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
another contrarie to the scripture for the truth sake That Augustine was an heretick and condemned Auxentius for the truth contrary to the Scripture resteth for you to prove if you can I have already proved that the denying of Baptisme to Infants is an error you have not in all this your writing confuted the same as wil appeare in the answer And here let it be observed that you acknowledge AuxeÌ„tius Pelagius to be hereticks so these your errors to have bene first broched by men iustly condemned for heresie for you say one heretick condemned another Further concerning the fathers by me alleadged in the 6. page of my writing to shew the practise of Churches in baptising of Infants you passe them over with this answer saying I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Cyprian Origine Nazianzene Ambrose and many others were as grosse hereticks if he be an heretick that holdeth an heresie as Auxentius and Pelagius c. That these Fathers and others had their errors we do not deny but that they were hereticks and such as did obstinately defend their errors being convinced therof by the word of God is more I think then you can prove we do not say that the holding of every error makes an heretick but when he that holds an error and persisteth obstinately therin after admonition â— say that such a one is to be rejected Tit. 3. 10. And though you could â—ove those fathers as grosse heretiks as Auxentius Pelagius as I know â—u can not in that sense as the Scripture taketh this word Hâ—reticke yet â—is opinion of those Catabaptists is not therby iustifed for as an heretique â—ay hold some points hereticall so may he some truthes And you are to â—ove that those fathers did vnjustly condemn Auxentius and Pelagius â—r the denying of the baptisme of Infants or els you Answer not to the â—urpose As for our acknowledging of the Auncient fathers to be Antichristian â—t is more theâ— you have froÌ„ me or can shew that I have so affirmed in deed â—n there tymes the churches were in declyning and through ignorance and careles taking heede to the word Sathan beganne to prepare way for Antichrist but that we account them simply Antichristian as fallen into that deepe Apostacy we doe not they had some Ceremonies and other observances that we approve not of yet reteyned they many of gods ordinances wherof Paedobaptistry is one And where as yov say it is no more to be respected 〈◊〉 the Ancient Churches then the Prelacy and read prayer in the same we have learned by the word to put difference betwene the things of God reteyned in Churches declyning and the inventions of men though you cast out both together account vs AntichristiaÌ„ for the same next you proceed to examine my Arguments from the scripture alledged to prove that Infants are to be baptised 1. OF THE FIRST POSITION concerning the Baptising of infants Rich Clifton Argument I. Gen. 17. 10. God made his covenant to Abraham and to his seed from whence I reason thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him and to all his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfore that is commanded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrhams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2. 39 sayth the promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are a farre off as many as the Lord our God shall call In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive and were baptised into And therfore is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is sayd to redeme vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8. 9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant for otherwise ABRAHAMS covenaunt should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a tyme Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs and to our infants els it is not the same that by the coÌ„mandement of God For the abolishing of circuÌ„cisioÌ„ the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospell doth not abrogate or disannul the commaundement of sealing the covenaunt to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant beloÌ„gs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seale thereof to them to their seede as it did to Abraham to his seed The outward ceremony onely changed Mr Smyth To this Argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two coveâ—nts or testaments for a covenant testament is all one in the originals though â—he English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham and his carâ—al seed and of that covenaÌ„t was circuÌ„cisioÌ„ a seale another covenaÌ„t made with AbrahaÌ„ and his Spirituall seed and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seale for â—he carnall covenant had a carnal seale vpon the carnall seed the Spirituall covenant had a Spirituall seale vpon the Spirituall seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnall seale could not seale vp the Spirituall covenant to the Spirituall seed for to say so is to leap over the hedge and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth c. Rich Clifton Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham a carnall a spirituall the one with Abraham and his carnall seed the other with him and his spirituall seed I answer first that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation which is That God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was * Gen. 17. 10. 11. Râ— 4. 11. sealed with circumcision and it is the same covenant that is established by the †2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12. bloud of Christ vnto all the faithfull seed sealed vnder the Gospell * Mat. 19. by baptisme in stead of circumcision Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed the scripture knoweth none In this covenant is promised through Iesus Christ remission of sinnes iustification life everlasting with all saving graces to all that †Heb. 8. â— Ier. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11. beleeve And that this is so the
