptized: & so infants are not to be baptized.

3. Thirdly I reason thus.

They that are incapable of baptism are not to be baptized.
Infants are incapable of baptism: Seeing baptism confisting of the inward baptism of the Spirit, expressed by confession in word, & washing with water in action: infants are incapable of the two former parts of baptism.
Ergo infants are not to be baptized with water which is the latter.

4. If the New Testament be as clear & perspicuous as the old, & Christ the Mediator of the New Testament as faithful as Moses the Mediator of the Old Testament: then the persons to be baptized, & the conditiō of baptism, & the time of baptism are as clearly & faithfully described in the institutiō of baptism, as the person, condition & time of circumcision.
But for pedobaptisme there is no express description of the person, condition, or • y • e of their baptism 〈◊〉 for true baptism: there is most evidently, & faithfully set down the persons, condition, & time of administering it, viz: persons confesting their sins, Mat. 3.6. whereas persons impenitent were put by, Mat. 3.7-12. compared with Luk. 7. us. 29-30. Persons believing. Act. 8.12.13. & us. 36-38. persons that had received the holy Ghost, & expressed the same by prophesying, Act. 10.46-4 • persons penitent, Act. 2.38. persons that are by teaching made Disciples, Mat. 28.19. John. 4.1. persons borne again John. 3.3.
Therfor such persons are to be baptized who are thus particularly described, wherein the New Testament is as clear as the Old, & Christ the Mediator as Faythfull as Moses: & no other but these: For if others be, then is not the New Testament so clear as the Old, nor Christ as Faithful as Moses, which to say is to blaspheme.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Lastly, the Apostles practice is our instruction, but they baptized not only the master of the family which believed, but all his howsehold. Act. 16.15.33. Therefore now also the like is to be done: & so consequently the infants are to be baptized, for they are 2 part of the family. & that infants are of the family, see Gen. 45.18. where Joseph bad his brethren, take their Father, & their howsehoolds, & come to him, now in chap. 46.5.7. it is said they carried their Children & wives in chariots, nothing hereby, that children were of the howsehold, else had they no commandment to have carried them into Egypt, see also us. 27. & Exo. 1.21. it is said, because the Midwyves feared God, therefore he made them houses, in 1. Tim. 5. • . the Apostle saith, he that provideth not for his own, & namely for them of his household, he denieth the faith, &c. Now I would ask if childrē be exempted from the howshold in any of these places, or in any other where is mention made of a particular howshold. Therefore this argument will prove that children were baptized, unless it can be shown that they were specially exempted. & if the holy ghost have not exempted them, who dare do it against a general commandment of baptising all nations.

John Smyth.

Your 7. argument is taken from Act. 16.15.33. framed thus.

The Apostles practice is our instruction.
But they baptized not only the Mr. of the Family which believed, but all his howshold Act. 16.15.33.
Therfor now also the like is to be done: & so consequently infants are to be baptized, for they are a part of the family.

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 howshold of Lydia & the Gaylor were baptized, that therefore infants were baptized: you shall 〈◊〉 what exceptions I take.

First, I say though infants are a part of the family when the family hath infants in it, yet it doth not follow that wheresoever there is mention made of a Family, that therefore that Family had infants in it: except therefore it be proved that the f • mily of Lyd • , & the family of the Gaylor had infants in it, this allegatiō is nothing.

Secondly, by this reason you might prove that Lydia's Husband, & the Gaylors wife, & their children of 40 years old, & their Servants of 60. years old, were baptized. For all these are parts of a Family, yet I supose you will not say they were all of them baptized, except you can prove, that Lydia had a Husband, or the Gaylor had a wife, or children of 40. & servants of 60. years old: your argument therefore is weak presupposing the thing that is in question.

Thirdly, if it were yielded that there were infants in Lydia's Family, & in the Gaylors, doth it therefore follow that they were baptized? nothing less: & that I will declare thus.

1. You say that to the baptising of the Gaylors wife, & children of years of discretion there was necessarily required Faith & repentance, or else they were not baptized: So say, I that because infants cannot believe & repent, though they were in the Family yet shall they not be baptized: For there is one conditiō required for all persons to be baptized.

2. I say: that although it be said that all that pertained to the Gaylor were baptized, yet it is also said us. 32. That the word was preached to all that were in his house: & us. 34. That all his howsehold believed, & how came their faith but by the word preached us. 32. Seeing therefore that all that were baptized in the Gaylors hows believed by the preaching of the word: infants that could not believe by the preaching of the word, were not baptized if he had any: besides it was a marvelous distempered time at midnight to wake children, & to bring them before the Apostles for baptism.

3. I say: That for Lydia's Family it is not said that all her howsehold was baptized: or if it had been so said, yet it followeth not that every particular person off her Family was baptized. For Mat. 3, 5.6. it is said that all Judea went out to John & were baptized of him, confessing their sins: yet hence it cannot be concluded that all & everyone that went out were baptized: or that all & everyone went out to be baptized: no more can it be proved that because it is said that Lydia's Family was baptized, that therefore all & every particular person was baptized, but as Mat. 3.6. only they that confessed there sins: & as Act. 16.32-34. only they that believed by the word preached were baptized, so was it with them of Lydia's Family that were baptized: For the Apostles I doubt not kept one order, & required the same conditions in all that they baptized: So that by that which hath been said the vanity of this argument is manifested: & it is proved plainly that none were baptized in the Gaylors Family, but only they that believed after the word preached & so infants specially are exempted, if he had any in his family which yet is not manifested.

Hence therefore I reason thus against baptising infants.

1. The Apostles practice is our instruction.
But the Apostles in baptising howseholds, first preached the word to all that were in the Family, Act. 16.32. & then the believing were baptized, us. 34.33.
Ergo: They only that by the preaching of the word were converted & believed were baptized. Again I reason thus.

2. That which the Apostles practiced in one Family, they practiced in all Familyes that they baptized.
But in the Gaylors Family, according to Christ's commission, Mat. 28.19. They first made them Disciples by preaching the Word: Act. 16.32-34,
Ergo: So they practiced in all Familyes: & therefore in the Family of Lydia, of Crispus, Act. 18.8. of the Ruler: John, 4.43. & so no infants were baptized.

And this shall suffice for answer to your arguments.

Mr. Rich. Mr.

Herevnto I will adjoin some testimonies of the Fathers, not to prove that children ought to be baptized, which is to be done, & is by the Scriptures already proved; but to show the practice hereof in ancient Churches. Augustine (as I find alleged) writing to Jerome, Epist. 28. chap. 5. Saith Cyprian not making any new decree, but firmly observing the Faith of the Church, judged with his fellow Bishops, that as sone as one was borne, he might Lawfully be baptized. See Cyprian Epist. to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists, Lib. 4. Chap. 23. & 24. saith, that the baptism of infants was not deryved from the authority of man, neither of counsels, but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles. Civil: upon Lev: Chap. 8. approveth the baptism off infants, & condemneth the iteration of baptism. Origin upon the Roman saith, that the Church received baptism of infants from the Apostles. Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum. 3. saith: That baptism agreeth to every age, to every condition of life, to all men, if thou hast an infant, that is Sanctifyed from his infancy, yea from the finger ends it is consecrated. After he faith: Some man will say, what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor pain, what shall we baptize those? & he Answeres, yea verily. Amb: Lib. 2. de Abrah. Chap. 11. Speaking of baptism, faith, nether Old man nor prosolite, nor infant is to be excepted, because every age js guilty of sin, & therefore stands need of the Sacrament These & many others of the Fathers do bear witness according to the Scriptures of the Lawfullnes of the baptising of insents.

John Smyth.

And here for a conclusion you produce the Fathers: I say that the producing of Fathers who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies, shall avayle you nothing in your cause: & you that deny the testimony of Fathers contrary to the scriptures, how can you with any color of equity produce Fathers against us in a case contrary to the Scripture, is it not to set darkness against light? do not you know that all the Fathers even everyone of them brought his stone to the building of the Temple of Antichrist: but I know your drift in the producing of Fathers, viz: First to set a gloze upon your Antichristian heresy of baptising infants. Secondly to draw the world into dislike of the L. truth: but if a mā should produce testimonies of Fathers against your Seperation, against you in the case of Presacy, Priesthood, & Deaconry, • ead prayer, & other parts of your cause, what would you answer? would not you say, that they were testimonies of men living in corupt times, contrary to the Scriptures, &c. Even so say I to you: but you say that you do not bring testimony of the Fathers, to prove anything: well then: you confess they prove nothing: remember that, & let all men take notice that you produce testimonies that you say prove nothing: but why do you produce testimonies of the Fathers: Forsooth, to show the practice of ancient Churches: but all those Churches were Antichristian by your own confession: & what doth antiquity Antichristian, or vniversality antichristian help you against the truth? Therfor I say: The truth needeth not the testimony of Antichrist: & old universal antichristian errors shall not prevail against the truth: I have shown you that from the beginning it was not thus: go; baptism of infants is a Novelty: but let us show you some footsteps of the bringing in of baptising infants, & that out of the Fathers.

Henricus Pantaleon: Chronolog. fol. 16. saith: Victor Apher in the year 193. ordained: that at Easter baptism should be indifferently administered to all hence then it followeth that before his time only such as were Catechised in the Faith were baptized: For he would not decree that heathen should be baptized.

Eusebius. Eccles. Histor. Lib. 7, Chap. 8. saith that Novatus rejected the Holy baptism, & overthrew the Faith & confession which was accustomed before baptism: whereby it appeareth that Faith & confession were required before baptism, and therefore the rudiments thereof still remain, that in baptising of infants, a confession of sin, and Faith is required of the suretyes or parents.

The same Euseb. Lib. 10. Chap. 15. reporteth the story of Athanasius baptising children in sport: which baptism was approved (though done in sport) by Alexander Bb, of Alexandria, after that he by examination had found that the children had questioned & answered according to the manner of the Catechumen in baptism: whereby it appeareth that then only persons by confession of their Faith & sins were admitted to baptism in Alexandria.

Hosius: Petricoviensi confess. de fide. chap. 27. saith that these two are Aposticall traditions, which the Scripture teacheth not: viz: that there are; persons & one God: & that Dionisius & Origen do testify baptism of infants to be an Apostical tradition: Now you know that their Aposticall traditions were antichristian inventions.

Polydor. Virg. Lib. 4. Chap. 4 de inventoribus rerū. saith thus: It was in use with the ancients, that persons of years (sere) in a manner should be baptized clad with white garments: Lactantius.

Candidus egredit •• nitidis exercitus vndis:

Atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo.

And this was performed at Easter & whitsontide except in necessity: in the mean time til the Feasts of Easter & whitsontyde came they were catechised: this testimony is of good instruction.

Ludovicus Vives, writing upon the first book of August: de Civitate dei. chap. 27. saith: that in ancient times no man was baptized but persons of years, who could understand what the mystical water signified, & required baptism ofter then once: & therefore now the infant to be baptized is demanded three times, if he will be baptized, for whom the suertyes answer, yea.

Erasmus Rotrodamus in his annotations upon the fifth of the Roman. saith, that in Paulls time it was not received, that infants should be Baptized.

Thus have I thought good to show you testimonies of men & so by setting mā against man, to lead you & us all from m • n to the holy Scriptures, which is the rock whereupon we may safely build: which as you have heard flatly forbiddeth the baptising of infants, who cannot be made Disciples by teaching. Mat, 28.19. John. 4.1.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Now let us come to considet of the reasons alleged to the contrary, the first of them is this.

2. Bicause there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any infants that were Baptized by John, or Christ's Disciples, only they that did confess their sins, & confess their Faith, were baptized, Marc. 1.4.5. Act. 8.37.

Answer.

First, this reason being brought into form will be wray the weakness of it: For suppose that should be granted that there were nether a special commandment or example in the practice of John or Ch •• Disciples, for the baptising of infants, yet may it notwithstanding be lawful to baptize them, namely, if by some consequence it may be gathered out of the Scripture. And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Savior Christ, Mat. 22.31.32. where reasoning against the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, proves it by an argument necessarily drawn from Exo. 3 • 6. where no such thing was expressly mentioned. And thus he taught usually & refuted his adversaries, as the History of the Gospel witnesseth. After the same manner doth Paul in his Epist. to the Romans & Gal. prove justification by Faith only without works of the law this he did not prove by alleging any place in all the Old Testament in plain terms affirming so much, but by conclusions of necessary consequence from the Scriptures. & to this purpose might divers other instances be aledged. So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by unanswerable arguments out of the Old & New Testament (though we cannot show any plain precept or example,) yet may we upon warrant thereof, not fear to baptize them. For the author of this reason him self cannot deny, that both he & we must beleve diverse things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence, that we shall not find in express words. As that there be three persons in on • Godhead, that the son is Homousios, that is of the same substance with the Father: Now such express words cannot be shown in the Scripture, & many such like.

2. Secondly, also if this argument be sufficient to bar children from the Sacrament of baptism, then is it as sufficient to keep back women from the Lord's Supper, for there is no special precept, nor yet example that Women should partake of the Lord's Supper, but the Lawfullnes there of is only proved by consequence, because they are within the covenant, & are partakers of the Sacrament of baptism, thus the weakness of this reason being manifested, I will thirdly answer unto it.

3. Thirdly, that there is both precept by Christ & example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath been proved by my two last reasons alleged to prove the Lawfullnes of baptising of infants: Commandment, I say, Mat. 28.19. Go teach all nations, baptising them, where is no exception of the children of faithful parents: & therefore there being a Law once given, that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the believing parents, the same Law of sealiug the covenant must stand still in force to the parties (though the outward sign be changed) except the Law maker do repeal it, or have set down some ground for the repeal thereof which must be shown: or else this commandment doth b • nd us & our infants to receive this seal of the covenant. And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptized Lydia & her howshold. Act. 16.15, & the Keper, & all that belonged unto him, us. 33. both which seeming to be great Families, it is not likely that they were without children, though the Evang: mention them not.

