the faithful and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh yea some infants circumcised should be types as the carnal seed of Abraham and other infants circuÌ„cised as well as they to wit the children of the Proselytes should be no types for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self nor you with the truth Secondly I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful Paul sayth * that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat 1 Cor. 10. â— 5. drank the same spirituall drink c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended and after the enumeration of many particulars the Apostle sayth all these through faith obteyned good report Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful if infaÌ„ts of the faithful then were they types of theÌ„selves 3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham as Isaac Iacob c. were the true children of Abraham Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh * Rom. â— 16. 17. 19 20. 23. â— coÌ„ferd wâ— Gen. 17. â— 9. 13. Joâ— 44. sonnes of the promise of life so to be reputed as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of beleeâ—ers But say you If you wil make true consequents you must reason from the type to the truth and not from the type to the type neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do c. And I answer you neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed But as for my confounding of the covenants and seales that is your bare affirmation and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham for your carnal and spirituall infants is answered before Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed then you undertake to prove the contrary saying That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands commeth in place of circumcision made with hands Collos 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11. By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promised the †Deut. 1â— 16. 30. circumcision of the hart and the hart of their seed as before is shewed and they had the grace together with the outward signe therefore your reason is insufficient and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning Towching the place of the Romaines 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced Rom. 2â— the Iewes of syn vers 17. 24. they might object what doth our circumcision nothing profit us that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles yea sayth he if thou keep the law els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision vers 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law before circumcision transgressing the law vers 26 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites the inward and outward circumcision sheweth who is a true Iew not before men but before God viz he that is one within wherein is no guyle And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation which is not onely outward but of the hart this is the Apostles meaning and not to teach that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh c. as you affirm That other place Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the â—2 11. former for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel in this verse he denyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh which was specially urged seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge seal and witnes of our inward renuing or regeneration therefore having baptisme to confirme these graces vnto them need not the use of outward circumcision And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught â—â—e 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes by nature corrupt but also after an especiall manner strangers without God c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise which is the spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Ephe. 1. 13. 14. Although circumcision was set in the flesh yet was it not a seale of the flesh but of the * spirituall covenant and the holy spirit of promise succeedes RoÌ„ 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them that heavenly covenant of salvation as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly as in Abraham Isaac Iacob and the rest yea the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision for they being converted were after circumcised Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “ assured by the â—om 4. â— 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision you quote Ephes 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes because they were called by the same gospel which they imbraced by fayth and sealed up by the same spirit which is the earnest of our inheritance And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision Againe the spirit being invisible is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant Further you say I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new teâ—stament though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal I say therefore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament spiritual and yet visible and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water as Peter
there teacheth This visible seale of the new testament is confession as in the â—d testament circumcision was their confession and baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale First you deny a principle of religion and that which formerly you held for in your book of Difference c. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptisme seales of the covenant these are your words The publishing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the seales is onely one concrete action c. for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seales otherwise breaking of bread and baptising are but putting of seales to a blank And thus unstable are you in your wayes 2. What if baptisme be not called a seale yet if it can be proved by scripture that it is a seale we ought so to receive it The sacraments given of God unto the Israelites were called seales as †Rom. 4. 15. 8. circumcision by the Apostle is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith And when God made with Abraham his covenant to be his God and the God of his seed he gave him * Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1â— circumcision a signe thereof which did confirme unto him and to his seed that which God did promise as before the Lord had done to Noah to whoÌ„ he gave the “ Gen. 9. 9-17 rayn-bowe as a signe of his promise that the world should be no more destroyed with water so the Passeover is called a signe Exod. 13. 9. Now if circumcision be a signe and seale of Gods covenant as the Apostle testifieth then it must needs be granted that baptisme succeeding circumcision is also a seale of the Lords covenant though the very word seale be not expressely set downe in the scripture And this the Apostle intimates Act. 2. 39. where he exhorteth the beleevers to be baptised every one in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes for the promise is to you and to your children The Lord commanding his “ Mat. 2. 19. Gospel to be preached to all nations commanded them also to be baptised confirming by this outward signe his covenant to all the beleeving Gentiles and their seed as he had done to Abraham and his seed the same covenant by circumcision * Paul †Cornelius “ Lydia and the Gaylor after they beleeved and had â—ct 9. 