The major Proposition I think will not be denyed it is written 1 Cor. 3 21. 22. All things are yours Rom. 9. 4. The assumption is Mat. 19. 13. 17. For of such is the kingdome of God meaning that his kingdome stood not onely of such as being of yeares that beleeved but also of their infants And this he declareth not onely in this saying but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their comming unto him also by coÌ„maunding to suffer them to come and by putting his hands vpon them and blessing them Mat. 19. 13. 14. 15. For would Christ have blessed them that were not of his kingdome or do not the blessings apperteyne onely to the children of the kingdom even to the seed of AbrahaÌ„ Gal. 3. 8. 18. If it be objected that children are not capable of baptisme I answer they are as capable thereof as the infants of Israel were of circumcision being both partakers of the same promises with them and in all respects as capable of the outward seales of the covenant as they were And therefore the infants of beleevers are to be baptised M. Smyth To this Argument of yours I make answer diversly First you have not proved that the visible Church and all the ordinances thereof perteyne to infants of the faithful for the infants of the Iewes that were presented to Christ were not infants of beleevers c. Rich Clifton You answer you say diversly but yet your answer would have been more direct and playne to my understanding if you had denyed eyther proposition or distinguished in stead whereof you demannd divers questions deny the sequele of the conclusion and pretend absurdities to follow notwithstanding I will answer to your particulars And first where you say I have not proved that the visible Church and all the ordinances thereof perteyned to infants c. I have proved that which I vndertook viz both the parts of my argument and you deny neyther but say I have not proved the conclusion which if the Argument be in mood and figure must necessarily follow upon true premisses Next you say the infants that were presented to Christ were not infants of beleevers for ought that I see c. Neyther have you any likelihood to judge theÌ„ to be infaÌ„ts of any others â—at 10. â— Mat. â— 13. 14. that were not either of the Iewes or Proselytes for would Christ receive the infants of the vnbeleeving Gentiles and to say of them of such is the kingdome of God therefore it cannot be that they were the children of unbeleevers unlesse we shall imagine that Christ did practise contrary to the course â— hath set downe for the receiving of them into his covenant that are without also this was in * Mar. â— 1. Iudah by the far syde of Iorden whether the people resorted unto him again †Marâ— 10. Mat 1. after he was come out of Gallily And though the text mencion not who they were that brought the infaÌ„ts to Christ nor â—hose they were as it was not needful for vs to know yet by the circumstance of the place and persons comming then vnto him it cannot otherwise be thought but that they were of the children of the Iewes or proselytes and as for your likelihood to the contrary it is no likelihood at all seing the Disciples fayled in many things “ Luk. 9. 54. 55. they also besought him to send the Cananitish away yet he received her Now the cause why the Disciples would have had the Canaanite sent away was for that she cried after * Mat. 1â— 22. 23. 2â— them and it may be this was the reason why the disciples rebuked them that brought the infants because they troubled them or it may be they thought infants uncapable of knowledge and so could not profit by the word preached but this matters not for by Christs reproving of them it is manifest that they erred in so doing that they ought not to have forbidden children to have bene brought vnto him You say it may be they were the children of some of the Romane souldiers or some Caâ—anish persons So it may be the parents of these infants were proselytes and most likely they were Iewes but what is this to the purpose answer to the argugument for this is but to seek shifts when you cannot find a sufficient answer But suppose say you they were children of the Jewes how is it prooved that their parents were beleevers seing the Iewes for the most part were stiffenecked and uncircumcised in hart Although some of the Iewes wer stiffenecked yet how is it proved that these were the infants of such seing many of the “ Ioh. 7. â— people beleeved in him nay rather the contrary appeares by * Marâ— 10. 1. 13. their comming to heare Christ and the bringing of their infants unto him that they were not of those that were stiffenecked for would they have sought to Christ to blesse their children if they had dispised him And although the parents of these infants might be such as yet were not fully instructed that the Messiah was come whom they looked for the contrarie is more probable yet did they professe the Lord to be their God whom they ought to worship therefore were in externall account beleevers and members of the Church If they had been the children of beleeving Iewes that were baptised by John â—â— Christs disciples c Whether these Infants or their Parents were baptised by Iohn or Chr. disciples the scripture mentioneth not neither is it greatly material for us to know els the spirit had reveyled it that they were blessed of Christ ther is no question But say you if they were baptised what need was there to bring them to Christ except iâ— were for popish confirmation The Scripture sets down the end why viz. that †Christ should lay his hands on them and pray for â—uk 18. â— Mat. â— 13. Gen. 48. â— 20. Mar. 7. â— Luk. 4. â— Act. 9. 17. Act. 8. â— 19. Act. 19. â—6 them or blesse them The laying hands on the partie blessed was practised by the * fathers when they would pray for or blesse their children Christ used it in “ working of miracles for they that brought the deaf man prayed him to put his hands upon him all they that had sick of diverse diseases brought them unto him and he layed his hands on every of them and healed them Also Christs disciples practised this laying on of hands praying not onely in †curing the diseased but also * upon them that were baptised And Paul “ layed his hands upon those twelve at Ephesus who wer baptised with Iohns Baptisme If the Apostles might lay their hands upon them that were already baptised and pray for them and this I hope was no popish confirmation might not our Saviour do this to these Infants if they were baptised but it must be a needlesse thing to bring them unto him thus to be