But the exception is that only such as did confess their sins, & confess their Faith, were baptized. I desire that to be proved that only such & no others were to be baptized. Cōcerning John, indeed he was sent to cal the people to reap̄tance, & so to prepare the way of the L. Mat. 3.3. & so many as did repent & confess their sins he baptized, but did John refuse their children if they brought them to him? but it will be said, there is no mentiō made that he did baptize thē, no more say I, is there that they were offered unto him. Ther is no mention that the Disciples of Chr. were baptized, & yet it were to bold a part, & no doubt very false to affirm that they were not baptized: Not all things that John did, not yet that Chr. did, in the particulars, are written John. 20.30. but the sum thereof. & therefore to gather an argument frō hence, because there is no mention that children were baptized by John, therefore they ought not to be baptized is a larger conclusion, then the premisse will bear. & so the reason taken from the baptising of the Evnuch, (Philip baptized no childrē, when he baptized the Evnuch) is of no weight, to prove that therefore childrē ought not to be baptized. Was not the Evnuch a stranger far from his country, now in jorney homeward & therefore not likely that he should have children with him specially in such a tedious jorney, & not knowing of this accident.

John Smvth.

Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants: In answer to the first argument you say that if it be brought into form it will bewray the weakness of it: Well I will bring it into form, & then let us streng then it where it is weak: as thus

That which hath neither precept nor example, is not to be done.
Baptising of infants hath neither precept nor example.
Ergo, baptism of infants is not to be done.

Again another part of my Argument may be brought into form thus.

That which hath precept & example must be practiced.
Baptising of persons confessing there sins & their Faith is commanded, & was practiced by Christ, John, & the Apostles.
Ergo, those persons are the persons to be baptized.

My Argument therefore consisting of an affirmative which includeth a negative is as, I take it a forcible Argument: Let us see your answer & • ceptions.

First, you say that a consequence necessarily drawn from the Scripture is sufficient to prove the baptising of infants, though there were no special commandment or example: as Christ proveth the resurrection, Mat. 22.31.32, out of Exod. 3.6. by necessary consequent & as Paul in the Epistles to the Rom. & Gal. proveth justification by Faith only without works, by necessary consequents: & we believe many things that are not expressed in words: as 3. persons in one Godhead, & that Christ is coessential or consubstantial to the Father: this is your answer or exception: where to I reply thus.

Although a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevail, yet I say the Lord cannot leave 〈◊〉 in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainly & Faythfully with us: For seeing the New Testament is more manifest then the old, the Gospel being with open face, the Law being hid under the vele: & seeing Christ is as Faithful, yea much more faithful then all men, & therefore is called Amen, the Faythful & true witness: & so hath as faithfully prescribed all the ordinances of the New Testament as Moses did the ordinances of the Old Testament: & seeing Moses hath set down distinctly & most plainly, the persons with their qualifications to be circumcised, & the circumstance of the time when circumcision was to be administered: either Christ hath as plainly & fully set down these particulars in the New Testament, or else the New Testament is not so plain as the old, & Christ is not as Faythful a • Moses: For it had been easily said, go teach, make Disciples, & baptize them, & if they have any infants baptize them without teaching them or thus? baptize me of years when they confess their sins & their faith, but baptize all the infants of the faithful, though they cannot confess at all their sins & saith, or it had bē easily said: John baptized them that confess their sins & there young children also: but to say that Christ, John, & the Apostles leaveth direction for this main mater, only by dark obscure, far fetched, probable conjectures & consequents from the Old Testament which was only typical, & is abolished in respect of the Types, & that 〈◊〉 hath not left evident & undeniable ground for it distinctly & expressly in all the foresaid particulars, is to say that Christ is not so plain & Faithful in his office prophe •• cal, as Moses was, who hath taught all these particulars so distinctly as nothing is more plain: & therefore though I must needs yield that necessary consequents are true, yet I deny that in this case the Lord hath left us to consequents, & it is against his truth, his Faythfulnes, & the evidence of the New Testament, so to do,

More over seeing that the New Testament was wrapped up & p • eached obscurely in the Old Testament, & the types thereof, it was necessary that Christ should out of the Old Testament prove the resurrectiō, & Paul out of the old Testament prove justification by faith without work: for the Jews would not believe anything contrary to the law or without warrant of the law: & the Gentiles, namely the Galatians especially, being seduced by them of the circumcision, Act. 15.1. must needs have their mouths stepped by the law: & there were no Scriptures but the Old Testament, & the ordinances of the New Testament could not be so plainly drawn out of the Old Testament without consequents but new the New Testament being written, & all the ordinances thereof plainly taught by Christ & his Apostles: why shall we be sent to obscurityes, & conjectural consequents, seeing that we may with open face look into the glory of Christ, as it were into a glass, & therein see all the beauty of the new Jerusalem as clear as Crystal, Revel. 21.11. 2. Cor. 3.18. & whereas you would fetch arguments from the Old Testament to prove the baptism of infants, we having the clear light of the New Testament, you therein set us to School to the rudiments of the world, & put aside the light of the sun at noon, & set up a candle as the Papists do in their funerals: for although it be meet that we attend unto the Prophets as unto a light shining in a dark place, yet seeing the day star is come, & the sun of righteousness is risen upon us, let us walk in this clear light, & use the other when we want light, as with the Jews who deny the New Testament: & in other like occasions.

Besides the trinity of persons, & unity of essence in the Godhead is proved by plain words, 1. John. 5.7. & hereby the Homoiousia of Arius is confuted: as also: Phil. 2.6. & for the word person it is, Heb. 1.3. & the word Godhead is Roman. 1.20. So that hereby you get nothing: but I say still that whatsoever cannot be plainly shown in the New Testament, is not needful for us to know in the New Testament, if it be an ordinance of the New Testament as baptism is: but the trinity & unity is no part of the New Testament more then of the Old Testament, & being common to both may be sought out of both, & so any other common truth.

Finally, I say show me any necessary consequence for baptizing infants, either out of the Old Testament or New Testament, & I yield: but I desire it may well be observed, first, that you are driven to consequents for this matter, & therein simple witted people may easily be mislead by a Logician: Secondly, that the Gospel of Christ is for babes: Mat. 11.25. & therefore the most simple person is, capable of it: & so there shall need no obscure consequents out of it for they are not able to comprehend them: & lastly, that the consequents that are brought I avouch to be mere hallucinatious & sophisms, as I have already declared & shall do hereafter more fully as they shall be produced.

Your second answer & exception is, that if want of Special precept & example, bar infants from baptism, it shall also bar women from the Lord's Supper: I deny it, for in plain terms it is said: 1. Corinth. 11.28. Let Anthropos, viz: either man or woman eat after examination: & Gal. 3.28. Ther is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, but all are one, & 1. Corinth. 10.17. we that a • e many are one bread, & one body, being all partakers of one bread, & 1. Corinth. 12.13. whee have been all made to drink into one Spirit, & Dorcas is a Disciple: Act 9.36. & the Disciples meet together to break bread, Act. 20.7. & the Disciples continned in breaking bread: Act. 2.41.42. being first 3000. then 5000. amongst whom there was Sapphyra, & the Widows of the Grecians, Act. 2.41. & 5.1. & 6.1. & so this exception is nothing to the purpose.

Your third answer & exception followeth, wherein you do affirm that there is both precept & example for baptising infants, the Commandment is, Mat, 18.19. The example is of the infants of Lydra, & the Keper of the prison: Act. 16.15.33. To these I have already given answer in the 6. & 7. reasons going before, & therefore hold it needles to repeat it here again: only one thing is here to be answered that you object. viz: That the Law once given of sealing the infants as well as parents, must be retained, except a repeal can be shown: I answer, (besides that baptism is not the seal of the New Testament, but the Spirit: & that circumcision was not a seal of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ but of the Old Testament) that when Princes & common wealths make Laws to endure but for a time, when the time is expired then they are repealed if they be not reestablished: So, though it were granted that infants of the Old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in respect of Chr. which I peremptorily deny, yet seeing the time of circumcision is expired therefore infants are not now to be sealed (as you say) by baptism: for the exspiring of the time is the repealing of the Law: therefore until you can show that baptism of infants male & female is in the New Testament established: I will descend that they are not to be baptized especially the female infants which were never appointed to be circumcised: but I count these but slender exceptions.

In the last place you require proof that only persons that confessed their sins & their faith were to be baptized: I prove it unto you thus.

1. They only were to be baptized that Christ commanded to be baptized.
Persons made Disciples by teaching, were only commanded to be baptized by Christ, Mat. 28.19.
Ergo: persons made Disciples by teaching, were only to be baptized.

The minor of this argument is evident, Mat. 28.10. where this being the affirmative you shall make then Disciples by teaching them, & then baptize thē: this must needs be the negative, you shall not baptize them til you have made them Discip • es by teaching: & so persons taught were baptized & they only.

2. Again: considering that in every affirmative there is included a negative: therefore wheresoever an example is that persons confessing the r sins & their faith were bapti • ed, the • is signified that those that did not confess their sins & their Faith, were 〈◊〉 baptized: For we must know that the body is one: & the Faith is one, & the Spirit one, & the baptism one, & the seed one: & that there is not two in Christ but one: For in the New Testament they know God from the least unto the greatest, Heb. 8.11. & they are all taugit of God, John. 6.45. & the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater then John. Mat. 11.11. & this do I take to be a plain proof of the point which you desire.

You say further that the reason why John baptized no children, is for that they offered them not. well: I say that his preaching was such as peremptorily excluded infants: For it was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins: Marc. 1.4. & he required confession of sins, & repentance of them that he baptized, Mat. 3.6-11 compared with Luk. 7.29.30. otherwise he would not baptize them: & therefore Chr doctrine is the same with John's, Mar. 1.15. both thereby signified unto their hearers. that whosoever would be baptized & enter into the Kingdom of God, must repent & believe the gospel: For being not regenerate (though they were Jews, & begotten of Faithful parents) yet they could not enter into the Kingdom of God, John. 3.3.5. & here it would be considered unto whom Christ & John the Baptist preached: did he not preach unto the Jews the Lord's own holy people: & yet he said repent & believe: & required of them amendment of life: Now if they had been truly regenerate in their comunion as is pleaded, John needed not thus have preached, nor Christ have required such conditions of them, but only they might in few words have said: come you Faithful & believing Jews, you & all your infants be baptized at once: For baptism is for circumcision: but John saith, think not to say you have Abraham to your Father: & Christ saith, you are of your Father the Devil: & John saith, the Lord will purge his floor: whereby it is evident that the Jews were not Faithful in their communion: & that they perceived plainly that seeing repentance & Faith were required by John & Christ particularly, which must be declared by confession, therefore it was in vain for them to offer their infants whom they knew John & Christ would not baptize, but excluded from baptism by their doctrine.

Again, whereas you say there is no mention made that Christ's Disciples were baptized, & yet it were boldness to affirm they were not baptized: & so all Christ's & John's actions are not written but only the sum: & therefore though it be not mentioned that infants were baptized, yet in the sum it may be collected they were: I answer, for the Disciples of Christ it is plain they were baptized, John. 4.1. & John. 1.35.40. & for the summing & particularizing of all John Baptists or Christ's actions, I say it was not needful to set down the particulars but the kinds: & if there had been any commandment or example of baptizing any one infant, it had been sufficient, though it had not been mentioned how many particular infants: but as it fell out in circumcision that one particular precept was sufficient, though it were not written how many thousand were circumcised, so likewise of baptism.

Finaly, for that you say of the Evnuch, though I intend it not as you answer i • me thinks that some mention should be made of Philip to the Evnuch, or of the Evnuch to Philip, his infants or children being at home far of concerning infants: or at least of some other that had infants, or did baptis • persons that had infants, & that after this manner: What have you any infants? Let them be brought to baptism as well as yourselves: For they have title to it through your Faith, or thus, I have infants I pray you let them be baptized as well as myself: or thus, do you repent & you shall be baptized & your infants: but the deep silence of infants baptism, yea the exclusive condition of believing & repenting necessary to the Kingdom of God, yea & the confession of sins & confession of Faith performed by persons baptized, yea & Christ's commandment of making Disciples before baptism, all these & many mo are strong profess unanswerable against baptism of infants.

Mr, Rich. Clifton.

The next reason is this.

2, Bicause Christ commanded to make Disciples by teaching them & then to baptize them, Matth. 28.19. John. 4.1. But infants cannot by Doctryne become Christ's Disciples. And so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptized.

Answer.

1. The Apostles were indeed commanded to make Disciples, & to cal unto the Faith & fellowship of the Gospel, not only the Jews, but the Gentiles through out the world, Mat. 28, 19. & gave them power to preach the Gospel, which before had been preached to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. & to baptize all that did receive it: & thus we grant that faith must go before baptism, in all such as are to be made Disciples, & brought into the covenant of God: So went Faith before circumcision, Abraham first believed, & after was circumcised, & likewise must all they which with Abrahā enter into God's covenant, first believe & then be baptized as the Evnuch, Act. 8.37. Lydia. Act. 16.13. & the Keper of the prison, Act. 16.33. But when such have received the Faith, then are their infants & howshold capable also of baptism as Abraham's Family was of circumcision, he believing the promises, Gen. 17. & therefore it is written, that when God opened the heart of Lydia, that she did atend to the Word that Paul preached, & believed, not only the her self, but all her howshold were baptized, & yet is there no mention of the Faith of any of them, save of Lydia's only. & so the Kep believing all his received baptism, & this is proportionable to the example of Abraham, whose Faith we find sufficient to interest all his seed in the covenant, & make them capable of the seal.

2. Secondly, Christ taketh the same course (in giving out this commission to his Disciples, Mat. 28.19.) in bringing the Gentiles into God's covenant, that the L. took 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. Gen. 17.1-8. & he believe • ng was circumcised & his howshold So here is a commandment, first, for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ, & then for baptising such as believed with their Familyes, for that is included in this Commandment, else had not the Apostle baptized the Familyes of Lydia, & of the Kep. as before hath been: noted.

1. Thirdly, if children shall be excluded from baptism because they cannot be made Disciples by teaching, & so believe, then by as good reason may they be excluded from salvation, for he that saith, he that believeth & is baptized, shall be saved, saith also, he that believeth not shall be damned, Mar. 16.16. if therefore want of faith be sufficient to exclude infants from baptism: then likewise the want of Faith is sufficient to exclude them from Salvation, for if the former be held to be the meaning of Christ, then must the latter also be granted, a thought whereof is to be abhorred.

