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 baptisme that is a true constitution which is not to be Seperated from For a true constitution true baptisme are one the same So is a false constitution a false baptisme So that the speeches actions of the Seperation are coÌ„tradictory in this particular Finaly they that defend the baptisme of infants cannot with any truth or good conscience Seperate from England as from a false Chu though they may seperate for coruptions they that do Seperate from England as from a false Chu must of snecessity Seperate from the baptisme of England account the baptisme of England false so account the baptisme of infants false baptisme Therfor the Seperation must either goe back to England or go forward to true baptisme al that shal in tyme to come Seperate from England must Seperate from the baptisme of England if they wil not Seperate from the baptisme of England their is no reason why they should seperate 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 professe before the L. before al men in sincerity truth that it semeth vnto vs the most vnreasonable heresy of al Antichristianisme for considering what baptisme is an infaÌ„t is no more capable of baptisme then is any vnreasonable or insensible creature For baptisme is not washing with water but it is the baptisme of the Spirit the confession of the mouth the washing with water how then can any maÌ„ without great folly wash with water which is the least last of baptisme one that is not baptized with the Spirit cannot confesse with the mouth or how is it baptisme if one be so washed Now that an infant cannot be baptized with the Spirit is plaine 1. Pet. 3 21. wher the Apostle saith that the baptisme of the Spirit is the question of a good conscience into God Heb. 10.22 wher the baptisme which is inward is caled the sprinkling of the hart from an evil conscieÌ„ce seing therfor infants neither have an evil conscience nor the question of a good conscience nor the purging of the hart for al these are proper to actual sinners hence it followeth that infants baptisme is folly nothing Againe Iohns baptisme was the baptisme of repentance infants have not repentance therfor cannot have the baptisme of repentance That infants cannot have repentance is evident seing repentaÌ„ce is knowledg of sinne by the Law sorrow for sinne by the gospel mortification of sin new obedience al which are as much in the basen of water as in the infant baptized Now I confesse the Pedobaptists have many showes of reason for the maintenance of their heresy one man shapeth them into one forme another man into an other as every mans wit learning teacheth him but indeed they are al built vpon the self same sandy fondacions the wresting of some places of Scripture al which in a manner are discovered in some measure in this treatise whereby the reader may perceave the manifest perventing of the scriptures from their true sense Now bicause men cal for antiquity except they see antiquity they wil not beleve though the Scriptures be the most auncient I have thought good therefore to propound two pregnant testimonyes of Antiquity besides that which is alledged in the pag. 30. 31. of this treatise against baptisme of infants that men may know that this truth also hath her footsteps among the Fathers Tertullianus lib. de baptismo adversus Quintillam hath these wordes Then which nothing is more playne 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 remissioneÌ„ peccatoruÌ„ Cautius agitur in secularibus vt cui substantia terrena non creditur divina credatur Norint petere salutem vt pâ—tenti dedisse videaris That is to say in English Therfor to defere not to hasten baptisme is more profitable for the condition disposition age of every person but especialy as concerning yong children For what necessity is ther to bring suertyes into daunger for the baptising of infants if ther be no such necessity of hastning the baptising of infants Seing the suerties ofttymes are disabled to performe their promise both by reason of mortality of the evil disposition of some children wheÌ„ they come to yeres for whâ—me they promised in baptisme Indeed the L. saith forbid them not to come vnto me Therfor let them come to Chr. but let them come when they are growne when they learne when they are taught to what they come Let them by baptisme be made Christians when they can know Chr. by instruction why doth the innocent age hasten to the remission of sinnes we deale more safely in worldly matters Shal we commit heavenly things to yong children vnto whome we dare not commit our earthly substance let theÌ„ 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 custome of the Catechumeni is aproved by Alex. lib. of Alexa. his Clerks whence it is to be noted that these children baptized by Athanasius were vnbaptized yet knew the manner of baptisme as being children borne in the Chu So that by this place al other places of the Eclesi Hist wher like mention is made of the childreÌ„ of Christians first Catechized then baptized it may easily be discerned that baptisme of infants was not yet vniversaly receaved but by litle litle prevailed as other Antich heresies have done in respect wherof Origen August Cipâ—ian al the Papists with one consent acknowledg it a tradition of the Church And thus much for the Testimonyes of Antiquity which hereafter shal be produced more plentifully vpon further occasion offered if the Seperation or any other dare adventure the tryal of the matter out of Antiquity but ther is one indeed but one argument which the seperation principaly stand vpon that is the covenaÌ„t which say they if it be aÌ„swered they must nedâ— yeeld vnto the truth now although this Argument be answered in this writing even to the