ask you why you put me to the proof of it seing I never held any such thing Nay I deny that the blessing of God reacheth no further then to the members of the visible Church for the Churches †King 18. Rev. 4. members are many invisible but that the blessing of Abraham perteyneth to the visible Church I hope you wil not deny see Ephe. 2. 11-22 3. 6 19. 4. 8 -14 2 Cor. 4. 9. Col. 1. 3-6 1 Thes 1. 2. 10. in all which places in divers others it doth appeare that these visible Churches had received the blessing of Abraham Or that from this particular of Christs praying for infants Mar. 10. 13. baptising of infants to follow My argument from this place of Mat. 10. 13. 14. to prove that baptisme belongs to the infants of beleevers you have already and have not answered it why require you it againe I have proved that infants are of the Kingdome of God as also that the holy things of God as baptisme c. belong to all the members of this kingdome But further to satisfie your desire thus I prove baptisme to belong to infants from this particular of Christs praying for them For whom Christ prayed they were of his everlasting covenant for he prayed for them ¶ Ioh. 17. 10. 20. which were given him and not for the world But Christ prayed for these infants Mat. 19. 13. Therefore these infants were of his everlasting covenant and so consequently baptisme the signe thereof belonged vnto them seing God both in making “‘ Gen. 17 7 -10 this covenant with Abraham gave to him and to his seed together with it circumcision the seale thereof And also in commanding the †Mat. 2â— 19. publishing of the same covenant to all nations did withall command baptisme to be administred Againe those whom Christ blesseth he blesseth with the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3. 14. conferd with vers 8. 16. 9. But Christ blesseth these infants Mar. 10. 16. Therefore Christ blesseth them with the blessing of Abraham and so consequently these infants were capable of baptisme because the Lord hath ioyned together the blessing or covenant and the signe or seale thereof as before hath bene shewed Or how caÌ„ you prove that Christ obtayned for theÌ„ prayed for remissioÌ„ of sinnes the holy Ghost fayth everlasting life for many were brought to Christ for releife of bodily infirmities And I demande of you againe for what other things should Christ pray for these Infants but for spirituall graces there is no mention that they were brought for the curing of any bodily infirmitie in them and if they had been diseased it is like the Apostles would not have hindered their Mat 19. â— comming to Christ the end of their †bringing of their infants to him was to put his hands vpon them and to pray The reason that Christ yeeldeth why they should suffer little children to come to him because of such is the kingdome of God doth argue of what nature the things were he prayed for Againe where Christ prayed for the curing of any corporall disease Mat 8. 4. 15. â— 28. 29. â— Mat 8. â—6 it is recorded with what * infirmitie they that he prayed for were troubled that so the miracle might be knowen which was the end of his doing of great works The “ Centurion requiring Christ for his servant shewed his disease but those that brought the infants mention no corporall infirmity for which they should desire him to pray for them Thus you having made all these questions you proceed to a second answer saying I deny that it followeth because Christ blessed some of the infants of the Iewes or Gentiles vpon speciall intreatie therefore that it may hence be concluded that generally the covenant and the seal of the covenant as you call baptisme doth apperteyne to them for there is not the same reason of all infants as of some specially blessed as Iohn Baptist Ieremy Sampson I marvel greatly that you will thus shift off doth not my reason prove that the covenant and seal therof apperteyneth to the infants of the faithfull seing of such is the kingdome of God Doth Christ say these infants are blessed onely because they alone are of the kingdom of God Nay sayth he not of such including other infants also is the kingdome of God And dooth not the reason which our Saviour useth here why these infants should come to him inferre so much for they that brought them being stayed he reasons thus against his disciples why they ought not to hinder them because of such as these are is the Kingdome of God meaning not all infants but the infants of beleevers as these were But in that you say there is not the same reason of all infants as of some speâ—â—lly blessed c. Neyther doo we reason for such speciall blessings or callings as were â—iven to John Baptist Jeremy or Sampson but for the right of the covenant â—o appertayne to all the seed of the faithfull for although God do out of â—he seede of beleevers chose some whome he wil imploy to speciall service aâ—ove others and therefore doth bestowe on them more then ordinary â—iftes yet this hinders not the rest of the infants of the faythfull from â—heir right to Gods covenant or coÌ„mon salvation Neyther indeed can you prove that these infants which were blessed of Christ were blessed with any extraordinary blessings or callings for no â—â—ch things is recorded of them therefore to compare them their blesâ—nge with these three extraordinarie servants of God John Baptist Ieremy â—d Sampson is not to make an equall comparison Thirdly If Baptisme doth appertaine to infants because Christ blesseth some partiâ—ular infants and because Christ saith the Kingdome of God appertaines to such then the lords supper