Lastly, general rules must be taken with their sense & meaning. It is a general rule given by the Apostle: 2. Thess. 3.19. That if any would not work he shousd not eat: 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 doctrine: So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples, & baptising them, now to deprive the infants of believing parents of baptism, because they cannot receive instruction, which is intended only of them that be capable thereof & vnconverted, is to diminishe the commandment of Christ, even like as he that should say, infants cannot believe, & therefore cannot be saved.

Again, that can never be the true meaning of a Scripture whē it is expounded so as it contradicteth other Scriptures, or any sound conclusion gathered out of the Scriptures, as this exposition of the Anabaptists upon this place of Mat. 28.19. doth, as my formet reasons for the baptising of infants, do plainly manifest.

John Smyth.

Next followeth your Answer to my second reason: which reason of mine is framed thus.

They that cannot by Teaching be made Christ's Cisciples, ought to be baptized.
Infants by teaching cannot be made Chr. Disciples, Mat. 28.19. John. 4.1.
Ergo infants ought not to be baptized.

Your answer to this argument of mine consisteth in 4. particulars.

First, you say, that as Abraham first believed, & then was circumcised, & then all his household received circumcision with him: So all the beleving gentiles must first be baptized, & then through there faith all there howshold must be baptized as in the example of Lydia, & the Gaylors family: of whose faith there is no mention made, as neither of the faith of Abraham's family.

To this first particular of your answer I say, that you err mistaking the Scriptures For Abraham's faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the Old Testament, but as a necessary president, example, type, or pattern of justification: & circumcision in Abraham was not a seal of his justification, or of the everlasting covenant God made with him in respect of Christ, thereby to establish him into Christ, (for he was in Christ & sealed in Christ many years before, by the seal of the Spirit:) but Abraham's justification in uncircumcision, was a type of the justification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised: & Abraham's circumcision alter his justification sealed him up to be the Father of all the believers circumcised: & so circumcision had a triple use in Abraham one general & two special & particular: the two special are these:

First circumcision sealed up Abrah. form of justification to be a pattern to all the believers in uncircumcision: that the believing gentiles should be all justified by actual faith, as he was.

Secondly, circumcision sealed up Abrah. form of justification to be a pattern to all the believers in circumcision, that the beleving Jews should be all justified by actual faith as he was.

The general use of Abrah. circumcision was common with him to Ishmael & all the persons of his family. & all the carnal Israelites, viz: to seal him up to the Old Testament, & to the observation of the whole Law, whereby Chr. in that vele of the Old Testament was preached unto the Jews, it being there Schoolmr. to teach them Christ.

Now for the place. Rom. 4.11. which I am assured you will ground your assertiō upon, I say, it is both falsely translated, & expounded: for (tes en te acrobustia) is usually translated which Abrah. had when he was vncircumcized: & this I say is a false translation: For this is the true translation, viz: which (is or was or shall be) in the uncircumcision: meaning that circumcision upon Abrah. the Father of all the beleving Gentiles was a seal of justification to all the uncircumcision that believe: & the end of his circumcision is his Fatherhood of the Faithful: & the righteousness of faith is not sealed up to Abrah. particular person, but to the uncircumcised that beleve. & that which was sealed up in special to Abrah. was his Fatherhood or presidentship of justification: So that circumcision in Abrah. was to establish him the Father of the Faithful Gentiles, & his circumcision doth teach the Gentiles that if they will partake Chr. they must by their actual faith apprehend Christ's righteousness, as Abrah. their Father did, otherwise they cannot be justified, & so Paul's intent is plainly proved, namely, that all men must be justified by faith without the works of the law: & this do I confidently affirm to be the true translation & exposition, & that the common acceptation & translation of the place is the mother of this heresy of pedobapistry.

Again, all the persons of Abrah Family were not circumcised, because of Abrah. saith, but the males, all & only the males, were circumcised because of the special commandment of God: Gen. 17.10. the males being assumed as types for to teach thē figuratively the male Ch. & circumcision of the heart by him & the females were uncircumcised as they were also put out from being the matter of the burnt-offering (for the males only were offered in burnt-offering) to signify that those that had not the male Chr. in them were not fit either to be members of the church of the New Testament, or to be sacrificed unto the L. Mal. 1.14. but if Ch. the male were in thē whither male or female in Chr. it was nothing: they were accepted, Gal. 3.28.

Further you say that as it was with Abrah. & his family in circumcision, so was it with Lydia & the Gaylor, & their families in baptism that is not so: I show the difference in divers particular.

1. They of Abraham's Family were circuncised upon particular precept in obedience of the Commandment: Genes. 17.23. you cannot prove that the infants of Lydia's & the Gaylors family were baptized upon particular precept, but only you say it, & endeavor to justify it by the example of Abra. family: but if Abra. family be an example then you must bring a particular precept (as he had) for baptising infants.

2. They that were males only were circumcised, but you will have both males & females baptized: this is another difference.

3. They that were circumcised of Abrah. Family, were all the males being of years, though they were never so lewd & wicked persons: So were not all the persons of Lydia's & the Gaylors family, but only the believers being of years according to your opinion.

4. As Faith did not entitle the female to circumcision, & as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision in Abraham's Family: So faith did entitle the female to baptism in the Family of the Gaylor & Lydia: & infidelity in the male did exclude him from baptism: you see therefore that the proportion is not alike betwixt baptism & circumcision.

The second particular in your Answer to this Arg. is, that the same order is kept in Chr. commission, Mat. 18.19. in bringing the gentiles into God's covenant, as was kept with Abtah: he & all his Family were brought in by circumcision, after the gospel preached to him. Genes. 17.1-8. so Lydia & the Gaylor were brought into the covenant with all there Family, & were baptized after the Gospel preached to them.

I answer, that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abrah. & the other of Lydia & the Gaylor, according to the commission of Chr. Mat. 28.19.

First, Abrah. & all his family by the Lord's commandment, came under the covenant of the Old Testament actually, & the males only were circumcised: but Chr. doth not command all persons of a Family in the New Testament to be baptized, but only such as are made Disciples, & all them though they be women as Lydia was.

Secondly: The gospel was only preached to Abrah. own person by the L. but in the Gaylors case Paul preached the gospel to all that were in his house. Act. 16.32. & so Chr. commandeth to make them Disciples by preaching: So were not Abrah. Family, who being first circumcised afterward were taught the Law being a School 〈◊〉 to teach Christ.

Thirdly, the gospel was not preached to Abrah. thereby to prepare him to circumcision, as if thereby it should follow that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel or New Testament: for it is not so as I have already manifested but Chr. in the New Testament commandeth the gospel to be preached to every creature, that is to every particular person, that is to be admitted into the Church by baptism 〈◊〉 & so Paul did to the Gaylors Family, & this is another difference.

The third particular in your answer to this argument is • if infants be excluded from baptism for want of faith by hearing the word, then they shall also be excluded from salvation by that reason: Marc. 16.16. I deny it utterly: For Christ speaketh only of such as to whom the gospel may be preached, which only are men of years For when he saith go preach the Gospel to every creature, he doth not bid them preach to beasts, byrds, Fishes, or infants, which have no ears to hear, but he biddeth them preach the Gospe • to every creature that hath an care to hear, that is, to all that are of a docible age & nature: & then he addeth, whosoever (o • them that have ears to hear) do believe, & upon their faith be baptized shall be saved, whosoever (of mē that have ears to hear) do not beleve (though they be baptized) shall be damned: now I pray you Sir, how doth this sentence include infants to baptism, or exclude them from Salvation • or how doth your consequent follow: & for infants I say that either they are all saved, though they cannot come to faith by hearing, or that they are one of the L. secrets, & so not to be searched into: & that the Scripture doth speak only to & o • thē that have ears to hear, & o • things visible & known, & not of things invisible & secret: therefore this particular of your answer is vain.

Your last particular in the answer to my arg. is, that general rules must be taken with there sense: as 2. Thes. 3.10. that as infants or impotent persons though they cannot work yet may eat, because that speech is not directed to infants, &c. so Mat. •• .19. though infants cannot be made Disciples, yet they may be baptized, seeing that speech is not directed for infants: & such an exposition of that place must be given as doth not contradict other Scriptures or necessary consequents from Scriptures.

Well Sir: I answer you, that first you confess here that this place of Mat. 28.19. is not uttered of Christ in respect of infants that they should be taught, & then I say he never intended that by this place you should gather that they should be baptized as you have done in your 6. arg. & here you do evidently contradict yourself as you see: & let that be remembered of you well.

Next I say, that general rules shall be expounded with there senses: & as impotent persons & infants shall eat though they cannot work seeing that is spoken of these that are able to work: so infants shall be saved though they cannot be baptized, seeing they cannot by teaching be made disciples: & this is not to diminish the comaundement of Christ o • wrest it frō the sense: but to make the commandment of baptising larger then the commandment of teaching (as you do that will have the infants baptized that cannot be taught) is to separate those things that Chr. hath joined, & to wrack the command: of Chr. out of joint, & to break thē in pieces: & woe be to thē that so do without reap̄tāce. Finally, I confess that it is not the true sense of a place that contradicteth either Scriptupe or true consequent: but this truth of the L. which you blaspheme with your title of Anabaptistry, doth not contradict either Scripture or sound conclusion frō Scripture: but is agreeable to the constant & most evident practice of John. Chr. & the Apo. (for you cannot produce an instance of an infant baptized by any of them, & most agreeable to all the precepts of the Ap Chr. & John. for baptising persons confessing their faith & their sins: & you are driven to most miserable shifts, & most narrow straights for your pedobaptistry, which you see cannot stand without scraping together all the wrestings & pervertings of Scriptures which you have heaped together in your answ: your principal foundation being a sandy molehil fetched from the old Test: even a false ground, that circumcision was a seal of the New Testament, & that the covenant made with Abrah. in respect of Chr. was made with all his carnal infants, who were all in Chr. Jesus visibly in their birth & conception by virtue of the covenant: which I have proved to be manifest untruths, & so you see your building tottereth & will never be able to endure the storm.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Now follows the third reason.

3. Bicause if infants be baptized, the carnal seed is baptized, & so the seal of the covenant is administered to them, unto whom the covenant aperteyneth not, Rom. • .8. which is a profanation.

Answer.

1. This reason seemeth to imply, that the seed of the faithful is part carnal, & part Spiritual, (for I cannot imagine that the Author holdeth all the seed of the faithful to be carnal. & that the covenant aperteynes not unto any of them, seeing so to affirm contradicts. Act. 2.39.) & therefore because the Spiritual seed is not discerned until it manifest it self by outward profession, therefore may not be baptized, lest in baptising them, the seal should be set also vpoon the carnal seed, unto whom belōgs not the covenant. To affirm this first is to deny that which is due to the seed to whom the promise belongs, for the wicked's sake, & so to injury them. Secondly, this reason also serves as well against the circumcision of the infants of the Israelites, seeing at eight days of Age they could not be discerned, whether they were of the carnal or Spiritual seed, & so the seal of the covenant not to be administered to thē, to whom the covenant did not belong. But as then the not discerning hereof, did nothing hinder circumcision to be administered to all the infants of the Israelites, no more now can the not knowing of the Spiritual seed from the carnal, hinder baptism.

2. Touching the seed of the faithful, thus I conceive thereof that it is carnal & Spiritual in divers respects, carnal as they do naturally descend of their parents, so are they all alike in sin, Psal. 51.3. Spiritual, in respect of the covenant wherein they are comprehended with their parents. Gen. 17.7. Act. 2.39. in which regard also, all the children of the Faithful are said to be holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. & thus considered I deny the children of the faithful to be carnal seed, & do affirm that to such belongs the covenant & the seal thereof. & though some of them in the right of God be known for none of his, yet to us it sufficeth for the administration of baptism, that they be the seed of the faithful: & therefore as the Israelites circumcised all their children, (though some of them proved to be carnal afterward, as Ishmael, Esau, &c.) so are we to baptize all our infants, leaving secreete things to God, Deuteron. 29.29.

3, If this be sufficient to clear us from profaning of the Sacrament if we baptize them that make confession of their faith, 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 baptis • , to administer it to them unto whom belongs not the covenant, but to • ne it to them which plainly appear to us to be without: Therefore, if no man dare take upon him to say this or that infant is carnal & without the covenant of grace, it shall be no profanation of the Sacrament, if it be administered unto such, seeing we ought to hold the seed of the faithful, holy, 1. cor. 7.14. If it be objected (as some have done to me, that all the seed of the faithful are carnal, & so to beheld until they believe & make confession of their faith. I answer, first, if they take carnal, as it is opposed to the children of promise in Rom. 9.8. I vterly deny it, for the children of the Flesh can never be the children of promise, Rom. 9.8.13. These two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle, as that the one can never be the other. Secondly, if by carnal they mean nothing else, but that natural corruption wherein we are borne: That hinders infants no more from baptism, then it doth those that can give an account of their faith, seeing natural corruption remaineth still in the purest professor, Rom. 7.23 & if it be replied, that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that believe, no more (say I) is it to infants, else Christ died not for them, neither could they be saved, dying whilst they be young.

Lastly, if Abrah. knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac Genes. 17, 19. yet circumcised Ishmael, us. 24. & Isaac knowing that God had chosen his younger son, Gen. 25.23. with 27.33. yet circumcised Esau as well as Jacob, & in so doing neither of them profaned the Sacrament: much less is baptism profaned, when it is administered to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise, Act. 2.39. And thus having shown the weakness of these 3. reasons against the baptising of infants, let us come to the second position, which is this.

John Smyth.

In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argum: which Argum: of mine may be framed into this form.

The carnal seed is not to be baptized: For the covenant, pertaineth not to them.
Infants are the carnal seed, Rom. 9.8.
Ergo infants are not to be baptized.

To this Argument you make Answer also in 4. particulars.