17 received the covenant were baptised which confirmed unto them the free * forgivenes of all their synnes by the death of Christ And this is plainly Act. 10. taught us by Peter 1. Epistle 3 21. where he sayth that baptisme now also saveth us Baptisme cannot be sayd to save as any cause thereof Act. 16. â— 31. â—â—k 3. 3. â—ct 2. 38. â—â— 6. 3. â—al 3. 16 â—om 7. 11 Mar. 16. but in this respect that it witnesseth and sealeth unto us from God our salvation that which circumcision did type out to come the same doth baptisme now signifie to be fulfilled in Christ the true †seed of Abraham And as by “ circumcisiion the righteousnes of faith was sealed so by Baptisme salvation is sealed as Christ sayth * he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved Againe Rom. 6. 3. Paul sayth all we that have been baptized into Iesus Christ have beene baptized into his death In which words the Apostle giveth vs to understand that by baptisme the benefits of the death of Christ are on the Lords behalf confirmed unto us And if this be not the signification of baptisme let it be shewed out of the word what els is minded by these phrases baptised into the death of Christ and buried with him by baptisme into his death Thus have I shewed that baptisme is a seal of the new Testament which you deny affirming a new kind of seale thereof viz Confession say the seale of the spirit must go before baptisme Which two in my understanding differ farre one from another for confeession is the act of man as the Apostle sayth * with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation proveth sometime to be Rom. 10. â— Act. 8. 13 hypocriticall as that of Symon Magus was But the baptisme of the holy Ghost is an action of God and is eyther an internall work of the spirit as Mat. 3. 11. or els external by some visible signes and extraordinary guifts Act. 1. 8. 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44. 47. This latter now ceasseth being then given of God for the further confirming of the Gospel in the Churches newly planted until the faith of Christ was fully established amongst the Gentiles and therefore is no ordinary seale of the new Testament given by Christ to be continued unto the end of the world though I confesse those extraordinary giftes of the spirit miracles works done by the Apostles and other of the servants of Christ have still their use in the Church to confirme the truth of God by them published And as for mens confession of the faith that can be no seale of the â—ew Testament because it is imperfect and oftentimes hypocriticall many falling away from the truth which formerly they professed as Demas Nicholas the Deacon and those mentioned in the first epistle of Iohn chap. 2. 19. Now that which must seale Gods covenant unto us for the confirmation of our faith must be certayne and perfect and that from God because it is he that promiseth salvation to all that beleeve therefore it is he that onely can give assurance of his owne covenant And as â—or our confession it is but an outward testification of the grace of God bestowed upon us it can no more be a seale of the new Testament then the profession of the Iewes was of the old And as you require of me â—here in all the scripture baptisme is called a seale so more justly may I demand of you where in all the new Testament that confession is called a seale Besides if confession be a seale of the new Testament then a man may be par taker of the scale that is not of the Church as they that confesse their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints 3. That the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water c. Vnderstanding it as you do of confession then I graunt that such as were never of the Church ar first to make coÌ„fessioÌ„ of their faith to testify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptised Act. 8. 37. 38. but neyther is such confession required of their infants neyther is it a seale of the new Testament as before I have proved Otherwise understanding the seale of the spirit as the Apostle doth Rom. 8 15. 16. Ephe. 1 13. 14. so goeth it before and together with Baptisme in all the elect of God whether infants or of yeares As for that sealing with the spirit of Cornelius company which you instance Act. 10. 47.
whereby you seeme to understand confession you cannot but know that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words was the extraordinary geving of the spirit wherewith he and the rest were indued and not onely that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true beleever as by the text is plainly to be seen which sayth that they of the circumcision were astonied as many as came with Peter because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost For they heard them speak with tongues And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them even as upon us at the beginning Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them viz there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre and it sat vpon each of them and they were filled with the holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinarie for he came not so upon all that were baptised Act. 8. 36 37. 16. 14. 15. 33 seing * the multitude was astonished â—ct 2. 6. â— 12. wondred all and marveyled Therefore that comming of the spirit upoÌ„ Cornelius and his company was extraordinary for Peter sayth The holy Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them baptisme for he seing them partakers of the spirit sayth can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we This visible seale seale of the new Testament say you is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confession That confession is not the seale of the new Testament I have already proved And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old TestameÌ„t thus farre may be granted that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance and so is baptisme now to us a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pagans but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our baptisme Act. 19. â— Rom. 10 10. King 18 â— Exo. 19. â— Psa 107. â— 21. 31. Esa 29. 13. â—e DaÌ„ ch 9 Exo. 12. â—8 Act. â— 27. c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God and his truth not onely by circumcisision but also †with words to his praise And I make no question but the Proselytes before they were “ circuÌ„cised made confession of their faith Baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale I pray you Sir of what seale is baptisme the manifestation Confession you say is the visible seale of the new testament Doth it manifest our confession it needs not for that is visible If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace it is true but thereby we are assured of Gods promise and so is the visible seale thereof Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to coÌ„firme the consequence of my Argument the first whereof is Collos 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme coÌ„meth in the rome of circumcision this you deny so to be construed and say That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision c. That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcisioÌ„ was the seale I wil further manifest prove both out of this place of the Collossians and also by other reasons First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Gospel proveth that the Church stands no need therof seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvatioÌ„ he answereth that neyther needed they to be circumcised because they were spiritually circumcised And whereas the Collossions might have objected that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof which if we want our state is not so good as their was yea sayth Paul that it is for in stead of outward circumcision you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children under the Gospel the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed this is the meaning of the Apostle and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Now I vvil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant First the sacraments of the nevv Testament have the same end scope in respect of the thing signified with the sacraments under the law For as Paul attributed the same vertue efficacy and effect of our baptisme the Lords supper * 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers so doth he ascribe to the beleevers under the gospel the efficacy of the †Cor. â— Pascall lambe “ Col. 2. 