also I answer that doth not follow the ordinances of Christ belong to the members of the Church and they are to partake of them as they are capable The infantes of the Iewes could receive circumcision at eight dayes of age but could not eat the passeover so likewise the children of Christians are capable of Baptisme the first day of their birth but not of the Lords â—pper because the Lord Iesus of such as participates therof requires †1. Cor. 11 26-31 to examine themselves to shew forth the Lords death c. which children cannot performe in regard of their yeares And therefore it wil not follow that if infants are to be baptised therefore to receive the Lords supper And though you would prevent this answer by saying They must have it meaning the Lords supper as sone as they can eat it I grant as much as sone as they can eate it as the Lord hath * 1. Cor. 11 27. commanded They cannot confesse their sinnes and faith and so cannot be baptised To this objection sufficient answer is given already and further occasion of answer wil follow 4. I would know why the
not desolved when eyther of them is called to the faith so that the beleeving husband may lawfully use her as his wife if she be content to dwel with him 1 Cor. 7. 12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or separated to such use to their father as the wife is to her husband And therefore are the children called holy because they are the seed of a beleeving father Mr. Smyth I answer first denying your maiors consequent Seing that all the nation of the Jewes were holy and yet not within the covenant of Abraham I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ that they were not all within that covenant is playne Rom. 9. 6. all they are not Israel which are of Israel verse 7. neyther are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham ver 12. God revealed that the elder should serve the younger Act. 7. 51. yee have alwayes resisted the holy Ghost as your forefathers haue done so do you c. Rich Clifton This is a strange opinion of yours that a people of God can be holy be without the covenant in Christ Is there a people called out and separated from the world to offer sacrifices and to worship God which may be called and are a holy people considered out of Christ The covenant made with Abraham and his seed in Christ to come which Abraham received caused that the Israelites were called * a holy natioÌ„ or a holy people Exod. 19. Rom. 11. â— Hâ—b 4. 2. Rom. 11. â—6 collectiuely being separate from the nations to be the house kingdome of God And although †many of the Iewes by vnbeleefe cut of themselves from the priveledges of Abraham yet considering the rest of that people as his seed and the generall face of that Church in the true constitution therof they were holy as the Apostle sayth “ if the root be holy so ar the branches and if the first frutes be holy so is the whole lumpe As it is one thing to consider of a Church in respect of the whole as it is one body of Christ and another thing to consider thereof according to every particular member so is it one thing to call a people holy respecting theire covenant in Christ into which they have solemnely entred Deu. 29. 10. 15. and promised to be Gods people and another to consider thereof according to the personal holynes of every particuler member the Church hath the denominatioÌ„ of holines of the former not of the latter though this also be required for the personall holines of any particular members causeth not the whol multitude to be called a holy people els might many assemblies be called holy for that there may be and are some particular persons in the same indued with personall holynes but their joynt entering into Gods covenant and felowship in the same therefore let divers holy persons come together to serve the Lord entermingled with an Antichristian assembly that congregation shall not be called holy because there Philip. 1. 2 Cor. 6. â—6 17. is not a separation of the cleane from the vncleane and a joyning together of the godly in one body or “ felowship of the Gospel neyther can you ever prove that any people or congregation is called holy with whom the Lord hath not made his covenant of salvation But let vs see how you reason All the nation of the Iewes say you were holy yet not within the covenant of Abraham c. You reason not ad idem for in saying that all the nation of the Iewes were called holy here you speak of them as they were a people separated from other nations and had * Deut. 10 -15. entred covenant with God to be his people as he with them to be their God in which respect they were called holy but in saying that all were not with in the covenant you intend it of some particular members of the body of that people being considered a part from the whole and so the Scriptures by you alledged do import For neyther Paul to the Romanes cha 9. 6. nor Steven in the Act. cha 7. 51. do speake of the whole nation but of particular persons who by their vnbeleiffe and evil workes did manyfest themselves to be no true Israelites Concerning that place of rom 9. 6. the Apostle speaking of the rejection Rom. 9. â— of the Iewes which might there vpon charge God that if he did reject them he kept not promise with their fathers labours to remove all such Calumnies saying it cannot be that the word of God should take none effect proveth withal that the promise is not cut of though the Iewes for their vnbeleife be rejected seing the promise is sure to the elect The Apostle thus speaking not of the body of the people but of some particulars that sel away is falsly alledged to prove that all the natioÌ„ of the Iewes were not within the covenant of salvation And that some of them that were of Israel were not true Israelites who wil deny but that many of them discovered themselves to be no true sonnes of Abraham yet this proves not that the whol Church in respect of the visible face of it was not within the covenant But you will reply that you sayd that they were not all within the covenant and I answer agayn if you reason not concerning the face of that people of Israel but of Gods secret election and reprobation it is not to the purpose for so disputing you answer not the Argument And so may you reason against the visible Church under the Gospel that not all therein are within the covenant because * Luk. 1â— 25. 