The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism — Richard Clifton

The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism · Richard Clifton

REASONS AGAINST Baptiſing of infants, anſwered.

R. Clifton

Now let vsus come to conſider of the reaſons alledged to the cō trarye, the firſt of them is this.

1. Reaſon:

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

Anſwer

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

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

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

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

M. Smyth.

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

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

R. Clyfton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoſoever are Chriſts are Abrahams ſeed & within the covenant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2. reaſon againſt baptiſing of infants anſwered.

R. Clifton.

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

Reaſon, 2.

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

Anſwer.

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

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

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

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

Mr Smyth.

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

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

R. Clifton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 3. Reaſon againſt baptiſing of infants, anſwered.

R. Clifton

Now followes the 3. reaſon.

3. Reaſon.

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

Anſwer.

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

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

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

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

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

M. Smyth.

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

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

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

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

R. Clyfton.

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

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

A like Anſwer may be given concerning, 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians1 Cor. 3… are called carnal, becauſe of their infirmities and carnal works, as enrying, ſtrife &c. verſ 3. &c. Infants cannot in this ſenſe be called carnal, & therefore this ſcripture alſo is unfitly applyed unto them. And here it is to be noted, that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptiſed, are called carnal, whereby we may ſee how impertinently this ſcripture is alleadged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the third particular of my Anſwer you reply ſaying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptiſing of Elder People.

…

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

Anſwer.

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

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

The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 1 · Reasons

p. 111REASONS AGAINST Baptiſing of infants, anſwered.

1. Reaſon:

The 2. reaſon againſt baptiſing of infants anſwered.

The 3. Reaſon againſt baptiſing of infants, anſwered.

p. 149OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptiſing of Elder People.

REASONS AGAINST Baptiſing of infants, anſwered.

OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptiſing of Elder People.