1â— 12. and circumcision therfore in respect of the thing signed there is no difference the same Christ was the Lambe * Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world Also the same instrument and meanes of application the same †Rom. 4 16. c. faith end and effect one and the same righteousnes of faith the same “ Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham the same spirituall circumcision of the hart both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel so that in all these things there is no difference which plainely argues that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments 2 This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and baptisme together in their special vses and ends There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptisme viz to * be signes of the covenant â—o 4. 11. â— c. Gal â—6 Mar. â— 16. conâ—d with â—om 4. 11 Deut. 10. â— 30. 6 â—it 3. 5. â—er 4. 4. â—l 2. 11. â—uk 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 â— 6. 4. 6. â—om 2. 29. â—hil 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 â— Exo. 12. â— Act. 8. â— 16. â— 33. â—at 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 â—2 1 Cor. â—2 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ both of the sacraments of †regeneration “ requiring repentance and mortification both signifying that we are corrupt and by the ¶ blood of Christ to be clensed by both of them such as were * without were received into the communion of the Church And by both of them Gods people were †discerned from
from a false Church except he also do separate from the baptisme of Engl. c. Wherevnto he may be answered that it wil not follow that they which separate from a Church standing in apostasie or sinne must separate from the baptism therein receaved or yet from any other of Gods ordinances there retayned We are commaunded to forsake the whordomes of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. but not to seperate from any ordinance of Christ that is found therein save onely from the polutions thereof Yea Mr. Smyth cannot deny that a Church standing in Apostasy is to be separated from when the baptism therein received if it be of such as confesse their fayth and sins is still to be retayned for such baptism sayth he iâ— true Baptism though administred by Antichristians Character p. 51. 2. Those Israelits that separated from Ieroboams Church which stood in Apostasy went to IerusaleÌ„ 2. Cor. 30. 11. did not separate froÌ„ their circumcisioÌ„ therin receaved No more are we from our baptisme as afterward is proved As for his Reason That the baptism of England cannot be true and to be reteayned and the Church of England false and to be rejected c. It is but as if he should say the circumcision of Israell cannot be true and to be reteyned and the Church of Israell false and to be rejected I speake of Israell being in Apostacy And therefore thus I answere vnto it that baptism retayned in Rome and so in all Apostate Churches is baptism and is not to be repeated as in the latter part of this Treatise is proved And seing Mr. Smyth holdeth there Character â—ag 51. may be †true baptism in an Apostate Church if they confesse their fayth doth not he crosse himself here to say neyther can the Church of England possibly be false except the baptism be false Now if true baptism may be in an apostate Church as he affirmeth then a Church may be false that is apostate not baptism by his owne reasoning Yet this man chargeth vs with contradiction vz. to say England hath a false constitution Engl. hath a true baptism We hold baptism so to be true in an apostate church as circumcisioÌ„ was in the 〈…〉 ate Church of Israel otherwise we do not affirm Now concerning 〈…〉 ptising of infants Mr. Sm. thus proceedeth saying It seemeth to vs thâ— vnreasonable heresy of all Antichristianism for considering what baptism is An 〈◊〉 is no more capable of baptism then is any vnreasonable or insensible creature â—d then addeth 3. Reasons agaynst it 1. from his owne description baptism saying baptism is not the washing with water but it is the baptism of 〈…〉 it the confession of the mouth and washing with water c. These blasphemous speeches against the ordinance of Christ bewrayeth â—f what spirit this man is Gods ordinance is a most vnreasonable heresie with â—im yea the most vnreasonable of all Antichristianisme Thus iustifying all the â—dolatries of the Papists and their detestable heresies in comparison of baâ—tising of infants Besides his odious and blasphemous comparison afâ—rming Infants no more capable of baptisme then the vnreasonable and insensible 〈…〉 ures So that in his judgement a horse yea a block may aswell be â—aptised as the children of the Church whom the Lord of his free grace 〈…〉 ceiveth together with their parents to be his by an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and therefore are holy and capable of the blessing of Christ 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. Mark 10. 16. as hereafter is sufficiently 〈…〉 ved And therefore to compare these infants with vnreasonable and insensible creatures as touching the participation of Baptisme argueth the authour of such comparisons to be void of spiritual sense and reason and more to follow the corruption of his own hart in hatred against the truth then to mind what he affirmeth Concerning his description of Baptisme and those Scriptures which he quoteth for proof thereof see them answered hereafter pag. 94. where I have shewed 1. that the baptisme of the Spirit is no part of that outward Ceremonie of baptisme that is administred by man but is the inward work of the spirit in the elect of God 2. That the confession of faith of sinns is no part of the Sacrament of Baptisme seing the confession of sinns is so often to be repeated as we transgresse against the Lord likewise of faith as we have occasion administred vnto us And therefore baptisme which is given to be the seale of Gods covenant to his Church is the baptising of the faithful and their seed with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost Mat. 3. 11. with Mat. 28. 