26. 27 1. Ioh. 2. 19 many prove hypocrites And so by your reasoning neither the Church of the new Testament nor of the old in respect of the generall face thereof are under the covenant of grace which is the thing controverted and not the state of particular persons As towchting that place of Act. 7. 51. Steven spake to the Ieâ—es there present to accuse him but in so speaking did not accuse the whole body of the church vnder the old Testament but those his persecuters and there forefathers who also persecuted the Prophets before them brake Gods covenant and * so manifested themselves to be of their father the Divil â—oh 8. 44. Now to reason thus from the example of those wicked Iewes and to say many of the Iewes brake the covenant and became rebellious for al did not therefore the body of the people was never within the covenant is to conclude upon a false ground If it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secret election and not of mans knowledg I answer the twelft verse is plâ—yne of that which was reveled vnto the church and yet Esau was holy and circumcised being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ. The place I have expounded
their parents come not to the fayth because they are not visibly knowen to vs to be of the covenant as the infants of the faithfull are And the Church is not to administer baptisme but to those that are children of the covenant visibly apparant As for condemning or not condemning I leave to God That which I speak of is touching our question about the administration of baptisme that it appertaines onely to members of the Church and to such as come out of the world to be ioyned vnto it And seing the infants of vnbeleevers to vs appeere not to be of the kingdome of Christ because their parents remayne stil in infidelity we cannot acknowledg them nether have we any rule to admit them vnles some beleever make them his children by adoption or the like And we refuse them as not belonging to the visible communion of the faithful as yet and there â—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 â—o expresse commaundement for baptising of infants but c. Circumcision the seale of the covenant of grace was †Gen. 17. â— 12. Mat. 2â— 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 â—eprobation and yet did circumcise them 1. I do not find that that secreete was reveiled vnto them 2. Christ knew that Iudas was reproved yet eate he the passeover with him The administration of the Sacraments is according to mens outward standing not according to election therefore the parents ought to circumcise them of their houshold according as the Lord had commauÌ„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. 1â— Isaacks line and not of Ismaels in whom not onely Isaac and his posterity but al the “ Gal. 3. 8. nations of the earth should be blessed yea Ismael if he beleeved and so many of his stocke as should beleeve And so the promise concerning Christ to come was to be fulfilled in the seed of Isaac and not of Ismael or Esau As touching Ismaels Esaus state is before spoken of And thus much concerning this first Position For where you say we have no expresse commaundement for baptising of infants and al that followes to the end of this question is answered before yet I wil note this here that you end this point with a notable vntruth saying That we have an expresse commaundement many examples to the contrary of baptising of infants For there is neither any coÌ„maund ment to forbid it nor any example to the contrary agaynst it as I have shewed before OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptising of Elder People 〈…〉 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme Answer AS the former Position denyeth the baptisig of infants so doth this adnihilate that Baptisme which we hav received in the Apostate Church and establisheth rebaptization And this also I will shew to be an error by proving the contrarie and then answer the Reasons hereunto annexed That baptisme administred in the apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptisme not to be iterated thus I prove it I. Argument If the Apostacie of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that that it ceased to be the seal of Gods covenant to so many of theÌ„ as repented no more doth the Apostasie of our fore-Elders so polute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a sacrament to so many of them that turne unto God from their sinnes But the first is true 2 Chron. 30. 11. 18. 21. els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierusalem have eaten the Passeover seing no uncircumcised might eat thereof Ergo the second If it be obiected that the apostasie is not alike theÌ„ let it be shewed that the apostasie under Antichrist did make a nullitie of baptism not the apostasie of Israel of circumcision for Israel played the harlot so deeply that the Lord denyed her to be his wife or himself to be her husband Hose 2. 2. Mr Smyth And thus having shewed the vanitie of your answeres to my reasons against â—swer paedobaptistrie let us come to your answere made to my 2. Position 2. That Antichristians converted c. Your first Argument is framed thus If the apostasie of Israel c. I answer that the apostasie of Antichrist is deeper then the apostasie of Israel for first Antichristians are not called Israelites but Babylonias Egyptians Sodomites Gentiles in the Revelation whereby the holy spirit of wisedome giveth vs to conceive that he doth account the apostasie of Antichrist equâ—â— to Paganisme it self c. Rich Clifton Whether my answers be vaine or your reasons haeretical let the reader â—ply judge For your answer to this my first Argument against your second Position if it be graunted that the Apostasie of Antichrist be worse then of Israel yet this difference is but according to the lesse the greater both are Apostasie But as concerning these names of Sodomites c. they do not prove that Antichristianisme is equalled to Paganisme rather they shew that the Antichristians were in some things like to the Sodomites Aegyptians c. Was Iuda her circumcision voyd because the Prophet calles â—a 1. 