First, you expound my meaning, but I can expound mine own words best: & therefore by the carnal seed? I understand all children borne by carnal generatiō, whatsoever though they afterward do believe: For they are carnal visibly to me whosoever they be that do not show their Faith by their works, that do not the works of Abrah. yea though they die in their infancy, & are saved with the Lord: For I must judge according to that which I see, & which is manifested: & I call them carnal as Paul calleth himself carnal, Rom, 7.14. & the Corinthians carnal, 1. Cor. 3.1.3. & as in opposition to the Spiritual seed, that one seed of Abrah. unto whom the promise was made: Gal. 3.16. & the Phrase is taken from Rom. 9.8. where the children of the Jews are called the children of the Flesh: & Gal. • .23. where Ishmael is said to be borne after the Flesh, & Heb. 7.16. the commandment is called carnal: So children borne of their parents naturally are carnal, such were all the Jews infants who were after the manner of Ishmael. Gal. 4.23. Such are all our infants, for our infants are in no better estate then the infants of the Jews: They were all borne according to the Flesh (except Isaac who was in type burn after the Spirit) Gal. 4.24.25.28. & I say that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually fease upon any infant of the Jews in deed & truth: & the place Act. 2.39 doth not prove that it did: For that place is to be understood of the offer: of Christ & the New Testament to all he carnal Jews & their children, but of the real exhibiting • t to all that are called only: & therefore I say that to baptize infants is to baptize the carnal seed, for all infants are carnal, being conceived 〈◊〉 borne in since, being the Children or wrath, until the Lord work his work in them, which when he doth I know not: when I see it wrought in them by the fruits according as it is written, s • ew me thy Faith by thy works, then dare I pronounce them the Spiritual seed of Abrah, for they that are of Faith, are blessed with Faythfull Abraham: Therefore I affirm that infants are not to be esteemed actually under the possession of the New Testament, which New Testament is visible in the visible ordinances the of: why then they are damned you will say: God forbid: do you condemn all the men that are not of your Faith: & yet they are nearer condemnation in •• e judgment of the Scripture to you then infants: for Chr. saith that he that beleveth 〈◊〉 (speaking of them that hear the gospel & do not beleve) shall be condemn ••• but the Scripture teacheth us nothing concerning the final estate of infants, except it, b •• the sal • ation of them all: This is my exposition.

Now according to your exposition, I should intend that because it is not discerned which children are Spiritual seed which the carnal, therefor both of them must be deprived of baptism, lest by giving baptism (which you falsely cal a seal, & I therein speak according to your opinion) to all, it should be profaned by the carnal seed well suppose that this were my meaning what then you except against this exposition two things: one that the Spiritual seed should be injuried by denying baptism to it for the carnal seeds sake 〈◊〉 & I reply by giving baptism to all indifferently, we should injury baptism that is to be administered only upon them that confess their Faith & sins, & that are made Disciples by teaching: another thing you except is that this reason should avayle against circumcision seeing the m •• es of 8. days could not be discerned to be the Spiritual seed: & I insist that it was not then needful that they should be discerned to be the Spiritual seed for that carnal seal of the carnal covenant: it was enough for investing of them with that carnal & typical seal, that they were the carnal & typical seed, & that they were male Israelites or Proselytes: & show me in all the Old Testament, but especially in the institution of circumcision that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised, but to be a male: but now in the New Testament we having the truths of those types, it is plainly taught unto us, first that Christ the male must be in us, & • . that the • r must be circumcision of the heart, & mortification of the Flesh, & 3. we must attain to & learn all that the Schoolm. of the Old Testament could teach us before we can be baptized, for John & Chr. expressly require Faith & repentance in them that are to be baptized: & I do infinitely wonder at you & at my 〈◊〉 & at the whose Earth, that we should not see so evident a truth all this time.

The second particular you bring in answer to my reason is a distinction of the respects of the seed of the Faithful: For you say as they are borne of their parents they are carnal & sinful: Psal. 51.5. as they are under the covenant they are Spiritual, Gen. 17.7. & are called Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. & so are not the carnal seed: & so they may be baptized as well as the Jews infants were circumcised though some of them prove wicked afterward, as Ishmael & Esau, &c. I answer: First, your distinction is witho •• warrant of Scripture: & I deny that infants of the Faithful are to be considered in these two respects: & whereas you bring two places Gen. 17.7. & 1. Cor. 7.14. to prove the latter part of the distinction I have answered these two places already showing your false exposition of them, & that the infants of Abraham were not in their birth under the actual possession of the everlasting covenant made in respect of Chr. but only under the offer of it, & that the infants & all the childrē of the faithful are holy only as the wife that is an vnbeleever is holy: & so this exception of yours is frivolous.

The third particular you bring in answer to my reason, is, that it is not simply a profaning of the covenant to administer the seal of it to them to whom it belongeth not as to Simon Magus, Act. 8.13. but it is then profaned when it is administered to them that are wicked, &c: I answer, the Sacrament of baptism is profaned when it is administered upon a wrong subject whatsoever it be: as to give the Lord's Supper to an infant of two year old So to baptize an infant is a profanation. For as profession & confession of Faith shall entitle any man to all the ordinances of the Chur. & first to baptism: So absence of confession of Faith shall debar everyone from all the ordinances of the Church in communion: & although I will not say that Children are damned, yet I dare say that they are borne & dead in trespasses & sins, & that they do not nor cannot show any spark of grace to me, & therefore 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 ceased of the New Testament which is only atteyned by confession of sin & Faith: For so saith Christ: the time is fulfilled, the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent & believe the gospel: Marc. 1.15. & except a man be borne again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. John, 3.3. & Christ dwelleth in our harts by Faith, Eph. 3.17. & as I cannot deny but that many infants are elected, yet I cannot say which infants shall believe & confess their sins & Faith, & so I know not upon which to administer baptism & I must be assured that they do beleve before I can baptize them, for whatsoever is not of Faith is sin, & to know nothing to the contrary, but that they do bele • ve is not sufficient warrant for baptism: yea & I do know certainly that • eing Faith cometh by hearing, therefore they do not beleve to me, yea though they could here & did believe that is nothing to me except they can show me their Faith by their confession. I say therefore that all infants are carnal to me. Rom. 9.8. For the Apost. v • : 5 saith plainly that to be borne of Abrah. according to the Flesh is not to be borne according to promise, or to be as you say Spiritual, for your distinction before was that every infant of Abrah. & so of the faithful was borne Spiritual as well as carnal: but here the Apostle saith directly contrary to your assertion that they are not all Children of the promise & covenant, because they are the Children that lineally descend of Abrah. & you say peremptorily that all that lineally descend of Abrah. & the Faithful man are children of the promise & covenant, & so to be baptized: I desire you with all your knowledge reconcile these contradictions: & whereas you say the Children of the Flesh are so opposed, that they can never be the Children of the promise, & that therefore the Children of the Faithful cannot be so called carnal: I answer that all the children of the Jews Church were borne according to the Flesh, Gal. 4.23-25. & so were carnal, & so are the Children of the faithful: & yet as many of the Jews were afterward regenerate, & children of the promise though all at the first children of the Flesh, so many of the infants of the Faithful may prove Children of the promise by Faith; though at the first all are the children of the Flesh that is carnal: but I confess indeed that Esau can never be Jacob: & one so carnal can never be Spiritual: & whereas you say, that carnal corruption doth not hinder infants from baptism, no more then men of years that make confession of their Faith, I answer yes: For men of years confessing their sins & their Faith, declare the mortification of sin & regeneration by the Spirit, infants being borne in sin, cannot nor do not declare their regeneration at all to us: & so with them we have nothing to do: & whereas you say natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men believing, let it be so, & yet you cannot defend that without the opinion of universal redemption, & then I say, that if the infants of the Faithful being delivered from their natural corruption may therefore be baptized, then all infants shall be baptized who are partakers of the same benefit, evē the infants of Turks: if you say no: Seeing the infants of the Faithful are only redeemed & under the covenant, then you condemn all the infants that die who are not borne of Faithful parents: & yet you cannot prove that the infants of the Faithful are under the actual possession of the covenant, which is only by Faith, & so the scruple still remaineth vnlosed.

The fourth particular you bring in answer to my reason, is, that Abrah. circumcised Ishmael, & Isaac circumcised Esau, & yet they knew that the Lord would establish his covenant with neither of them: much more may infants be baptized to whom the covenant belongeth, Act. 2.39. I answer: that the external seal of that external covenant was particularly enjoined by God to every male, & the knowledge of the reprobation of Esau & Ishmael did not hinder that carnal seal: nor disannul the precedent express commandment of circumcising every male of 8, days old: but now seeing we have no express commandment for baptising infants, but an express commandment & many examples to the contrary, that only persons made Disciples by teaching, confessing their Faith & their sins, are to be baptized: & considering that infants borne of Faithful parents are the children of the Flesh, Rom. 9.7. Gal. 4.23. & are not actually under the possession of the everlasting New Testament, therefore baptism which you call the seal, cannot be administered upon them, & the place Act. 2.39. hath o • times receeved Answer.

Mr. Rich. Clifton

The Second Position.

1. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptism.

Answer.

As the former position denied the baptising of infants, so doth this annihillate that baptism which we have received in the Apostate Church, & establisheth rebaptisation & this also I will show to be an error by proving the contrary, & then answer the reasons hereunto annexed.

That the baptism administered in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist, is baptism not to be reiterated, thus I prove it.

If the Apostasy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to be the seal of God's covenant to so many of them as repented: no more doth the Apostasy of our fore Elders, so pollute baptism that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented.
But the first is true, 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21. else could not so many of Israel as came to Jerusalem have eaten the Passover, seeing no uncircumcised might eat thereof.
Ergo, the second.

If it be objected that the Apostasy is not alike, then let it be shown, that the Apostasy under Antichrist did make a nullity of baptism, & not the Apostasy of Israel of circumcision: For Israel played the harlot so deeply, that the Lord denied her to be his wise, or him self to be her Husband: Hos. 2.2.

John Smyth.

And thus having shown the vanity of your answers to my reasons against pedobaptiestery • . let us come to your answer made to my second position: which is this.

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

The first thing that in your Answer you intend to prove, is, that the baptism administered in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is not to be reiterated.

And for this purpose you produce 6. Arguments.

Your first Argument is framed thus,

If the Apostasy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to be the seal of God's covenant to so many of them as repented: no more doth the Apostasy of our forefathers so pollute baptism that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented.
But the first is true, 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21.
Ergo the second.

I Answer that the Apostasy of Antichrist is deeper then the Apostasy of Israel, for first Antichristians are not called Israelites, but Babyloniās, Egyptians, Sodomites Gentiles in the Revelation, whereby the holy Spirit of wisdom giveth us to conceive that he doth account the Apostasy of Antichrist equal to Paganism itself: yea to the very worst kind of Paganism.

Secondly, I declare plainly the differences betwixt the Apostasy of Antichrist & Israel, in this, that Israel's Apostasy did not destroy the true constitution of the chur: But Antichrists Apostasy did rase the true Apostolic constitution: For the true constitution of the Church of the Old Testament was of carnal Israelites or Proselytes circumcised: Gen. • 7.10-14. Exod. 12.48.49. & so long as they retained circumcision in the Land of Canaan, they retained a true constitution, though their Apostasy was never so great in the worship, ministry, & Government, as is to be seen Hos. 4.6.8.12. therefore Abijah doth not chardg the Israelites with a false constitution, but declareth unto them their false Government, 2 Chron. 13. us. 8. Their false ministry us. 9. Their false worship, us. 8. & declareth the true government, ministry, & worship of Judah. But it is manifest that Antichrist hath not only set up a false Government of Prelacy, a false ministry of Priesthood, & a false worship of reading, but also hath set up a false constitution of the Church: For whereas the true Apostolic constitution was of baptized Disciples that confessed their Faith & then sins he hath foisted in a false matter of the Church, viz: infants: & persons unbaptized: & so a false form: for infants are no more capable of baptism then is a fool o • •• d man or Pagan: neithe • can they express anymore repentance o • Faith then such persons do: & seeing the true form of the Church is a covenant betwixt God & the Faithful made in baptism in which Christ is visibly put on: & that infants cannot receive the covenant which is only done by actual visible Faith, nor cannot seal back unto the Lord that he is true, John. 3.33 as God sealeth unto them his truth by his Spirit, Eph. 1.13. For the covenant is this, I will be their God. 2. Cor. 6.16. & they shall be all taught of God, John. 6.45. & shall all know God from the least unto the greatest: Heb. 8.11. & the covenant is this: I will be their Father, 2. Cor. 6:18. & we shall be his sons calling him Father by the Spirit, whereby we are sealed, Gal. 4.6. Hence it followeth that the Church of Antichrist being constituted of a false matter, viz: infants incapable of baptism, & of a false son, viz: infants unable to enter into the New Testament by sealing back the covenant unto the Lord, & consenting unto the contract, therefore they can have no title to Christ or any of his ordinances, but are as pagans or Gentiles in the Lord's account. Circumcision therefore in the Israelites Apostasy was true circumcision, because it was performed upon carnal Israelites or Proselytes the eight day: but baptism in Popery is false baptism, & so in the Lord's account no better then Pagan washing, being administered upon infants a subject that God never appointed to baptism: a subject that is as incapable of baptism as an infidel, a mad man, a natural fo • le, or any other subject that cannot confess their Faith or sins, or be made Disciples by destruction.

Thirdly I declare that Israel was the true Church of God, or a member or part of the true Church of God though infinitely corrupt as well as Judah in the days of her Apostasy, see Ezekiel 3. toto. & Ezech. 16. toto: & Ezech. 20.28-31. & therefore if Judah retained true circumcision in her Apostasy when the L. calleth her a harlot Ezech. 16.35. & the Apostasy of Judah is worse in the L. account then that of Israel Ezech. 16.47-53. Surely the circumcision of Israel was also true, & Israel a true part of the Church as well as Indah: & for the bill of divorce which some plead was given to Israel by Hosea: Hos. 2.2. I say that was after the passover of Hezekiah which was in the first year of his reign, 2. Chron. 29.3.17. & 30.2. & the bill of divorce was given the sixth year of his reign, 2. King. 17.23. compared with 2. King. 18.10. yet nevertheless Hosea calleth Israel the Lord's people after he had prophesied of the bill of divorce to be given, Hos. 4.6.8.12. & when the bill of divorce was given, divers of Israel I doubt not, kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme, & retained circumcision, & came up yearly to Jerusalem even til the days of Josiah, 2. Chron. 35.18. compared with 2. Chron. 34.6.7.3-33. So that hereby it is most manifest that no manner of sin made the Church of the Old Testament a false Church, so long as they retained circumcision in the Land of Canaan, yea if they retained circumcision though in Babylō, wherevppō I am persuaded that if the Papucy, or England, or the Greek Churches did only baptize men confessing their Faith & their sins into Chr, the Son of God, or into the Trinity, though they retained their false ministry, worship & Government, & other there abominations yet the baptism was true & not to be repeated: as their circumcision was good notwithstanding all their abominations & horrible Idolatryes, & fearful Apostasy in Israel.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Babylon in Chaldea (which was a type of Spiritual Babylon, Apoc. 18.2.) though they did abuse & profan the vessels of the L. Dan. 5.3. yet did not that make a nullity of them that they ceased anymore to be the vessels of the house of the Lor. but were brought up with them of the captivity that came up from Babel to Jerusalem Ezra. 1.11. Even so although Spiritual Babylon have profaned the Holy things of God, as baptism & the rest, yet remain they still God's ordinances to all them that come out of her, Apoc. 18.4. & return to the celestial Jerusalem. & as these vessels of the house of the L. need not to be new cast, because of Babels polluting them: no more is baptism to be reiterated to the people of God, because it passed thorough the polluted hands of the Papists.