19. of this infants are capable neyther is their baptisme folly as Mr Smyth sayth but it wil prove his fully to make mans confession a part of the Sacrament which oftentymes â— hypocrical as it was in S. Magus to shut out of Gods covenant whoâ— the Lord hath accepted And it wil prove his folly to denye baptisme to infants because they caÌ„not performe such actions as in other respects are required of the elder sort that are to be baptised who also not having traÌ„sgressed in like manner therefore need not so to confesse And it wil prove his folly to deny that an infant can be baptised with the spirit for so to say is to deny that an infant can be saved But of these things hereafter His 2. Reason is taken from Iohns baptisme framed thus Iohns baptisme was the baptisme of repentance Infants have not Repentance and therefore can not have the baptisme of Repentance To this Argument I answer thus 1. That repentance is required of such as have actually transgressed not as the proper cause of baptisme but as a necessarie fruit of fayth condition of the Gospel required of them that being of yeares are to be received into the church whether before or since Christs coming But of the infants of the faythful whether of those that are newly received into the church or of beleevers borne in the church it is not so Ergo c. 2. Repentance was not required of the infants of the Iewes before they were circumcised no more is it to be required of our infants before baptisme these two Sacraments being the same in use 3. If Baptisme of repentance be understood onely of the tyme past not of the tyme to come then is that a false exposition of Iohns baptisme For as he taught that those that came to be baptised should repent so also his baptisme did preach a continual dying to sinne or practise of repentance al our life long Rom. 6. 4. And therefore though children cannot repent of actual sinne which they are not to do they having not committed the same yet is their baptisme the baptisme of repentance seeing it preacheth continual mortification repentance to the receivers thereof which is one true use of baptisme His third
other prophane companies And neither of them might be iterated By which proportion and agrement we may see that the one followes the other Lastly as circumcision was given as a signe of the covenant when the Lord chose Abraham and his seed to be his people so baptisme was giveÌ„ together with the publishing of this covenant to the Gentiles when circumcision was to ceasse the partition wall removed and both Iewes and Gentiles were made alike partakers of the covenant and of baptisme the signe thereof Which argueth that the mind of the Lord was to give to his Church Baptisme to confirme unto it those things which before he had witnessed to Abraham by circumcision And thus I have proved Baptisme to succeed Circumcision and so answered your mistaking of that place of the Collos 2. 11. 12. Againe you say that I would insinuate a restraint in the new Testament if baptisme be not due to infants seing circumcision was due to infants in the old testament whereunto you answer many wayes saying 1. Seing Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision this allegation is nothing to the purpose 2. seing baptisme is both to male and female it is larger then circumcision which was onely vpon the male 3. Seing baptisme is both to Jew and Gentile therfore more large then circumcision but these things are almost nothing to the purpose but now I say more pertinently that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is now as large as ever it was for it was never made with AbrahaÌ„ and all his carnall children but onely with Abraham and the faithful and so that continueth in the same tenure stil and it is inlarged now since Christs comming onely in respect of the clearer and more vniversall publication of it c. Concerning the first particular of your answer I have already proved Baptisme to succeed circumcision then my allegation is to purpose you â—nnot deny To the second I answer that though baptisme be both to â—ale and female and circumcision onely to the male yet is not the sealâ—g of the covenant so large under the gospel as under the law if infants â—e excluded from it for though women were not circumcised yet were â—hey comprehended in the covenant with the males and their state was as â— they had been circumcised Gen. 34. 14. And though baptisme be â—o women yet denying it to children it makes a restraynt for to place â—omen in the stead of children is not an inlarging but a change To the third particular of your answer that baptisme is both of Iewe and â—entile and therefore more large I answer so was circumcision to Iewe and Gentile for all the Gentiles might have been circumcised if they had proâ—ssed the faith therefore it wil folow that you do restrayn the seale of Gods covenant by denying it to infants But these things you say are almost â—thing to the purpose therefore to your second answer that you say is more â—rtinent viz that God never made the spiritual covenant with Abraham and al â—is carnall seed but onely with Abraham and the faithful It is certaine that God made his covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. and to that seed of his to whom was promised and given the land of Canaan to that * Gen. 17 8. seed did God promise to be their God but to Abrahams natural seed was promised and given the land of Canaan Ergo to them did God promise to be their God so made with them his covenant of grace in Christ then to come The same may be seen by the †Deut. â— 10. 15 renuing of this covenant as formerly hath bene shewed I affirme that circumcision was never a seale of Gods covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ c. I have proved the contrarie before and have also shewed that the confession “ pag. 12. of beleevers under the Gospel is not the seale of the new Testament then is it not so large as circuÌ„cisioÌ„ for that infants were circuÌ„cised but ConfessioÌ„ is onely of them that are growne to yeares As for your opposing of true beleevers to the carnal Israelites circumcised it is not a iust and equall opposition for actuall beleevers are onely of persons growne to yeares but the circumcised were not onely of such but also their infants And thus you lessen both the covenant and seale thereof if things be taken in their due proportion though you pretend the contrary deceived by your owne devised definitions and distinctions Lastly to 2 Cor. 1. 20. you answer saying this place is strayned to the â—or 1. 20 proving thereof for the meaning of it is that unto the faithful all the Lords promises are verified but his promise was never that all their carnall seed should have baptisme as a seale of life and salvation but that all beleevers should have the spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seale You grant that the meaning of this scripture is that all the Lords promises are verified to the faithfull and further then this I do not streyne it but do affirme that this promise of life in Christ I will be thy God and the God of thy seed * was made to faithful Abraham and his seed which promise Gen. 17. 7. he received that he should be the father of circumcision and the father of all that beleeve not being circumcised Rom. 4. 12. 11. But where you say the promise was never that their carnal seed should have baptisme as a seale of life I answer that those whom you call carnal seed being the infants of the faithful are a †holy seed in respect of that title and right which they have Cor. 7. 14 Pet. 2. 9. 〈◊〉 11. 16 to the covenant received by their parents though they be carnall inasmuch as they are begotten and born of them after the common course of nature And therefore being holy and children of the covenant have also a right to Baptisme as hath beene and shal be further proved in the residew of the arguments following Here also out of your answer you set downe five arguments against Poedobaptistrie 1. If all the carnall infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it then they never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant But all the carnall infants were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it seing Abrahams children according to his actuall faith were onely under it Rom. 4. 11. Ergo c. I answer unto the major that to be under the everlasting covenant is to be considered two wayes 1. according to the Lords externall dispensation thereof who of his free grace “ maketh his everlasting covenant Act. 2. 39 with the faithful and their seed 2. according to Gods secret election in the former sense all the carnall infants of Abraham were and all the infants of the faithful are under