10. their Princes * the Princes of Sodome the people the people of Gomorah If this had bene so they must haue bene new circumcised Know you not that the holy Ghost by these similitudes would manifest some abhominable sinne that he saw in his people wherein they became like unto the profane GeÌ„tiles And the more to cause them to detest their sinne likeneth them to such notorious sinners as had tasted of the hand of God against them for their sinnes Wherefore as Iudah for her uniust shedding of blood and other filthy sinnes is called Sodome and Gomorah So the Antichristians are called Sodome for their filthy sinne of Sodomitrie and such like wherein they become like to the Sodomites and Egypt and Babylon because they keep Gods people under a spirituall servitude as formerly Egypt and Babylon had done the Israelites and Iewes under a corporal boÌ„dage And the Antichristians if they be compared to the Gentiles which I do not remember it is in respect of their profanenes and strange Gods for as the Gentiles had many Gods to whom they gave spiritual worship so the Antichristians have their Gods Saincts of both sexes and the Angels to whom they do worship and service Notwithstanding all this their profanesse yet did they confesse God and Iesus Christ to be their saviour
Mat. 3. 11 man it is administred But if an infant c. be washed with water into the Trinitie I say there is neither An. true matter nor forme And so al infants baptised by Antichrist c. are to renounce it and to receave Christs marke of baptisme c. and when they shal manifest a new creature c. and then be baptised into the Trinitie this is not Anabaptistry but the true apostolick baptisme and so Christ Iohn and Christs Apostles were Anabaptists with you Sir c. for they baptised men that were washed before a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes Heb. 9. 10 c. if it be blasphemy to say Christ John or the 〈◊〉 Apostles were anabaptists though they were oftentymes some of them baptised into the Messiah in type c. so shall it be blasphemy in them that cal the true Christianes Anabaptists c. Sir if you mind wel your comparison it holds not for those washings â—p vnder the law were proper ordinances of the old TestameÌ„t declaring their repentance †and clensing from their dayly sinnes and pollutions by faith Joh. 13 10 in Christ then to come But baptisme whereof we speak is an ordinance of the Gospel and that but * one as their circumcision likewise was and Ephe. 4. 5 therefore being once administered though in some corruption is Anabaptisme to be iterated And it is such a washing as preacheth 〈◊〉 vs the purging of our sinnes by Christ And therefore it is not 〈◊〉 often washings under the law that can make men ANABAPTISTS for you know in what sense people now are called ANABAPTISTS viz. for their reiection of the baptisme of the Gospel which they have received and Baptising themselves agayne as you have put in practise And seing that which was administered in the Popish Assemblies is Baptisme it wil be no blasphemy in vs to cal them ANABAPTISTS that have there with bene once baptised and do recounce it and take to themselves a new of mans invention What els is here sayd is answered before And thus I conclude the confirmation of this fourth Argument that although the POPISH CHVRCHES be apostate the MINISTERY WORSHIP AND GOVERMENT false yet the word and baptisme therein reteayned being the Lords ordinances are not to be reiected with their pollution but purged from these staynes stil to be retayned and with Gods people to be caried with them out of spiritual BABYLON as the Iewes did the vessels of the Lords house out of Babilon of Chaldea For the precept concerning Apostate Churches is †Hos â— Rev. 1â— to take away their fornications and not the things of God polluted therewith V. Argument IF Antichrist be not the author of Baptisme but of some humane devises annexed unto it in the adminstratioÌ„ therof then are we not to pluck vp the wheat with the tares Mat. 13. 29. to cast away that which is Christs with Antichrists but to separate from that which is mans invention and still to retayne that which is of God But to baptise with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19 is from heaven Mat. 21. 25. and not from Antichrist Ergo we ought not to cast it away but those traditions wherewith Antichrist hath polluted it as examples K. Iosias and before him K. Ezechias when both the land and Temple were polluted 〈…〉 ng 21 7. 23. 4. did not pul downe the Temple but appointed the Preists to clense it who did so and brought out all the uncleannes that they had found in the house of God 2 ChroÌ„ 29. 16. 18. and 34. 8. For in reformation of things difference must be put betweene those things whereof God is the authour and such as are devised by man the former is to be purged from all profanation the things stil to be reteyned the other quite to be abolished This rule in all reformation of religion ought to be followed Mr Smyth I answere that as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple the Iewes Ans built it agayne so when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Church then must we build it vp agayne And when he hath destroyed true baptisme then must we rear it up againe therefore seeing Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme and hath reared vp a baptisme of his owne it must therefore be abolished c. R. Clyfton First I answere that baptisme in apostate Churches though it be polluted yet can not be sayd to be vtterly destroyed And therefore your answer is not sufficient to prove the rebaptising of them that were baptised in the Antichristian