If it be objected, that they that administered baptism in Babylon, were Idolaters, & had no calling thereto.

I answer: That they which circumcised in the Apostasy of Israel were Idolaters, & so standing in that estate could not be fit Ministers of God's holy ordinances. & that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nullity thereof, the circumcising of Moses Son by his mother Zipporah, Exod. 4.25. doth plainly teach. For as the Lord makes effectual his word to his people, though coming unto them, by the hands of a false ministry, so doth he baptism to all that be his, though administered by them that have not a Lawful calling thereunto. The sin of the minister makes not a nullity either of the word or Sacraments, else thould the efficacy of the word & Sacraments, depend upon him that administereth thē, which is not so, for both have their effect from the Lord.

If again it be objected, that baptism was not administered in the Apostate Chur. of Antichrist to a fit subject I answer that the children in the Apostasy were as fit subjects to receive baptism, as the infants of Israel in the days of Jeroboam & Ahab, were to receive circumcision: Seeing 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,

John Smyth.

Your second argument followeth which is this in effect.

As the Babylonians abuse of the vessels of the L. house did not make a nullity of them, but they were used after the captivity, Ezra. 1.11. so the Antichristian abuse of baptism cannot disannul it, but it may be retained when men come to the Faith: & it needeth not to be reiterated, no more then the vessels of the house of the Lord be new cast,

I answer many things: First, this arg. is an excellent arg. for the retaining of idol Temples, the worship, government, ministry of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England: if it be said they were never appointed by God, so say • , that baptism of theirs was never appointed by God: but is the devise of Antichrist.

Secondly, I answer, that the vessels of the Lord's house were his own ordinances, & therefore need not to be new cast: but the baptism of Antichr. is not the L. own ordinance who never ordained it: for you must distinguish them thus: The vessels of the L. house were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the L. apointement but the baptism of the L. is a compound or concrete ordinance or action limited in certain essential particulars: not being a substance but an accident in definition now if Antic had retained the essential parts of baptism, I confess it needed not to be repeated, no more then the vessels of the L, house need to be new cast after the abuse of the Babylonians: but seeing baptism in popery & Antichristianism, is not the L. ordinance in the definition of it, but Antich. invention: Therefor though the vessels of the L. house may be retained, yet baptism may not: That baptism is Antichr. invention in the definition of it, I manifest thus: The matter of baptism, & the form of baptism is invented by Antich. go: it is an invention of antichrist in the definition: The matter of antichristian baptism is a carnal infant: The form is, washing one into the covenant that cannot consent to the covenant: or baptising without a contract & sealing the covenāts on both parts for the L. doth not seal to the infant, and the infant cannot seal to the Lord: As I have manifested already in the answer to the former argum. of yours: Therefore the baptism of antichr. is in the definition of it the mere devise of antichr. For the Scripture describeth true baptism which is the Lord's own ordinance thus: The matter must be one that confesseth his Faith & his sins, one that is regenerate & borne again: The form must be a voluntary delivering up of the party baptized into the Name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit, by washing with water, Mat. 28.19. Mat. 3.6. John. • .1. Act. 2.41. & 8.36.37. compared with Roman 6.17. & Mat. 28. 20. & 18.20. & Gal. 3.27. & Roman. 6.2-6. Wherein there must be a mutual consent of both persons contracting together: & that this is so, the form of baptism retained in popery yet, teacheth plainly: where they say. Credis? Credo: Abrenunti • s? abrenuntio: which other persons speak for the infant that cannot speak, thereby declaring that there must needs be a mutual contract of both the parties contracting: This ordinance of the L. therefore is abolished both in the matter & form, & another strange invention of man is in the rome thereof substituted, which is not the L. & therefore a nullity, & as if the Babylonians should have framed a Temple altar, arck, or candlestick, after their devise, & given them to the people of the Jews, they could not have retained them & used them to Worship God withal: So cannot true Christians retain Antichristian baptism which is devised in the definition of it.

Thirdly, I answer, that if the Antichristians had baptized persons confessing their sins & their Faith into the name of the Son of God, & the Trinity, it had then been true baptism though in the hands of the Antichristians, as the vessels of the L. house, in the hands or the Chaldees, & therefore needed no repetition, as these vessels needed no new casting: Therfor we keep the Scriptures still though they abuse them, & the Church, ministry, worship, & government taught in the Scriptures though they have polluted thē: but their devised word, that is their Apocrypha writings & false doctrine, & their devised church consisting of carnal infants & persons unbaptized, & their devised worship of the mass, & their devised ministry of the sacrificing Priesthood, & their devised government of the Prelacy we abhor, & utterly reject, as the very devised Idols of antic. & we will no more retain thē thē the Shrines of Diana, then the Jews would the wedg of Achā: so say we of his baptism.

And here you answer two objections.

First, that though the Antichristians that administer baptism be Idolaters, yet it may be true baptism as well as circumcision true by the Israelites that were Idolaters: & that the efficacy of the word & Sacraments dependeth not upon the worth of the minister: as circumcision by Zipporah declareth, Exod. 4-5. I answer: First, what say you to Cyprian the ancient Fathers, & all the counsel of leaned Bbs. who concluded that the baptism of Heretics was a nullity & decreed rebaptising.

Secondly I say that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church & antich. baptism is in a false Church & that is a dissimilitude.

Thirdly, I know nothing • o the contrary, but Zipporah might circumcise her Son, her husband commanding her (for where is it said in all the Old Testament that a woman shall not circumcise) for Moses indeed did circumcise though Zipporah was the hand of Moses in the action, as it is the Kings action if the L. Chancellor of the judge of an assise do it. Fourthly I ye'd that the Minister shall not prejudice baptism, if the baptism be the Lord's own ordinance, that is, if a person be invested with baptism true in the definition: & yet you know that the baptiswe of women is strongly questioned, & I believe it would trouble you to satisfy a doubt made of a midwifes baptism in England, that it ought not to be repeated, or of a Child baptising others as Athanasius did in sport, (which Alexander Bb. of Alexandria with his Clerks did approve) whither it ought to be repeated yea or nay: but I leave this point as being but off small importance.

The second objection you answer is, that although baptism be administered in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subject, yet it shall not be repeated, no more then circumcision in the days of Jeroboam & Ahab, it being administered upon an unfit subject: I say, as I have said divers times, that the Israelites infants in their defection were the subject that God commanded to be circumcised, viz: the seed of Abrah. males of 8. days age. So are not the infants in Antichristianism, both for that they are 1. infants, 2. members of a false Church, 3. The seed of vnbelevers which by your own confession have no title to baptism: & whereas you say that the covenant of Abrah. in respect of Chr. did as truly belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Chr. as it did to the Israelites though both in defection: I deny it: For the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelites the carnal seed of Abrah. even in their parents Apostasy, & the Spiritual covenant made with Abrah. in respect of Chr. did never aperteyne to the 1. Apostate parents, 2. much less to the infants of them in their Apostasy, 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved, & Gal. 2.14. is not to be understood of the blessing of Abrah. to come upon any of the Gentiles in their Apostasy, but only being in Christ, as the words are, also us. 7. & 9. but the external Covenant was made with Abraham & the carnal Israelites only upon the condition of circumcision carnally upon the males of eigt days old, Gen. 17.10.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

If the word of God passing through the false ministry of Antichrist, was of force to convert God's elect in Babylon, thē is baptism passing likewise thorough their false ministry of force to seal up God's covenant unto them, & so consequently not to be reiterated.
But the first is true Apoc. 18.4. For in Babylon were God's people converted, other ordinary Ministry was there none, but that false Ministry of the Papists: & therefore it is apparent that God made thereby his word effectual to all them that believe.
Ergo &c.

If it be objected, that if God should convert his people by an Antichristian ministry, it were to give approbation to a false ministry, & to teach that men might lawfully use it, which is absurd: I answer, for us to use a false Ministry is unlawful, but it is no more absurd or yet any approbation of a false ministry, for God to work thereby the good of his own people, then it was his approving of the evil service of Joseph's brethren selling him into Egypt, because he used their Ministry, for the saving of Jacob & his household, for God can work good by an evil instrument.

If it be still urged, that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptize, I say no more had the Jews to put Christ to death; yet was his suffering awayleable to save all that believe: & so is the Sacrament to all God's people awayleable to seal up salvation unto them.

John Smyth.

Your third Argument followeth which is this in effect.

The word in the false Ministry of Antichrist is avayleable to convert: Ergo: The baptism is also avayleable to seal up the covenant to the converted, & so need not be repeated.

I answer: First the word converteth none visibly to me particularly known: So cā baptism seal up none visibly to me: what they do both in secret the L. knoweth & what the word doth generally I know by that place Rev. 18.4. Also what the baptism doth specially I know, for God saith plainly whosoever receiveth the mark of the beast in his forehead shall perish, Rev. 14.9-11. this mark is undoubtedly baptism whereby they are initiated into Antichrist, & receive his mark, as Christ's Servants in baptism receive his seal upon them: (remember I cal baptism a seal in the concrete, or according to your opinion. For otherwise I deny it to be a seal) so that Antichristian Baptism is rather a seal of perdition to the Antichristians, then of the covenant or Salvation by Christ: & therefore it is to be renounced.

Secondly, Antichrists baptism false (as I have said) in the difinitiō is none of God's ordinance no not in the hands of the most faithful minister of rhe world: but God's word is the Lord's ordinance, though in the mouth of the most vile Judas or Antichristian in the world, yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000 heresies: So that in this respect also it followeth not that though God's word may convert in popery, therefore Antichrists baptism may seal: but still you build upon a false fondacion as you see, assuming that which is the question, viz: That baptism in popery is the Lord's.

Thirdly, I answer again, that if Antichrist had retained the L. true baptism, as I have described true I say in the definition, viz: That he had baptized persons confessing their sins & faith into the Trinity, or into Jesus Christ, it should not have been repeated: but seeing he intendeth in baptism, to set an indelible character upon them which is the mark of the beast, to confer grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth, another promising & answering for them Credo & Abrenuntio which the party baptized should himself perform, hence I conclude that he hath set up his own idol of abomination, & cast the L. holy ordinance away, having essentialy destroyed the primitive Apostolic baptism go his baptism is a nullity or rather a seal of perdition to them that retain it.

The amplification which you bring to this Argument I omit as a thing not denied, but yielded unto that God can work by a false Ministry, evil instruments, & bad means, but hence it will not follow that we may retain the mark of the beast, no more then we may retain the ministry of Antichrist, the Church of Antichrist, the Government of Antichrist.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Those Holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people through the hands of profane persons, are not to be rejected for the Authors sake, Ezra. 1.11.

But the Scriptures & baptism hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people.

Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake.

If it be objected against the minor, it is not true baptism but false, that is administered in the assemblies of Antichr. I answer, though it may be said to be false, in regard of some human devises used in the administration thereof yet is it true baptism in respect of the matter, form, & Author thereof, which causeth it to have a true being.

John Smyth.

Your fourth Argument followeth, which is this.

These Holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people, though the hands of profane persons, are not to be rejected for the Authors sake, Ezra. 1.11.

But the Scriptures & baptism hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people.

Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake.

The minor you prove thus, saying the baptism though false in respect of human devises used in the ministration thereof, yet is true in respect of the matter, form & Author thereof: & in your answer to my second Arg. you say: the author of baptism in the Kingdom of Antichr. is Chr. the matter water: the form washing with water into the Trinity.

I answer directely, that if it could be proved that baptism in the Kingdom of Antichrist is appointed by Christ, & that water is the true matter of baptism, & the true form is washing into the Trinity, I would yield unto you: but this you have not proved, & I have already proved the contrary: but yet to deal something more fully in this point which is the main pillar & chief corner Stone of the fondacion, I say: 1. Water is not the matter of baptism, but only the instrument of baptism: For as fire is the instrument of burning, so is Water of washing: the matter of burning is the fuel that is burnt, So the matter of washing is the party washed: For as we say accident is esse est inesse: & the subject is all the matter of an accident: & as the matter of the Church are the Disciples of Saints: The matter of the Ministry are the Prophets, so the matter of baptism is the persons, upon whom baptism is conferred, & on whom it is. It is false therefore which you affirm that water is the matter of baptism. 2. I say that washing into the Name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, is not the form of Baptism: For to wash a Turk, Jew, Fool, mad Man, or infant into the Trinity is not •• ne baptism: but it were so, if simply to baptize into the Trinity were the form of baptism: Therefore to baptize the true matter into the true Faith, or into Christ, or the New Testament, or the Trinity, or into the true body, is the true form of baptism: So that the true matter of baptism is a new creature: one regenerate: a confessor. As the true matter of circumcision was a male of eigt days old either lineally descending of Abraham, or a Proselyte: So the true matter of baptism is a person that is of the Faith of Abraham, one that hath the male Christ formed in him: The true form of baptism consisteth in three things, (1.) washing with water, (2.) a new Creature, (3.) into the Name of Chr. or into the Trinity, for I think we are not tied to form of words. & so if antichr. hath washed any, I say, I will never consent that they shall be rebaptized, but hold that Anabaptistery true heresy.