Christ gave a commaundement for the publishing of his covenant administring of baptisme the seale therof to al nations then are the beleving GeÌ„tils their infants to receave the same But the first is true Mat. 28.19 Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13.48 16.14.15.32.33 It wil be objected against the Major that if followes not that the infants are any more bound to receave baptisme then they are bound why lest they are infants to receave the word but the word they cannot receave ergo I answere that the commaundements is general to al nations therfor as Abraham if he should not have obeyed to the Lord commaunding him to circumcise himselfe al his family yea the infants he should grevously have rebelled against God So whosoever of the Gentils shal not beleve be baptized both himselfe his seed shall have no part â—or portion in the inheritance of Christ Seing he cuts himselfe of his seed from the covenant of God Gen. 17.14 And though infants bee not capable of the preaching of the covenant which not withstanding they are bound vnto as they shall come to yeres of discretion yet are they capable of the seale as before is shewed therefore by vertue of this generall commaundement Mat. 28.19 are to bee Baptized Iohn Smyth Your 6. Argument from Mat. 28 1â— is framed thus If Christ gave a commaundement for the publishing of his covenant administring of baptisme the seale thereof to al nations then are the beleeving gentils then infants to receave 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 wil discover in order First I deny that baptisme is the seale of the covenant of the new Testament Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seale of that everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ Thirdly baptisme therfor doth not succeed in the place of circumcision ther being only a chandg of the ceremony as you pretend the covenant being the same these thre particulars are already proved Fourthly I deny that though Abraham who had a special commaundement did circumcise his male infants therefore Christians vppon this general commaundement Mat. 28.19 shall baptise their infants Fifthly I say rather the contrary is hence proved bicause Christ commaundeth to baptise only those that are by teaching made Disciples for so the word matheteusate signifieth therfor infants are by expresse prohibition excluded it is as if Chr. should say I wil have you make them Disciples baptise them that are made Disciples by teaching no other so Christ expresly excludeth infants Lastly I deny that infants are capable of baptisme for they cannot confesse their faith their sinnes neither declare that they are baptized inwardly with the Spirit so cannot outwardly by the baptisme with water declare the same but are in every respect vnable therto vncapable thereof Hence therfor 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 vnder it Make Disciples by teaching baptise them is an affirmative conteyning vnder 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 vncapable of baptisme are not to be baptized Infants are vncapable of baptisme Seing baptisme confisting of the inward baptisme of the Spirit expressed by confession in word washing with water in action infants are vncapable of the two former parts of baptisme Ergo infants are not to be baptized with water which is the latter 4. If the new Testament be as cleer perspicuous as the old Christ the Mediator of the new Testament as faithfull as Moses the Mediator of the old Testament then the persons to be baptized the conditioÌ„ of baptisme the tyme of baptisme are as cleerly faithfully described in the institutioÌ„ of baptisme as the person condition tyme of circumcision But for pedobaptisme ther is no expresse description of the person condition or â—yâ—e of their baptisme 〈◊〉 for true baptisme ther is most evidently faithfully set downe the persons condition tyme of administring it viz persons confesting their sinnes Mat. 3.6 wheras persons impenitent were put by Mat. 3 7-12 compared with Luk. 7. vs 29-30 Persons beleeving Act. 8.12.13 vs 36-38 persons that had receaved the holy Ghost expressed the same by prophecying Act. 10 46-4â— persons penitent Act. 2.38 persons that are by teaching made Disciples Mat. 28.19 Ioh. 4.1 persons borne againe Ioh. 3.3 Therfor such persons are to bee baptized who are thus particularly described wherein the new Testament is as cleer as the Old Christ the Mediator as Faythfull as Moses no other but these For if others bee then is not the New Testament so cleer as the Old nor Christ as Faithful as Moses which to say is to blaspheme Mr. Rich. Clifton Lastly the Apostles practise is our instruction but they baptized not onely the master of the family which beleeved but al 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 Ioseph bad his brethren take their Father their howsehoolds come to him now in chap. 46.5.7 it is said they caried their Children wives in charets nothing hereby that children were of the howsehold els had they no commaundement to have caried them into Egypt see also vs 27. Exo. 1.21 it is said bicause the Midwyves feared God therefore he made them howses in 1. Tim. 5. â— the Apostle saith he that provideth not for his owne namely for them of his houshold he denyeth the faith c. Now I would aske if childreÌ„ 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 wil prove that children were baptized vnles it can bee shewed that they were specially exempted if the holy ghost have not exempted them who dare do it against a general commaundement of baptising al nations Iohn Smyth Your 7. argument is taken from Act. 16.15.33 framed thus The Apostles practise is our instruction But they baptized not only the Mr. of the Family which beleved but al 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 wholy but yet denying the consequent of your conclusion For it doth not follow bicause