assemblies 2. In reiecting of that baptisme altogether and baptising a new you doe renounce that which is true therin by your owne confession viz. To wash with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost in that in your new baptising of your selves you repeate it agayne which you ought not if it be of God and so indeed you reteyne not any truth in it at all 3. As for your comparison of a false Church or Ministery with baptisme it is not equal for if you vnderstand by false Church and Ministry that which is devised by man onely then the constitutions thereof are not of Gods ordinance as in Iereboams Preists and as in Provincial or Diocesan Churches wherein not one beame rafter or stone is appointed by the lord and therefore can not be reteyned with the purging away of the corruptions therof But in baptisme I meane that which is administred in Popery there remaynes the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie which you with the tares pluck vp and cast in to the fyre 4. Wheras you say That in the false baptisme Church and Ministery the corruptions ar essential and the truth onely accidental and those accidental truthes must â—â— reserved and iterated I demaunde of you what be these accidental truthes in a false Baptisme Church and Ministery that are to be iterated and how you prove such iteration of accidents in baptisme if you say That to baptise with water into the name of the father c. be an accident to baptisme then is it not of the essence therof but Christ maketh this applied to a right subject the †Mat. 2â— 19. form of baptism And your self a little before have so * Characâ— pag. â—4 written â—ow if it be of the forme which gives the being of the thing how is it an accidet for you say necessarily for having true baptism we must repeat washing into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost which are but accidents And further you say a Turke so washed is not baptised How prove you this repeating of washing into the name of the Trinitie c. and how doth the baptising of a Turke prove this forme of washing to be an accident to the ceremony of baptisme seing
men to caâ—â— away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought agayne to Ierusalem nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord. 2. I answer that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes And therefore we may no more renounce it and to assume a new then they that returned to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision be recircumcised It is obiected of some that this comparison holdes not for Israel was a true Church and therefore their circumcision was true But an apostate Church hath nothing tâ—ue neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing and it is not true baptisme to such This obiection in part I have answered before and now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church but a false seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie 1. King 12. 30 -33 and 18. 19 -21 and so became an Harlot Hosea 2. 2. Secondly in the Apostate Church there be some things true in the substance as the word and Baptisme though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises 3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of â—â—ch a Church 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves and their seed And though in regard of the former estate they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly yet even to such members considered a part from such standing and as they are the seed of their forefathers so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes Rom. 11. 28. this appeareth in that he sayth come out of her my people Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed but that to them belonges the covenant yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea Bondage hinders not Gods grace But some may reply that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors Exod. 20. if we respect herein Gods mercie even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers Neyther do the members of an apostate Church cast of all profession of faith for they beleeve the scriptures and in Christ c. though withall they professe divers errors and worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church had forefathers that beleeved I answer it can not be denyed seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons as the Lord hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better And further intreat that the truth which I contend for may not by my weak defence beare any reproch but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written and both he and they that so practise may seriously coÌ„sider of that which is done and glorifie God by repentance March 14. 1608. Rich Clifton Mr. Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last Argument which may be framed into this forme As the false Ministerie worship are reiected the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed So the false worship and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something for the further clearing of the point 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised 2. He never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptised 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist R. Clyfton Concerning the causes of baptisme they have been formerly spoken of Answ To these particulars thus I answer brieflly to the first that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing To the 2. touching Pagans that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes fayth I am farre from approving 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful as you cal it I have before proved that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them and have removed al your objections to the contrarie The matter of baptisme is false 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should â—ep be baptised without his own confession c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22. This is true of such as are of yeares and now at the first to be received â—s into the church but not of their infants or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth Towching the places of 1 Pet 3. 21. Heb 10 22 I have answered unto in the former section Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them for Christ wil not contract â—ep in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age Gal. 4. 14. It is strange how you apply scriptures would any that is a Scholer or â—ns made conscience of the truth ever have applyed this place of the Galathians to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful The similitude that the Apostle useth comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors might teach you that the Lord did contract with that church how els could it ever have been