But if an infant that is not the matter of baptism, or a wicked man, mad man, fool, Turk, or Jew, or any Pagan be washed with water into the Trinity, I say there is neither true matter nor form of baptism, & Christ is not the author thereof: & therefore the baptism of antichrist is not Christ's, but his own, & so all infants baptized by antichrist are either unbaptized or have the mark of the beast, & so are to renounce it, & to receive Christ's mark of baptism, or else woe be to them: & when they shall manifest a new creature, & Christ the male is formed in them, & they confess with their mouth & then be baptized into the Trinity, this is not anabaptistery, but the true primitive Apostolic Baptism, & so Christ, John, Christ's Apostles were anabaptists with you Sir: For they baptized men that had been washed before a thousand times with the Jews baptisms, Heb. 9.10. which baptisms were also into the Messias (no doubt) in those that saw the end off those Figures: But if it be blasphemy to say that Christ, John, & the Apostles were Anabaptists, though they were of times some of them baptized into the Messiah in Type, because they were only once baptized truly & indeed: So shall it be blasphemy in all them that call the true Christians anabaptists, that baptize new Creatures once only into Christ, though baptized before by antichrist in their infancy when they knew not the right hand from the left, or what a new creature, or the New Testament, or Christ, or Baptism, or anything else was: hence therefore I conclude vndenyably that seeing Popish baptism hath a false matter, & a false form, therefore it is antichrists Idol as much as a false Ministry, & a false Church is: & so the Lord is not the author of it: & thereupon though the Scriptures & God's word be retained by God's providence & in the word all the Holy things of God, through Popery: yet in the Popish Churches there is no true Church, Ministry, Worship, or Government, nor true Baptism, but all false and Antichristian: and so to be rejected, and the truth to be assumed out of the Scriptures: and so this argument off yours is answered.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

If antichrist be not the author of baptism, but of some human devises annexed, unto in the administration thereof: then are we not to pluck up the whea • e with the • ares, Mat. 13.29. And to cast away that which is Christ's with Antichr. but to Seperate from that which is man's invention, & still to retain that which is of God.
But to baptize with water into the name of the Father, & of the Son, & of the holy Ghost, Mat. 28.19. is from heaven, & not from Antichrist.
Ergo, we ought not to cast it away, but those traditions where with Antichrist hath polluted it: as for example, King Josiah & before him K. Hezekiah, when both the Land & Temple were polluted) 2. King. 21.7. & 23.7. did not pul down the Temple but appointed the Priests to cleanse it, who did so, & brought out all the uncleanness that they had found in the house of God, 2. Chro. 29.16.17.18. & 34.8. For in reformacion of things, difference must be put between those things, whereof God is the Author, & such as are devised by man: The former is to be purged from all profanation, & the things still to be retained, the other to be quite abolished. This rule in all reformation off Religion ought to be followed.

John Smyth.

The fifth Argument followeth, which is this in effect.

We must not pluck up the wheat with the tares, Mat. 13.29. nor cast away that which is Christ's, when we cast away that which is Antichrists.
But to Baptize with Water into the Name of the Trinity is Christ's & not Antichrists.
Ergo, we ought not to cast that away, but only the traditions of Antichrist.

So did Josiah & Hezekiah, 2. King. 21.7. & 23.4. & 2. Chron. 29.16-18. & 34.8. not pul down the Temple, but cleanse it, &c. that whereof God is the Author must be kept, & the corruption or pollution put away: that whereof man is the Author, is quite to be abolished: This is your reason.

I answer: That as when the Babylonians had utterly destroyed the Temple, the Jews built it again: So when Antichrist hath utterly destroyed the true Temple, the true Church, then must we build it up again, & when Antichrist hath destroyed the true baptism, then must we rear it up again: Wherfor seeing as is shown before Antichrist hath abolished the true baptism of Chr. in the definition or in the matter & form thereof, & hath reared a baptism of his own, it must therefore be abolished: & as when we do renounce the false Church or Ministry, we do not renounce that which is true in the false Church or Ministry, but only the falsehood so in rejecting the false baptism of Antichr. we do not renounce that which is true in it as to wash with water into the Name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost: but only the falsehood: And yet as when we retain the truth in a false Church, or Ministry, we reject the Falsehood in them both, & erect both a new true Church & Ministry: So when we retain the truth of a false baptism, we reject the Falsehood & erect a true new baptism: & this is evident if you consider it well.

Again, seeing in the false baptism, church, & ministry, the corruptions are essential, & the truth only accidental: & truth & falsehood are so intermingled as we cannot divide them asunder, assuming the one & leaving the other, but we must needs in renouncing the essential corruptions reserve the accidental truths & iterate or repeat the accidental truths if we will have the essential truth which Antichrist had abolished: Therfor necessarily we must for having true baptism repeat washing in to the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, which are but accidentals (for a Turck so washed is not baptized) & once only wash a new borne babe in Christ, into the truth which is true essential baptism which Antichrist had abolished, & which we only restore & nothing else: & so your argument is answered.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

As God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham & his seed, Gen. 17.7 which through the malice of Satan & all his instruments shall never be cut of: so hath he preserved, both in the Apostasy under the Law & gospel, the seals thereof, for the comfort of the Faithful.

And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptism of Christ, whereof they were partakers in the Apostate Church: & devising a new, do bring in a new covenant & a new gospel, taking upon them to baptize themselves without warrant from the word: For I am sure it cannot be shown, that any did ever baptize himself without special commandment from God, as Abrah. had for circumcision, Gen. 17.9. or John for baptism, Marc. 1.3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling. John. 4.2. Mat. 3.6. Act. 8.38. & 9.18. & 10-48.

If it be said the times be extraordinary. I answer, the Lord hath left either example or rule, or ground of rule, whereby we may in extraordinary times have a sure warrant out of the word, to inform us in anything that we ought to do.

John Smyth.

Your 6. argument is thus much in effect.

That seeing the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, is everlasting: Genes. 17.7. & cannot by the malice of Satan be cut of: no more can the malice of Satan abolish the seals of that covenant under the Law or gospel, viz: circumcision & baptism.

I answer by an argument of like nature, from Mat. 16.18. framed thus.

If the gates of Hel 〈◊〉 never pervaile against the Church then there hath always been a true Church, & Antichrist could never make the church false: & so you of the Seperation have sinned most shamefully in calling the Church of Antichrist false: Verum primum. Ergo secundum.

If my argument be not good against you of the Seperation for erecting a new Church, no more is yours good against us for erecting new baptism: This is to answer as they say regerendo: But I answer more properly solvendo thus: That the covenant is said to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existence in the world in an established Church, but in respect of the stability & firmenes of it in regard of Satan's malice which should not so abolish it, that it should never be recovered again: For otherwise the Church went into the wilderness: Revel. 12.14. & all nations were made drunck with the cup of the fornication of the whore of Babylon, Revel. 18. • . & there was no true Church in the depth of Antichristianism, & so no true baptism, for can anything be true in a false Church, but the Scriptures & the truths contained therein? I deny therefore, that the covenant, Church or baptism was visible always: For it was invisible when the Chu • ch went into the wilderness: & therefore as you when there was not a true Church in the world, took upon you to set up a true Church (as you say, but we say a false Church) renouncing the Church of Antichr, & yet will not be said to bring in a new covenant & a new Gospel (for you in your false conceitednes will reject them for heretics, if there be any that dare say so of you forsooth): So the anabaptists (as you cal them) do not set up a new covenant & Gospel, though they set up a new or rather the old Apostolic baptism which Antichrist had overthrown: & whereas you say they have no warrant to baptism themselves, I say, as much as you have to set up a true Church, yea fully as much: For if a true Church may be erected which is the most noble ordinance of the New Testament, then much more baptism: & if a true Church cannot be erected without baptism, for baptism is the visible form of the Church, as Disciples are the matter: Mat. 28.19. John. 4.1. Then seeing you confess that a true Church may be erected, you cannot deny (though you do deny it in opposing the truth) that baptism may also be recovered: & seeing when all Christ's visible ordinances are lost, either men must recover them again, or must let them alone: if they let them alone til extraordinary men come with miracles & tongs, as the Apostles did, then men are same lists (for that is their opinion) or if they must recover them, men must begin so to do, & then two men joining together may make a Church (as you say): Why may they not baptize seeing they cannot conjoin into Christ but by baptism, Mat. 28.19. compared with Mat. 18.10. Gallat. • .27. but it is evident that all Christ's Commandments must be obeyed, Ergo, this commandment of having & using the communion of the Church, Ministry, Worship & Government, those Holy means of Salvation which the Lord of his mercy hath given us with his covenant, & commanded us to use: & therefore if all the commandments of God must be obeyed, then this of baptism, & this warrant is sufficient for assuming baptism: Now for baptising a man's self there is as good warrant, as for a man Churching himself: For two men singly are no Church, jointly they are a Church, & they both of them put a Church upon themselves, so may two men put baptism upon themselves: For as both those persons vnchurched, yet have pour to assume the Church each of them for himself with others in communion: So each of them unbaptized hath pour to assume baptism for himself with others in communion: And as Abraham & John the Baptist, & all the Proselytes af •• r Abraham's example, Exod. 12.48, did administer the Sacrament upon themselves: So may any man raised up after the Apostasy of Antichrist, in the recovering of the Church by baptism, administer it upon himself in communion with others: So we see the Lord's Supper is administered to a man's self in communion with others, so is Prayer, Prophesy, Praising of God uttered for a man's self as well as for others. And as in the Old Testament: every man that was unclean washed himself: every Priest going to Sacrifice washed himself in the Laver at the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation: which was a type of baptism, the door of the Church, Tit. 2.5. Every Mr. of a Family administered the Passover to himself & all of his Family: The Priest daily Sacrificed for himself and others: a man cannot baptize others into the Church, himself being out of the Church: Therefore it is Lawfull for a man to baptize himself together with others in communion, & this warrant is a plerophory for the practice of that which is done by us: Thus are your 6. weak reasons answered.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Thus having set down some reasons to prove that Apostates or Antichristians converted are not to be rebaptized, let us come to the examination of the reasons alleged to the contrary, the first whereof is this.

1. Bicause Churches are to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist, as they were first erected by the Apostles:
But in the constitution off Churches the Apostles received in the members by baptism.
Ergo, so must we do now.

Answer.

1. The estate & condition of people now is not alike to the estate of the Gentiles or Jews in the Apostles times, they differ in divers respects: First, all the people then both of Jews & Gentiles never had been themselves, nor were ever of the posterity of those that had been members of the Church of Christ under the gospel, seeing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches▪ but we are now the posterity of such parents as were members of the Chu. planted by the Apo. else could we not have Apostated.

Secondly, that people, which the Apo. gathered in to Churches were never baptized, & baptism coming in the steed of circumcision, & being a seal of our entering into God's covenant, it was fit, that they which believed & became the seed of Abrahā should so enter into the covenant, they & their seed, as he & his seed entered, that is, as he & his were received in by circumcision: So they & thers should be receved in by baptism, Act. 2.38.41, & 8.38. but we are a people that are already baptized, & the seed of thē that wer baptized, & had receved the gospel, & (although through Antichr. deceaveablenes, both we & they were tainted with many corruptions) yet had they or might have in that Apostasy, (& so we also) so much faith, as thereby both we & they might become the people of God, Apoc. 18.4.

And concerning the constitution of the Churches, here it is to be noted, that the constitution of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the immediate directiō of the Holy Ghost, & so serveth for a continual rule of establishing Churches to the end of the world, which form or frame laid down by them, no man hath power to alter or change, 1. Cor. 4.14. 1. Tim 3.11. But the constituting of Chur. now after the defection of Antich. may more properly be called a repairing, then a constituting of Churches, which through Apostasy have been ruinated, or a gathering together of the dispersed, hepe of Israel into such forms or shapes of visible Churches (the pate • ne whereof is shown unto us in the word) for (as before hath been noted) our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches, & so it will not follow (as it is alleged) that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessarily must be by baptism, as in the p • imitive time it was, except only of such persons as have not been baptized before.

And herein I take it, lieth the deceyte of this arg. that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming out of Babylon, & them that came to the faith from amongst the Gentiles, equalising Antichristianism with Gentilism, the one being an Apostate Church, the other no Church: The one partaker of the word & Sacram: (though with much coruptiō) the other partaker of neither at all, the one professing Christ & Teaching many truths of God, & so many as the elect thereby might come to faith, Apoc. 18.4. The other neither professing Christ, nor teaching any truth of God, whereby any might be converted to Christ, & become God's people in the estate of Gentilism.

And thus having made plain the different estate of the first planted Churches & ours in Apostasy. I answer fi st: That Churches now are to be constituted (if repairing be not a fitter spe • ch) as in the Apostles times, & that all such as are recea • ed in as members, being unbaptized, must be received in by baptism, but for such as were baptized in Apostate Chu • che, their repentance is sufficient without rebaptisatiō, as it was to the Apostate Israelites, who upon their repentance & returning to Jerusalem were received of the Church without any new circumcision, & therefore to add a second baptism, with the Anabaptists, is to Apostate from Chr. & not to enter into his covenant.

And in that the Apostles received in members by baptism, they could do no otherwise, seeing the whole world was unbaptized, but if they had met with any that before had been baptized into the name of Chr. as they that received the baptism of John, & as we are, I make no question, they did not, nor would not have rebaptized them, & the • for the conclusion will not follow, that we are now to receive in by baptism, them that are already baptized.

John Smyth.

The next thing in your answer is a solution of the arguments brought by me to prove the truth: viz.

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

This truth of the Lord's I have proved unto you by three reasons: The first • hereof may be framed thus.

So are Churches to be restored or constituted after the defection of Antichr. as they were erected by the Apostles at the first.
But the Churches were at the first erected by baptism in their primitive institution by John, Chr. & the Apostles.
Ergo: so are they now to be restored: & therefore the members are to be received in by baptism as they were then.

As in the former point for baptising of infants you were compelled to run to the Old Testament, & from thence to fetch the chief corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision: So in this second point you utterly forsake the new Testam. of Chr. & the true constitution Apostolic of the Church of the New Testament, & set us again to School to Moses, as if Chr. had not bē faithful enough to teach us his new Test▪ but we must go learn the new Test▪ of the Old Testament: Chr. of Moses: The Gospel of the Law.