the covenant * For if the root be holy so Rom. 11. â— Gen. 17. 7 â— 11. 12. â—at 28. 19 are the branches And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant through the free grace and large promise of God so have they †to the seal thereof which is administred by the commandement of God according to the outward dispensation of his covenant and not after his secret election according to which election neyther all the carnall infants of Abraham or all the seed of the faithfull or yet all that make * 1 Io. â— visible profession of their faith and stand members of true Churches are under the covenant save onely the elect But thus to vnderstand to be vnder the actuall possession of it as it is proper onely to the true children of Abraham so the certaine knowledge thereof †2 Tim 19. belongs onely to God And thus you see the majors consequent in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow Your second is this If Baptisme doth not succeed circumcision then Baptisme doth not perteyne to carnall infants But Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision because the seale of the spirit is correspondent to the typicall seale of the flesh and Baptisme with water is onely the manifestation of the seale Ergo c. The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true for though baptisme should not succeed circumcision yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God But I deny the minor and do affirme that Baptisme doth succeed circumcision as I have formerly proved The reason of your assumption is also before disproved for the spirit as you vnderstand it for our confession is not correspondent to circumcision seing infants are excluded Your third is this If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants then by your proportion baptisme doth not seale up the everlasting covenant to the faithful their carnal infants But circumcisioÌ„ did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants Ergo c. The Assumption is false being rightly vnderstood viz in respect of their outward standing and the contrarie is proved before to wit that circumcision did seale up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed Gen. 17. 7. c. Your fourth is this If beleeving Parents do not stand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants then though they be baptised themselves yet their children shall not But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants for no man is the father of the faithfull as Abraham was and he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnall infants Ergo c. For conveighing of the everlasting covenant this is that which we say that it is conveighed to the children by the free grace and disposing of the Lord who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their seed And although the beleeving parents stand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations yet stand they in Abrahams rowme in this that as * God did conveigh his everlasting covenant by Abraham beleeving â— 17. 7 â— 2. 39 â— 7. 14 â— 11. 9. to his seed so dooth the Lord conveigh †his covenant to the children of beleevers for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their seed and thus entred Abrahams carnall seed as you call them into the everlasting covenat as before is proved And be it that all their seed are not within Gods election yet leaving secret things to the Lord we are to beleeve the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely and not to put difference before the time that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham Amongest them that confesse Iesus Christ and “ are members â—oh 2. of the visible Church many depart away yet we account them childreÌ„ of the covenant vntill their hypocrisie be discovered and so in like manner are we to esteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy vntill the coÌ„trary â—or 7. appeare Your fift argument is this If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham but onely occupy the place of carnal children then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized yet the infants shall not which cannot beleeve actually But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham seing the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Joh. â— 39. which infants cannot do Ergo c. First it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onely occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderstand it for they are also the †children â—ct 3. 32 â—at â— of the covenant and of the “ kingdome Secondly the consequent of the major according to the true meaning of the termes therein used is also denyed the contrary is proved before viz that infants are to be baptised though they have not the actuall use of fayth To the minor I answer that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the Act. 2. 29 â—t 29. â— 15. true children of Abraham for to * them is the promise and in that respect children of Abraham as hath been sayd Your reason drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children is not truely gathered from that scripture for Christ there proveth that the Iewes living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be seing they did not the deeds of Abraham and he speaketh to men of yeares of whom the practise of â—â—ith is required Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires â—o such works is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes 3. 6. that because children cannot work therefore they must not eat And such is â—our absurd reasoning from this place Now when children of beleevers do come to yeares to manifest their infidelitie by their works we are accordingly to iudge of them after the example of Christ and not before Thus much to your five reasons whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptised Argument III. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive But the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts are of the kingdom of God Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptisme seing they are capable of it