but stil you build vppon a false fondacion as you see assuming that which is the question viz That baptisme in popery is the Lords Thirdly I answer againe that if Antichrist had reteyned the L. true baptisme as I have described true I say in the definition viz That he had baptized persons confessing their sinnes faith into the Trinity or into Iesus Christ it should not have been repeated but seing he intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible character vpon them which is the mark of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth another promising answering for them Credo Abrenuntio which the party baptized should himself performe hence I conclude that he hath set vp his owne idol of abhomination cast the L. holy ordinance away having essentialy destroyed the primitive Apostolique baptisme go his baptisme is a nullity or rather a seale of perdition to them that retaine it The amplification which you bring to this Argument I omit as a thing not denyed but yeelded vnto that God can work by a false Ministery evil instruments bad meanes but hence it wil not follow that we may retaine the mark of the beast no more then we may retaine the ministery of Antichrist the Church of Antichrist the Government of Antichrist Mr. Rich. Clifton Those Holy things which God by his mercifull 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 baptisme 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 baptisme but false that is administred in the assemblies of Antichr I answer though it may be said to be false in regard of some humane devises vsed in the administration thereof yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter forme Author therof which causeth it to have a true being Iohn 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 baptisme 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 baptisme though false in respect of humane devises vsed in the ministration therof yet is true in respect of the matter forme Author therof in your answer to my second Arg. you say the author of baptisme in the Kingdom of Antichr is Chr. the matter water the forme washing with water into the Trinity I answer directely that if it could bee proved that baptisme in the Kingdome of Antichrist is appointed by Christ that water is the true matter of baptisme the true forme is washing into the Trinity I would yeeld vnto you but this you have not proved I have already proved the contrary but yet to deale somthing more fully in this point which is the mayne pillar cheef corner Stone of the fondacion I say 1. VVater is not the matter of baptisme but onely the instrument of baptisme For as fire is the instrument of burning so is VVater of washing the matter of burning is the fewel that is burnt So the matter of washing is the party washed For as wee say accident is esse est inesse the subject is al the matter of an accident as the matter of the Church are the Disciples of Sayntes The matter of the Ministery are the Prophets so the matter of baptisme is the persons vppon whome baptisme is conferred on whome it is It is false therfor which you affirme that water is the matter of baptisme 2. I say that washing into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost is not the forme of Baptisme For to wash a Turk Iew Foole mad Man or infant into the Trinity is not â—â—ne baptisme but it were so if simply to baptize into the Trinity were the forme of baptisme Therefore to baptise the true matter into the true Fayth or into Christ or the New Testament or the Trinity or into the true body is the true forme of baptisme So that the true matter of baptisme is a new creature one regenerate a confessor As the true matter of circumcision was a male of eigt dayes old eyther lineally descending of Abraham or a Proselite So the true matter of baptisme is a person that is of the Fayth of Abraham one that hath the male Christ formed in him The true forme of baptisme coÌ„sisteth in three things 1. washing with water 2. a new Creature 3. into the Name of Chr. or into the Trinity for I think wee are not tyed to forme of words so if antichr hath washed any I say I wil never consent that they shal be rebaptized but hold that Anabaptistery true heresy But if an infant that is not the matter of baptisme or a wicked man mad man foole Turk or Iew or any Pagan bee washed with water into the Trinity I say ther is neyther true matter nor forme of baptisme Christ is not the author thereof therfor the baptisme of antichrist is not Christs but his owne so all infants baptized by antichrist are eyther vnbaptized or have the marke of the beast so are to renounce it to receave Christs marke of baptisme or els woe bee to them when they shall manifest a new creature Christ the male is formed in them they confesse with their mouth then be baptized into the Trinity this is not anabaptistery but the true primitive Apostolique Baptisme so Christ Iohn Christs Apostles were anabaptists with you Sir For they baptized men that had been washed before a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes Heb. 9.10 which baptismes were also into the Messias no doubt in those that saw the end off those Figures But if it bee blasphemy to say that Christ Iohn the Apostles were Anabaptists though they were of tymes some of them baptized into the Messiah in Type bicause they were onely once baptized truly indeed So shal it bee blasphemy in all them that call the true Christians anabaptists that baptize new Creatures once onely 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 Baptisme or any thing els was hence therefore I conclude vndenyably that seing Popish baptisme hath a false matter a false forme therefore it is antichrists Idoll asmuch as a false Ministery a false Church is so the Lord is not the author of it therevppon though the Scriptures Gods word bee retayned by Gods providence in the word all the Holy things of