And first I would know why we may not as well with the Papists & Prelates go fetch one high Priest from Moses, a sacrificing Priesthood from Moses, succession in the ministry from Moses, & a succession in the Church from Moses, as a succession in baptism from Moses: & in effect you do fetch a succession of the Church from Rome: For in fetching a succession of baptism from Rome which is the form of the Church: & in fetching a succession of the matter of the Church which is the seed of the parents baptized you of necessity make the Church of Rome a true Church: For if infants of the Church of Rom • have true title to baptism by reason of the Faith of some of their auncesters o • forefathers that were Faithful, then are they the true visible matter of the Church: & if by reason of that title to baptism, they receive true baptism in substance as you say in the Church of Rome then they have the true visible form of the Church, for they that have the true matter & form of a true Church upon them are the true Chu ••• & so are the infants of the Church of Rome a true visible Church in the constitution & essential causes thereof: & so as in the Old Testament the Church came by succession of genealogy in respect whereof they made so much account of genealogies carnal, Philip. 3.3-5. 1. Timoth. 1.4. So in the New Testament the Church cometh by succession of carnal Genealogy through the Church of Rome to our days: & then as the matter of the Church, viz infants descending of baptized parents is by Genealogy, & the form of the church viz baptism upon these infants is by descent: & therefore the Church is by succession: I demand why may not the ministry be by descent & succession as well as the Church? & then why is not the Church of Rome or England a true Church, the ministry of the Church of Rome or England a true Ministry▪ & so why may not you return back again into England, & take up your former ministry, & renounce your Schism which you have made? & so I hear that some are minded to do: & truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retain the Church & Ministry of England, as to retain the baptism: & when I shall yield to the truth of the baptism of England I will yield to the truth of the Church & ministry of England: & I will confess I have been a Schismatic, & return & acknowledge my error: but because I know the ministry & Church of England is false, therefore it must needs be that the baptism which is the form of the Church is false essentially: & therefore having Seperated justly from the Church & Ministry of England for the falsehood of them, I must needs also Seperate from the baptism which is false, for the Church is false because baptism the form of the Church is false: & if baptism the form of the Church of England be true, the Church of England is true also: You are to know therefore (& so I wish you & all the Seperation to mind it well, & the Lord give you eyes to see, & harts to understand) that all the Old Testament was carnal taken from the Elementes of the World, thereby to type out & to teach them heavenly things: & therefore their Church was carnal to type to us in the New Testament a Spiritual Church: The matter of their Church was a carnal Israelite: the matter of the Church of the New Testament is a true Israelite in whom there is no guile: The form of their Church was carnal circumcision a carnal seal. Genes. 17.10-14. The form of the Church of the New Testament is the circumcision of the heart, a new Creature, the Holy Spirit of promise whereby we are sealed, which is manifested by confession & baptism in water: Act. 10.47. Ephes. 1.13. Gallat. 3.27. & 6.15. John 3.5. Matth. 3.6. Roman. 10.9. Act. 8.36.37. Their carnal Church in the matter & form came by carnal Genealogy, & so they all of them were gendred unto bondage under the rudimentes off the World under the carnal Testament or covenant: Gallat. 4.24.25. our Spiritual Church in the matter & form thereof is by Spiritual Genealogy, that is the Genealogy of the Faith of Abraham the Father of us all under the Spiritual New Testament, Gallat. 3.7.9.14. Roman. 4.10.11. Their parents in the carnal Church was carnal Abraham & carnal Hagar, & all their carnal parents who according to the Flesh with carnal seed begat carnal Ishmael the type of the carnal Israelites: our parents in our Spiritual Church is Abrah. Spiritual, (& all our Spiritual parents) who by the word of God & by faith begat Spiritual Isaac the type of the children of promise after whose manner we are, Gal. 4.22-28. Rom. 4 19-21. Heb. 11.11.12. 1. Pet. 1.23. Their ministry was a carnal ministry by carnal genealogy of the line of Aaron Sacrificing Priests: our ministry is by Spiritual genealogy of the election of the true Church that is Spiritual.

Thus if you would compare the Type & the Truth together, you should easily discern the sandy Fondation of your false Church ruinated & your false baptism quite abandoned: who continue a Church by succession of a carnal line, & a baptism by succession upon the carnal Line through Popery: Whereas the true Church is only by the Spiritual Line of Faith, & true baptism by the Spiritual succession upon that Spiritual Line of Faythfull men confessing their Faith & their sins, which was typed by that carnal Line of the Old Testament: you therefore that introduce a carnal Line into the Church to be baptized, viz: all your Children according to the Flesh & that by succession fetch baptism upon that carnal Line through the Church of Rome into your Church (following the president of the Old Testament in that carnal circumcision by succession of Genealogy) do therein unawares make Rome a true Church, yourselves Schismatics, & set up Judaism in the New Testament, & so are fallen from Christ, & are become a new second image of the Beast never heard of before in the World: For such are you of the Seperation.

This being premised as a ground which I earnestly in treat you (even in my best love unto you) & all the Seperation, especially the leaders of them, well to weigh & ponder, & not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors & juniors: I come to answer the exceptions which you take at my first Argument.

The sum of your exception is this: That seeing we are the posterity of baptized persons, & the Jews & Gentiles in the Apostles times were not so: Therefore we need not assume baptism in our entrance into the Church, which we had in our Apostasy, but we may enter into the Church without rebaptizing as the Apostate Israelites did without recircumcising: & so we must not in the new Test. be framed according to the pattern taught in the new Test. in entering in by baptism, but according to the pattern of the old Testam. & the Apostate Israelites therein, &c.

I answer divers things: First, I say that the New Testament is as sufficient for the direction of all the affairs & occasions that befall in the time of the New Testament, as the Old Testament was for the occurrences that befell under the Old Testament: Seeing Christ is as Faythful as Moses: & the New Testament as perfect as the Old. Gal. 3.15. & therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostolic constitution of Churches, & our constituting of them in respect of the persons to be admitted into the Church, & in respect of baptiting & not baptising or rebaptising of them he could & would have done it: but seeing it is not done in the New Testament, but left in silence: & seeing the New Testament of Chr. is perfect & sealed with his blood, you that put this difference add to the New Testament, & bring in a new Christ, a new covenant, a new Gospel, a new Church, & new baptism: & woe be to them that ad to the word, Rev. 22.18. & as they were accursed that added to the old Test. Deut. 4.2. & 12.32. So much more shall they be subject to the cause that add to the new Test. of Chr. Heb. 12.25. in this respect there for your answer is insufficient.

Secondly, I affirm that (as the Holy Ghost saith) the Antichristians are in condition equal to Pagans, & therefore as I have said they are not called Israelites or Samaritans, but Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentills: but the Holy Ghost knoweth what & how to speak: And therefore as the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles washings were nothing, no more is the baptism of Antichristians anything: For the Holy Ghost foreseeing that the Antichristians would abolish the true baptism of Christ by baptising infants, & so by admitting into the Church the carnal seed of the Flesh, would disannul that Holy ordinance of baptism, & so abolish the true constitution of the Church, in heavenly wisdom for our instruction calleth persons Apostating from the true constitution of the Church Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles, thereby teaching us that he esteemeth no otherwise of their Church or baptism, then of the Synagogues of Babylon; then of the washings of Egypt, then of the worship of Sodom & the Pagans: & these comparisons will fit you well against the assemblies & Temples of Antichrist, and I know no reason that they thould not fit us as well against your Babylonish, Egyptians, Sodomitish, and Paganish washings of infants which which though it be done into the name of Chr. yet is no more avayleable in the Holy Ghosts testimony then washing of Pagans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomies Children.

Thirdly, whereas you say that repairing the Church now after the Apostasy of Antichr. is a fitter speech then constituting: herein do you both tax yourselves off the use of that word constitution: & plainly signify that you incline to maintain the Churches of England & Rome to be true Churches, wherein whither you do not forsake your first faith, & turn with the dog to the vomit look you unto it, & let all indifferent men judge: but your writings are against you sufficient witnesses in this case.

Fourthly, I say that the Jews that were converted to the Faith & New Testament of Chr. by Chr. John, & the Apostles in your account were in a far better estate thē Antichr. For they (as you say) were of the same body with the Church of the New Testament, & their circumcision was a seal of the New Testament (as you say) & they were in Chr. Jesus (as you say) & were washed I doubt not many of them into the Messias whose blood they typically saw in their manifold baptisms & purifications with water: & all of thē had been partakers of the word & Sacraments in the Chur. of the Jews, & why might not they by Christ, John, or the Apo. be admitted into the Church without baptism: if therefore Chr. John. & the Apo. would needs baptize them, & so by baptism constitute them into the New Testament that had all these prerogatives in your judgment, much more will they have us to constitute Antichr. converted into the true Church by baptism: neither can you say without great indignity to the L. ordinances in the old Test. that they were inferior to the baptism of Antichrist.

Again you will needs have this to be a great privilege to the antichr. to be the carnal seed of them that hath sometime been members of the Church of Chr. in the New Testament, & therefore you say that in there parents or ancestors they had title to baptism: I deny that ever the English nation of any one of our predecessors were of the Faith of Chr. show it if you can: but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came & put upon us her false baptism: & therefore although the Roma. might plead this, yet England cannot plead it: & so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing: & our case is simply Paganish.

Further, you say that the repentance of Apostate Churches is sufficient for their admittance into the true Church without rebaptization, as repentance was for Israel without recircumcision: I deny it, for the Churches of Antichr. are false, & the Church of the Israelites was not false: The Churches of Antichr. were false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptized which was not that one seed unto which the promise was made, that is the Faithful: The Church of the Israelites was true because it did consist of the carnal seed carnally circumcised, which was the true constitution of the Church of the Old Testament: For otherwise if Israel had been false because of their Apostasy & Idolatry then Judah was as false who had in wickedness justified Samaria & Sodom, Ezech. 16.51. but indeed they were neither of them false so long as they circumcised the males of 8. days old, but the Churches of Antichr. growing false by baptising the carnal seed (which was not the true seed of Abraham's faith) therefore are to be baptized when they come to the truth, & cannot have Israel's Apostasy for the president: wherefore an Edomite or Israelite coming to be a proselite of the Jews Church that had omitted circumcision is a true President of the Antichristian Apostasy: For as they omitting the circumcision of the males though of the Posterity of Abraham, yet being Proselytes were entered into the Jews Church by circumcision: So is it in the Apostasy of Antichrist, with the Proselytes of Antichristianism: for so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians, converted to the Faith, & admitted into the true Church: & the Israelites were not so.

Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have received us into the Church upon repentance without baptism: I answer, if such an example had been left us we would then have rested satisfied, but seeing the Apo. have left no such example nor precept therefore you are yet in your Apostasy, & having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptism are still vnseperated, do still retain the mark of the beast, & are subject to the woe that the aungel threateneth to persons so marked.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

Now let us come to the second reason which is this.

2. Bicause true baptism is but one, but the baptism of Antichrist is not true baptism, & so not that one baptism of Chr. but all the members of Chr. must have true Baptism.

Answer.

2. Ther is but one Faith & one baptism, Eph. 4 4. & therefore is it sufficient to be once baptized, as it was to be once circumcised: Secondly, That the baptism of Antichrist is not true baptism I grant, & do also affirm that all members of Christ must have true baptism, & what then must it follow that now such as are baptized must be rebaptized, else cannot be members of a visible Church: I deny it & do further answer, 1. That the baptism which we received in the Apostate Church is no more Antichrists then the word that we received therein: For Antichrist did never ordain a new kind of baptism, but did only pollute (with his inventions) the Holy ordinance of Chr: & therefore if this baptism that we have received be called the baptism of Antichr. that is to affirm an untruth, seeing the institution thereof was by Jesus Chr. who commanded his Apo. to baptize all nations with water in the name of the Father & of the Son, & of the Holy Ghost. & the same baptism for substance is still retained in the Apostate churches & none other. Secondly, this baptism may also in some respect be called true baptism, as before I have noted in my fifth reason against rebaptization: For 1. it hath Chr. for the Author, 2. it hath the true matter outward sign or element which is water, 3. the true form of administering the same, which is, baptising into the name of the Father, of the Son, & of the Holy Ghost, all which is practiced in the Popish Church, neither is any baptized into the name or faith of Antich. but unto the faith & possession of Christ. & therefore our baptism is the baptism of Chr. & to us that repent true baptism, & so consequently not to be reiterated.

John Smyth.

In the next place you make answer to my second arg. which may be framed thus

Al the members of Chr. must have that one true baptism of Chr. taught in the New Testament.
The baptism of antich. is not that one true baptism, taught by Chr. in the New Testament.
Ergo: The members of Christ must not have the baptism of Antichrist, but must take the true baptism of Christ, when they come into the true Church.

The sum of your answer is: That the baptism we received in the false Chur. is not Antichr. but Christ's: I make answer, that seeing infants are baptized which is the false matter of baptism, & seeing in them there is not the question of a good conscience unto God, 1. Pet. 3.21. Nor the hast sprinkled from an evil conscience, Heb. 10 22. which is the form: Seeing they cannot express credis? Credo: Abrenuntias? Abrenuncio: which is the form of baptism even the mutual contract betwixt God & the party baptized expressed visibly in confession: therefore the baptism is not Chr. but Antichrists, not from heaven but of man: & all that you object in this particular is already sufficiently taken away in answer to your 4. reason: whither I translated that which is here answered by you upon occasion there entertained.

Mr. Rich. Clifton.

The third reason.

Bicause as the false Church is rejected & the true erected, the false ministry forsaken, & the true received: so false worship (& by consequence baptism) must be renounced, & the true baptism assumed.

Answer.

First. I grant, that we ought to Seperate from all false or apostate Chur. Apo. 18.4 & to adjoin ourselves to a true Chu. reformed according to the pattern of the Apostles, 2. also every false ministry is to be forsaken, Mat. 7.15.2 Io. 10. gal. 1.8. & the true ministers of God to be received, Ier. 3.14.15. So did the faithful in Israel forsake the false Priests set up by Ieroboā, & returned to the Priests of the L to Ierusalē, 2. Chro. 30.11.3. it is our duty likewise to renounce all false wor. 2. Cor. 6.14-17 Esa. 30.22. & to worship the L, as he taught us in his word: & thus far do I approve of this reason, but the consequence I must deny, viz: that because false worship is to be renounced, therefore baptism also. For 1. we are to consider in that baptism received in apostate Churches two things, first, that which is of God therein. 2. that which is of man, that which is of God, is the substance of baptism, as before is observed, viz: the same matter & form that the L. instituted, & likewise the same end which is the profession of the faith of Christ, & this is not false worship, & so consequently not to be renounced.