to be baptised unto Moses may thus be understood viz. that they were baptised Moses being their guid or minister by whom they were instructed in the wayes of God Thirdly the baptisme of the Israelites howsoever it might be typicall in some respect yet did it signifie unto them true things whereof they were partakers Deu. 6. 6. 11. 18. â— Gen. 18. Lastly the infants under the law and before †had their dayly education by faythful parents as wel as ours have under the Gospel so that in this respect there is no such material difference as you pretend Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud and sea was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete that is the baptisme of the cloud did type out our baptisme in the three partes thereof viz. 1. the baptisme of the spirit 2. the declaration of fayth and repentance the antecedent of the baptisme with water 3. the outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulers c. Here you set us down types things typed but no proofs thereof I know that the Sacraments of the new Testament did succeed the Sacraments of the old confirming to us the same spirituall thinges that theirs did to them But how these did type forth ours in the concrete as you speak I conceive not our sacraments are external as wel as theirs and administred by * man who neither doth nor can administer the spirit 1. For Mat. 3. â—1 the baptisme of the spirit “ Deu. 10. â— 30. 6. â— Cor. 10. 4. Heb. 11. â—9 30. 39. â—sa 1. 16. they were partakers thereof and †manifested their fayth and repentance as we do 2. concerning the declaration of fayth and repentance to be a part of the sacrament of baptisme I see no warrant seeing it is more general then the sacrament it self and is an imperfect work in man and sometymes hypocritical and therefore cannot be a part of the seal of Gods covenant that shal confirme fayth Also this were to teach that the assurance and pledge of mans salvation depends upon himself if the declaration of his fayth and repentance be held a part of the sacrament Again fayth and repentance is that condition of the covenant that is required on our part and therefore not a part of the seal thereof Besides that which is often to be repeated cannot be a part of baptisme confession of synne and fayth is so often to be repeated as there shal be occasion Ergo c. 3. The outward washing with water being administred to the faythfull or their â—ed in the name of the Father c. is that sacrament of baptisme which was “ Mat. 3. â— administred by Iohn and is administred by the ministers of the Gospel Furthermore whereas I sayd that to deprive children of baptisme â—â— to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people you answer That Gods bounty is as large everie way to our infants as to theirs for Gods 〈…〉 tie of actual exhibiting and sealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham 〈◊〉 his carnal infants was never extant in the old Testament neither were their parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it up 〈…〉 their infants You confesse the Lord to be as bountiful towards our infants as toâ—ards the infants of the Iewes indeed neither comfortable to theirs or ours Not to theirs because say you the everlasting covenant was never exhibited and sealed to Abraham and al his carnal seed I have †pag. 12. 13. before shewed that the covenant was sealed up to Abraham and his infants And that it was exhibited and sealed to him and to al the faithful see Gen. 17. 7. 13. Rom. 4. 11. Hebr. 11. 13. 39. but not to al say you externally it was given to all and sealed by circumcision though internally it was not no more is it to all that stand members of the visible church of the new Testament Secondly if the parents had â—o comfort in circumcising of their infants in respect of the promise in Christ to be unto their infants they had none at al in that action for out of Christ is no true comfort and so you make circumcision an idle signe which indeed did preach unto them howsoever you think therof Christ the promised seed * Col. 2. 11. in whom they were circumcised And circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached â—â—w to infants Your doctrine casteth infants out of Gods everlasting covenant both under the old and new Testament and so Christ to them is not preached at al. But what is it that now preacheth Christ to infants more plainely then circumcision did to the Iewes infants if not baptisme How be it you make a question how the preaching of Christ could profit infants eyther then in types or now in truth And you say neither do I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infants any thing at that instant but afterward to learn that which circumcision taught him viz. the circumcision of the hart And if you say that infants baptised are to be instructed I answer that in the new Testament by baptisme we manifest what we have namelie the inward baptisme whereas in the old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have viz. the inward circumcision of the haâ—… c. First the preaching of Christ by circumcising and baptising of infants did then and doth now profite their parents by seeing the covenant confirmed to their seed And although the infants themselves know not the use thereof til afterward yet it makes not the Lords ordinance to be any more unlawful then †Christs washing Peters feet because Peter understood â—oh 13. 7. it not Yt sufficeth that the Lord commandeth the thing to be done and that children be * taught the use thereof as they shal be capable Deu. 6. 20. Secondly concerning that difference you make between baptisme and circumcision afferming that by the former wee manifest what we have c. and by the other they learned what they had not It is not true that you say of the circumcised that they had not inward circumcision for God did promise it to them and their children Deut. 30. 6. as wel as to us And here let it be minded that you confesse that the Israelites ought to have had inward circumcision if they ought to have had it it was by their constitution or everlasting cov of God made with them For otherwise how ought they have had it then how wil you prove that their covenant was carnal which required inward circumcision the truth agrees with it self Argument 6. Math. 28. 19. If Christ gave a commandement for the publishing of his covenant and administration of baptisme the seal thereof to al nations then are the beleeving Gentiles and their infants to receive the same
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. â— 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. â— 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. â— 25 -27. 2. 18. 22. is given for and to his Church and is the saviour of it and so being of the church baptisme must belong unto them But if children be without the covenant then are they “ Eph. 2. 1 without God without hope and without promise of salvation and so their estate as hethen and the children of beleevers no more holy then the children of infidels though Paul witnesseth the contrary But I desire it may well be observed that you are driven to consequents for this matter and secondly that the Gospell of Christ is for babes Matth. 11. 25. c. What except you against a necessary consequence is not that maÌ„ner of reasoning lawful did not Christ so reason as before is shewed you your self do †Paraleâ—â— pag. 71. Caract p. 33. justifie it I know if you had such consequents for the baptising of your self you would make them go for currant as indeed they ought But I do not onely reason a consequentibus but set down the expresse †commandement of God for the sealing of yong and old and the example 〈◊〉 17. â— 13. of the Apostle baptising whole families 2. That the Gospel is for babes I graunt and that in Mat. 11. 25. is applyed to men of yeares which are lowly and meek but you must know that the most simple persons as you speak are capable of the mysteries Cor. 13. 12. Heb 11. 14. 6 13. 2 Pet. 4. of the Gospel but in * part and every man hath his tyme of groweth therin and needeth to be instructed that he “ may increase in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ And though the Gospel be playne yet we attayn to the knowledge of it by degrees your self wil confesse this at least your many alterations do testifie thus much against your self and therefore the most simple is not so capable thereof as you pretend Lastly for my consequences which you cal mere hallucinations Sophismes I justifie them against your best arguments how well you have disproved them let the good Reader judg Your second Answer and exception is that if want of special precept and example barr children from baptisme it shal also barre women from the Lords supper I deny it for in playn termes it is sayd 1 Cor. 11. 28. let Anthropos viz. eyther man or woman eat after examination Gal. 3. 28. there is neither male nor female in Christ c. 1 Cor. 12. 13. we have been all made to drink into one spirit and Dorcas is a disciple Act. 9. 36. and the disciples met together together to break bread Act. 20. 7. c. That women are to be partakers of the Lords supper is no question but whether there be commandement or example expressely nameing women that you have not shewed from these scriptures Concerning 1 Cor. 11. 28. there is a word of the common gender but the Apostle sayth not in plaine termes thus let every woman examine her self and so eat seing the word anthropos may be applyed to the man and is sometimes restrayned to man onely as in Matth. 19. 3. is it lawfull for Anthropos to put away his wife and Hebr. 5. 1. and every high Priest is taken ex anthropon And in reproving of their abuse the Apostle useth words of the masculine gender also the words joyned with Anthropos 1 Cor. 11. 28. are of the masculine gender let a man examine himself cauton for he that eateth esthion c this compared with Christs institution where onely men were present though women were in the citie shâ—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 froÌ„ 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 circuÌ„cising be expired yet is not the
member of any Church shall baptise make a Church that without coÌ„maundemeÌ„t from God Now you say a Church can not be erected without baptisme because baptisme is the visible forme thereof consider you that are so barren of proof for the administring of Baptising to your self that you can not shew one good reason to warrant it to be lawful if by condemning reiecting of that baptisme which you received in Antichristianisme you overthrow not your new Church for if a Church can not be without baptisme and you not able to prove your new baptisme from the scriptures which have reiected the old Then is your assembly an idol And so while you condemne other Churches vniustly for false yours proves more false then any But concerning baptisme which you call the visible forme fo the Church I answer 1. the forme of a Church is coÌ„mon to all together 2. If Baptisme be the forme theÌ„ it may come to passe that one man may be a visible Church as he that first in the company baptiseth himself he is a Church being baptised for he that hath the forme upoÌ„ him must needs be the thing formed And so Mr Smyth was a Church when he baptised himself which is absurd to think But coÌ„cerning the matter forme of the Church this you have written That * Paralelsâ— c. pa. 11â— two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament and therefore have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament induced vpon them Againe speaking of the exiled English Church at Amsterdam you say that they have reduced the Church to the Apostolike constitution Differencâ— c. in the Preface which consisteth in 3. things 1. the true matter which are Saincts onely 2. The forme which is the vniting of them together in the covenant 3. the true propertie which is communion in all the holy things Thus you contradict your self here you teach us that vniting of people together in the covenant is the forme of the Church And in this writing that baptisme is the forme Certeynly the holy Ghost * Act. 2. 3. 39. Ephe. 4â— 4. 5. distinguisheth baptisme both from the covenant and the body But to contend about the forme of the Church is here not to the purpose seing both you and we graunt that a Church must consist of baptised persons you contending for your new devised baptisme we holding that baptisme which wee have already received Further you reason for the erecting of your baptisme That when al Christ visible ordinances are lost eyther men must recover them agayn Ans or must let them alone if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues as the Apostles did then men are FAMILISTS or if they must receive them men must begin so to do And then two men ioyning together may make a Church as you say why may they not baptise seing they can not conioyne into Christ but by Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christs commaundements must be obeyed Ergo this commaundement c. First for the visible ordinances of Christ his Church hath right unto them and his people are to have the vse of them by such means and Ministery as he hath appointed but every man may not take upon him the administration of these ordinances but * they whom the Lord hath given Heb. 5. 4. authoritie and office thereunto God is not the †author of confusion Cor. 14. but of order It wil not follow because the Church is to have baptisme therefore any one may administer it when al are vnbaptised Thus might Ieroboam plead for the * Preists that he made of the lowest of the people King 12 that it was a necessity seing al the Priests of Levi were departed and as at this dâ—y they plead in England for their vnpreaching Preists that eyther they must have such or be without service and Sacraments which plea as we condemne in them so do we the administration of the Sacraments or other of Gods ordinances without warrant from the Lord. And therefore they must be let alone til they may be had by that rule that Christ hath left vs for the injoying of the same For this I am sure of that the word of the Lord is perfect and CHRIST hath left vs certayne direction for the practising of al his ordinances at all tymes Now if the Scripture have not shewed who shal baptise in the Churches arising out of Apostacy then who dare take vpon him to give direction And though we are not to loke for extraordinary men which to do say you were familisme yet must we loke for ordinary meanes men must not do that which they are not warranted by the word though the thing be to be done Secondly for two being ioyned together in covenant with the Lord to walk in his wayes they have * warrant so to do if there be no visible Church for them to ioyne unto although I do not approve that every two Mat. 18 or three shall ioyne together so walk when they may conveniently ioyne to a Church set already in the wayes of God neyther may they attempt any thing beyoÌ„d their measure calling least they fal into the sinne of Corah c. And as for two baptising themselves or one an other that can they not do without calling from God And therefore you not having calling herevnto being as you say vnbaptised I pray you tel me how you are authorised by Christ herevnto conjoyned into his name The Admistration of Baptisme is by Christ †Mat. 19. Ephe. 4. 11 12. commaunded to his Apostles and Ministers of the word as before is shewed As for your reason which is That els they can not conioyne into Christ but by baptisme I answer we may be ioyned into Christ by being vnited in one spirit into his covenant of life And though persons that were never baptised be received into the Church by baptisme yet wil it not folow that such as are baptised in apostate Churches 〈◊〉 must any more be baptied theÌ„ they that being circuÌ„cised were recircuÌ„cised when they ioyned to the Church of the Iewes And baptisme is not our graffing into Christ but the signe or seale thereof and so are those Scriptures which you alledg to be vnderstode And as you say The commaundement of God must be obeyed and so this commaundement It is true being done according to the order and way that Christ hath appointed therefore you break the commaundement to baptise your self others without commission from Christ are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes Pharisees * Mat. 15 3. who traÌ„sgressed the commandements of God by their traditions so you do in this your new baptisme transgresse Gods coÌ„maundement to magnifie your own devised practise Look well to it the Lord