Again, that which in the administration of baptism is devised by man, are those unwarrantable ceremonies of crossing, breathing, anointing, &c. these are to be renounced as vain worship, Mat. 15.4. Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men, & not with their pollutions to be renounced, for if polution might warrant men to cast away with it, that which is ordained of God, then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought again to Ierusa: nor yet the Tēple it self, that was so greatly profaned in the days of the Idolatrous Kings have anymore been used as a place of worsh. to the L. Secondly, I answer that we have received a true baptism in the apostate Chu. as the people of God did circumcision amongst the ten trybes: & therefore we may no more renounce it, & assume a new, then they that returned to Ierus. 2. Chro. 30.11. might renounce their c • rcumcision, & be recircumcised,

It is objected of some, that this comparison holds not, for Israel was a true Chu. & therefore their circumcision was true: but Apostate Churches have nothing true, neither are the members thereof capable either of the covenant or seal in that standing, & it is not true baptism to such.

This objection in part I have answered before, & now answer further, 1. that the Israelites in their Apostasy were not a true Church, but false: seeing they Seperated from Ierus. the true & only Chu. in the world, & erected a new Church & comuniō amongst thenselves, joining together in a false wor. & under a false ministry, 1. King. 12.30-33.20. & 18.19— • 1. & so became an harlot, Hos. 2.2. Secondly in the apostate Chur. there be some things true in the substance as the word & baptism, though corupted in the administration thereof by false ministers, & human devises. Thirdly the members of an apostate Chu. are to be considered two ways, 1. as they stand members of such a Chur. Secondly, as they are the seed & posterity of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves & for their seed: & though in regard of the former estate, they have nether right to baptism or the covenant (for the holy things of God belongs not properly to false Chu. nor to the members thereof considered in that estate) yet even to such members considered apart from such standing & as they are the seed of their forefathers, so are they capable of the covenant & Sacra. & 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 saith, come out of her my people, Apo. 18.4. & to such it cannot be denied, but that to them belongs the covenant, yea whiles they are in Spiritual Babylon, as it did to the Jews that were in Babylon of Chaldea: bondage hinders not Cods grace.

But some may reply, that they whose Fathers were Idolaters & unbelievers cold have no right to the covenant to be baptized through the Faith of their Fathers. I answer, the right that children have to God's covenant depends not only upon their immediate parents, but title thereto descends unto them, from their ancestors Exo. 20. if we respect herein God's mercy, even as men's inheritance do from their former Fathers: neither do the members of an Apostate Church cast of all profession of faith, for such beleve the Scriptures, & in Ch. &c. though with all they profess divers errors, & worship the true God in a false manner.

If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an Apostate Chu. had forefathers that believed. I answer, it cannot be denied, seeing that an Apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels (for then could it not be called Apostate seeing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth) but is the ruins of a true Church, & therefore it must needs follow that their forefathers were believers, & had received the covenant.

And thus have I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical positions with their reasons, as the Lor. hath enabled me for the present, wishing this labor might have been taken in hand by such as could better perform it. & further I do entreat, that the truth (which I contend for), may not, through my weak defense, bear any reproach, but that which is fault worthy, let it return upon my head. & do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written, & both he & they that so practice, may seriously consider of that which is done, & glorify God by their repentance. March. 14. 1608.

Rich. Clifton.

John Smyth.

In the next place you make answer to my last argument, which may be framed into this form.

As the false Church & ministry are rejected, & the contrary true Church & ministry assumed: So the false worship, & so by consequent the false baptism must be renounced, & the true baptism assumed.
Verum primum.
Ergo secundum.

The sum of your answer is, that we must renounce indeed the false Church, ministry, & worship, & yet may retain the baptism received in the false Church, which (you say) is true in author, matter, form, & end: Though corrupt in circumstance, as oyling, crossing, breathing, &c. repenting of those coruptions, & not casting away the true substance with the corrupted circumstances devised by man, & annexed thereto, &c.

Although all that is mentioned here is already taken away in the former discourse yet it shall not be amiss to annex something for further clearing of the point.

First, I deny the popish baptism to be true in the 4. causes thereof as you affirm: 1. The L. never instituted that infant • • hold be baptized, 2. he never ordained that Pagans should be baptized, 3. he never instituted that the carnal seed of the faithful should be baptized: Therfor seeing infants that are not the seed of the faithful, but the seed of Babylonians, are baptized by Antich. the matter of baptism is false, • the L. never appointed that the party should be baptized without his own confession & consent to the contract that the L. maketh in baptism: & therefore the Apo. Peter saith that in baptism there is the question of a good conscience into God: & Paul saith that when the body is washed with pure water, the heart must be sprinkled from an evil conscience, 1. Pet. 3.21. Heb. 10.22. therefore infants are baptized which cannot Stipulate or contract themselves unto the L. therefore the L. doth not contract with them, for Chr. the husband of the Church will not contract in marriage with a bride or a spouse that is under age, Gal. 4.1-4.3. the L. did never appoint that baptism should seal up his New Testament to infants, or that infants should by his baptism be admitted into the body of Antich. & into the Church, ministry, worship, & government of Antich. or that his baptism should set a character indelible upon parties baptized, or should give grace ex opere operato, all which or most of which are done in Antich. baptism: but the end of Chr. baptism is to manifest visibly that the party confessing his faith & sins is sealed by the Spirit unto the day of redemption, that he hath visibly put on Chr. that he is mortified, crucified, dead, & buried, risen again, & ascended with Chr. Rom. 6.1-6. & Col. 2.12. Gal. 3.27. Col. 3.1-5. these are the true ends of baptism instituted by Chr.: Seeing therefore the matter, form, & end of baptism in the false Church is from man even from Antich. the for the L. is not the author of this baptism, but the baptism is antic. wholly: & although he useth the words, In nomine Patris, Filij, & Sp. Sancti amen: as the papists do in sprinkling holy water, in baptising their bells, & as conjurers do in their charms, yet this cannot make true baptism, but rather is a most notable profanatiō of the holy Scripture, even as it is profaned in there Sermons & daily worship performed by them. I affirm therefore again & again that the baptism received in the false Church is none of the L. ordinance, but antichr. devise, essentially corrupted, in matter, form, & end or use: & therefore wholly to be rejected with the oynting, breathing, & crossing, &c.

Heer you endeavor to prove that Israel was a false Church, because it Seperated from Judah, & because they joined together in a new Church & communion, under a false ministry & worship, & became a harlot whereto I answer that so was Judah a false Ch: when they worshipped Idols under every greē tree, & in the high places: & if you so understand a false Church, viz: meetings, or companyes of men assembled together in a wrong place, & to a wrong worship, under a wrong Priesthood, I yield Israel so to be a false Church, but I deny that to be the true definition of a false Chu. for a false Church is contrary to a true Church: now a true Church is discerned in the true causes essential: & so a false Church is known by the want of those true causes essential: the true essential causes of the Chu. of the old Test was the posterity of Abrah. or proselytes circumcised: the want of these things only made a false Chur: So long as the Israelites retained circumcision, they were the true carnal constituted Church of the old Test: & Israel & Judah are called harlots, not for that they were a false Church, but for the worshipping of God in Idols, as before the calves at Dan & Bethel, or the Idols in Judah, this is plain enough in the History. So that I conclude against you that Israel was no false Church in the constitutiō, but had a true matter & form, viz: circumcised Israelites though under a false ministry, worship, & government, as I have already shown in the former treatise.

Lastly, you bring us in a double respect or consideration of members of the Chur. of Antich. 1. as they are members of those false Chu: 2. as they are the children of believing progenitors who received the covenant for themselves & their posterity: in 〈◊〉 first respect they are not under the covenant or seal thereof in the second respect they are under both, for the Fathers sake Rom. 11.28. & so their repentance shall serve their turn when they come to the true Church without rebaptising.

I answer divers things: first, I do not deny but that mē may be considered two ways visibly as members of Antich. body, invisibly as aperteyning to the L. election, & that is the meaning of the A p. Rom. 11.28. but I deny that hence it followeth, that when they come from their invisible being in Ch. to a visible being in the true visible Chu. they shall enter in any way but by the door which is baptism: For whereas you intimate that a man being invisibly elect & beloved of God, & invisibly having th • se to the covenant & holy things of God, may thereupon first visibly enter into the false Chu. by false baptism, & then upon his repentance come to the true Chu. & enter therinto not by baptism, but that the door of Antich. Chur. shall open him the way into Chr. Church long before he come into Chr. Church, whereas I say you intimate unto us so much, you do herby teach contrary to our Savior Chr. who saith that we must go in by the door, & not climb up by the window, & that we must first be taught & made Disc. & thē baptized into Chr. but you in the Kingdom of Antic. are first baptized falsely & then made Disciples flat contrary to Christ's commaundem.

Secondly I say that no man is under the covenant or under baptism for the parents sake: & that is not the meaning of the Ap. Ro. 11.28. but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise God made to Abrah. Isaac, & Jacob, in respect of Chr: not for that the children shall be partakers of that covenant, because of their parents faith, or because of God's covenant made with the parents & there carnal infants, but because the L. elected them & predestinated them in Chr. to life & salvation invisibly: & therefore I do confidently deny, & you are never able to prove that the carnal infants are actually possessed of the everlasting covenant God made with Abrah. for their parents sakes: do you indeed think that God loveth any man for another man's sake or do you think that God loveth not all men of his mere mercy: or for Chr. sake: neither is it the carnal line that is beloved of God for his mercy sake or for Chr sake: but it is the Spiritual line of Abrah. the faithful only & elect that are beloved for the •• hers, that is for the covenant made with Abrah. Isaac, & Jacob, our Fathers in the faith: & so it is true that God loveth men in the false Chu. of An. for Abrah. Isaac, & Jacob, that is for his merciful promise made to them: but what is this to prove that Antic. are beloved, & under the covenant, for their carnal line descending from a beleving auncestor? or if that were granted how doth it follow that the baptism visibly received in the Antich. false Chu. is true baptism sealing up the covenant to them that the L. converteth in the false Chu. No: we have already proved that the baptism is essentially false & none of Chr. & therefore it is the character or mark of the beast, openly retained in the forehead of all the subjects of Antic. who professing themselves to be of that baptism do profess thenselves to be of that body for of that body they are of whose baptism they are, & of that baptism they are of whose body they are, 1. Cor. 12.13. Eph. 4.4. Gal. 3.27. & we have also proved that the L. true baptism doth not aperteyne to the carnal line, but only to them that are of Abrah. faith, that is actually believing to justification, & showing the faith of Abraham by the works of Abrah. Lastly, whereas you fetch the title to the covenant 〈◊〉 to baptism, for infants in the false Chu. from some auncestor beleving 40. generations happily before according to that Exo. 20. that the L. showeth mercy to 1000. generations of them that love him I answer 3. things, 1. you must prove that some off our predecessors had true actual saith & were members of true Ch. & this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptism thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant & to baptism by his carnal line: 2. you must by the same reason receive by baptism into the true Chu. (if you can come by thē) all the infants of the Thessalonians, the Ephesians, the Galatians, the Colossians, the Philippians, & the Chu. of Asia that did sometime beleve, 3. I deny that you expound the place Exo. 22. truly: For the L. directly doth require that they upon whom he showeth mercy should fear him & keep his commaundem: & I do utterly deny that ever the fore-Fathers of the English nation believed, & you can never prove it. For that which you say that seeing we are Apostates, therefore it followeth that sometime we or our auncesters had the truth, I wonder at you for so saying: for we are departed frō the faith of the Scriptures, not from the faith of our ancestors, who never a one of them at any time believed visibly in a true constituted Chu. Thus through God's providence & blessing I am come to a happy end of answering your writing: wherein I praise the L. for his mercy I have receved such assurance of the truth as that you & all the earth shall never be able to wring it out of my heart & hands, & therefore I desire you Sir, & all the leaders of the Seperation to weigh seriously even betwixt the L. & their own harts upon their beds this which is written, I doubt not but I may err in particulars, & I have resolved to be vile before men in confessing my erors, but for the main points in controversy, & the cause I defend it is the most undoubted & most evident • oth that ever was revealed to me: & therefore as you love the L. & his truth, & the people that depend upon you, seek it out & embrace it, & resist it not, but if we be in error, show it unto us, why? shall we perish through your default? will not the L. require our blood at your hand? are we not your countrymen all of us? in exile for the common truths, we hold out against Antich. Answer we beseech you in the L: nay we adjure you in the Lord: if we be in error it is ignorantly, & of a desire to see the truth & to fear the L: Thus hoping speedily either to hear an answer to this writing, or to see you yield to the truth which I vnfeynedly ask of the Lo: for you my countrymen, I end writing this 24. of March. 1608.

John Smyth.

Rich. Clifton. If you reply, show your strength, that we may make an end of these uncomfortable oppositions, for if I see not weight in your reasons, I will bestow no more labor.

John. Smyth. Sir: there may be weight in my reasons, & you happily either cannot through prejudice or will not through some sinister respect se the weight of them: I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel, but either show me my error, or yield to the truth I would be glad to be an instrument of showing you this truth also: at least you by showing us our error shall discharg a good conscience: If you do not answer among you all: I proclaim you are subtly blind, & lead the blind after you into the ditch.

FINIS.

The Character of the Beast

Project Note

TO EVERY ONE THAT LOVETH THE Truth in sincerity Salutations.

AN ANSWERE TO TWO ANABAPTISTICAL opinions: viz. 1. That Infants are not to be baptized. 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptism.

A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truths, viz: 1. That infants are not to be baptized. 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true church by baptism.

1. That infants are not to be Baptized. Answer.

Col. 2.11.12.

Marc. 10.13.14. & Mat. 19.13.14.

1. Corinth. 7.14.

1. Corinth. 10.1.2.

Mat. 28.19.

AN ANSWERE TO TWO ANABAPTISTICAL opinions: viz.

1. That Infants are not to be baptized.

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

A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truths, viz:

1. That infants are not to be baptized.

2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true church by baptism.

1. That infants are not to be Baptized.
Answer.

Marc. 10.13.14. &
Mat. 19.13.14.