his wife and as a wife in one respect so an heire in an other as here the Apostle calls that church And surely she could not be called an heire if she had not title to an inheritance and this then must be by covenant Besides the church of Israel was able and did covenant with the Lord You labour to chayn up the Lords grace and to bynde him that he cannot promise good to the children of the faythful or save them in Christ except they do actually by voyce and words of their own speaking stipulate or coÌ„tract with the Lord the contrarie †Deu. 2â— 10. 15. Aâ— 2. 39. is witnessed by the holy Ghost 3. The Lord did never appoint that baptisme should seal up his new Tectament Rep. to infants Of this I have spoken before throughout the first treatise Ans And for your selves you hold that baptism sealeth up the covenant neither to yong nor old and therefore you might wel have spared this particular As for that which followes or that infants should by his baptisme be admitted in to the body of Antichrist c. I grant not into the body of Antichrist for Antichrist hath no right to any of the ordinances of God but the questioÌ„ is not what he hath right unto but whether the Lords ordinance is to be rejected together with the pollution thereof The Lord did not appoint that Belshaâ—her his princes wyves and concubines should drink in the vessels of the Temple or them to be caried into BabyloÌ„ but * Dan. 5. 2 3. 4. they being there prophaned yet were “ Ezr. 1. 8. 11 caried out thence served for the use of the Temple And so do we hold of baptisme of the scriptures rejecting the corruptions that did cleave unto them in Poperie and applying them with their right use to our selves But the end of Christs baptisme is to manifest visibly that the partie confessing his Rep. sinne is sealed by the spirit unto the day of redemption that he hath visibly put on Christ that he is mortified crucified risen againe c. Rom. 6. 1. 6. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. These ends of baptisme I deny not but we must not deprive infants of this grace neither exclude that Ansâ— special end of baptisme to wit the sealing up unto us the pomise of God which is the thing you can not away with I know the true beleevers ar sealed with the spirit a seal invisible so were the godly under the old Test al that are the Lords are in Christ have his spirit dwelling in them els could they not be his And it is true also that the promise of the spirit hinders not the outward meanes which God hath sanctified for the begetting and increasing of our fayth for he worketh together with them Seeing therefore the matter forme and end of baptisme in the false church is from man even from Antichrist therefore the Lord is not the Author of this baptisme but the baptisme is Antichrists wholly And although he useth the words In nomine patris filij spiritus sancti Amen as the Papists do in sprinkling holy water in baptising of their belles as coniurers do in their charmes yet this can not make true baptisme c. How untrue that is which you speak of Baptisme in Poperie as being â—â—s from Antichrist and not from Iesus Christ for the matter c. I have shewed before The Papists when they baptise children do intend to administer baptisme and do baptise them into the name of Christ and not into the name of the Pope And though they do in the use of this holy ordinance adde a number of superstitious ceremonies and observations withal yet keep they the forme * set downe by Christ without devising a new And Mat. 2â— therefore it is not true to say that baptisme is Antichrists wholly The abusing of the name of God by papists or conjurers in their baptising of bells and conjurations c. is their sinne which we leave unto them selves the ordinance of God we retayn which we know their abuse cannot annihilate And though you except these words In nomine patris c. have been prophaned by the Papists As much may be sayd of the scriptures And if prophanation be a cause sufficient to reject baptisme then by lyke reason may the scriptures be cast away And this also you are in a reasonable forewardnes for no translated scriptures must come in your worship yet for some uses you are contented to receive the scriptures though they have been prophaned but baptisme for no use at all because say you it is essentially corrupted in matter and forme and use yet not another matter forme and use your self hath confessed †That if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing â—haracter â—g 53. their sinnes and fayth into the Trinitie it should not have been repeated So that all this florish that you make about the essential corruption in matter forme and use stands in this that you hold that infants are not capable of baptisme which is proved already against you Againe these corruptions in or about the matter and forme of baptisme are accidental and not the changing of the matter forme and end as before is shewed Furthermore whereas I sayd that the Israelites in their Apostasie were a false church you answer If so you understand a false church Repâ— viz. meetings or companies of men assembled together in a wrong place to a wrong worship to a wrong Priesthood I yeeld Israel to be a false church but I deny that to be the true definition of a false church c. By a false church I understand a church apostate neither do I describe Answ a false or an apostate Church as in the first place you set downe but such a church I hold to be in apostasie that hath †2 The. â— 1 Tim. 4. fallen from the fayth and waye of Christ * Hos 2. broken covenant with God and “ 2 Chr. 12. 11. forsaken him †2 Chro. 9. 1 Kin. 28. 33. 14. 9. that erects a new fellowship amongst themselves of their own invention and worship God by the hands of false Ministers with false worship c. This was the state of Israel which came to be without the “ 2 Chr. 1â— 3. true God c. and therefore she was a church in apostasie and not the true * Hos 2. â— wiâ—e of the Lord. That false is contrarie to true I graunt but in that sense I never intended to cal Israel a false church as having nothing that belonged to the true church in it no more is Antichrists such a one Yet the having of some of Gods holy things in them in a corrupt manner cannot make them true churches ches Here you indeavour to prove Israel a false church c. A true church is discerned in the true causes essential and so a false church by