reason is from the testimonie of Tertullian Eusebius The words of Tertullian as Mr Sm. himself hath englished them are these Therfore to deferre not to hasten baptisme is more profitable for the condition disposition age of every person but especially as concerning yong children for what 〈…〉 there to bring sureties into danger for the baptising of Infants if there be no 〈…〉 of hastening the baptising of infants Seing the Sureties are disabled often 〈…〉 to performe theire promise both by reason of mortalitie and of the evil dispositiâ— sâ—â—e children when they come to yeares for whom they promised in baptisme c. â— First concerning Tertullian it is to be noted that thus he writeth â—n he was fallen into the opinions of the Cataphriges or Montanists â—â— so held divers errors as Augustine and others have observed out of â— workes And therefore being thus departed from the fayth Let â—e Reader judge if this man be a competent witnesse in this case Yet â—th not this man affirme that infants were not baptised in his tyme but â—ther the contrary in that he makes mention of Sureties for infants sayâ—g what necessitie is there to bring Sureties into danger for the baptising of infants â—hich words do plainly argue that the Church then used to baptise inâ—ts 2. Agayne that which he affirmeth was his owne private judgment â—d his Reasons are of no weight as the bringing of sureties into daunger and â—â— the suerties are disabled oftentymes to performe theire promise c. such sureties â—ot being appointed of God 3. P. Mart. Clas 4. ca. 8. affirmeth that â—â—tullian denyed Baptism to yong men and yong widowes and his owne â—rdes here related do seeme to intimate some such like thing in saying 〈…〉 ferre and not to hasten baptism is more profitable for the condition disposition and â—â— of every person And this he meaneth of others then yong children For â—er he speaketh of yong children saying especially concerning yong children â— 4. Crispen State of the Church pag. 47. 48. witnesseth that Tertullian brought â— extreeme vnction after baptism the Sygne of the Crosse offering for the dead and â—er the like dreames of the Montanists Now if Tertullians judgment be â—and agaynst infants baptism why not also for extream vnction the sygne â—f the Crosse and the like his errors seing all these are fruits proceeding â—om the same tree But thus this adversary careth not who the witnesse is so he wil speake in favour of his heresy let him be Montanist Papist or what othersoever But let it be further observed that about Tertullians tyme and after some deferred theire baptisme vntil they thought they should dye and so were not baptised vntil they fell into some great sicknes as Theodosius others And this seemeth to be Tertullians error as if baptisme was for washing awaye of sinnes past and not to come Concerning that which Eusebius reporteth of Athanasius his bap 〈…〉 of children in sport I have answered pag. 109. and set downe reasons â— prove that those children were not children of the church but of some oâ— the heathen which were instructed in the fayth of Christ by the church but were not received into the communion of the same These are the two Auncients that M. Smyth produceth against us whereof neither of theâ— affirmeth that the church did not baptise infants in those tymes Now to these two I wil oppose other two Auncients amongst many others that do testifie that infants in their tymes and before were baptised viz. Origin who sayth that the church received from the Apostles to give baptisme to infants lib. 5. ad Rom. And Augustine de Bap. contra Donatist lib. 4. cap. 23. who speaking of the Baptisme of Infants sayth that which the whole church holdeth neyther is ordeyned by councels but alwayes hath been holden we are to beleeve to be delivered by Apostolical authoritie The next corruption that the Separation is charged withal is to have a false ministerie Now the Ministers that we have are of Pastors Teachers called thereunto by election of the Church according to these Scriptures Eph. 4 9. 11 12. Rom. 12 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12 28. Acts. 13 1 2. Revel 1 20. Nehem 8 1 8. Mat. 23 2. Mal 2 7. Act. 14. 23. And practise of the primitive churches And of this Ministerie of Pastors and Teachers M. Smyth himself approveth in his Principles pag. 18. and in his Questions and answers pag. 8. printed this last year 1609. he describing the officers of the Church devides them first into Bishops and Deacons then the Bishops into Pastors or Teachers or Elders and withal describeth the Pastor to be a bishop over one particular Church excelling in the word of wisdome The Teacher to be a Bishop over one particular church excelling in the word of knowledge The Governour to be a Bishop of one particular visible Church excelling in wise government Thus hath he written and yet we having no other Ministerie then he himself approveth chargeth us to have a false Ministerie not caring to crosse himself so he may utter his bitternes against the Church of Christ The 3. corruption this adversarie chargeth us withal is false worship of reading books This he sayth but proves it not I will breifly set downe our practise that the Reader may take notice how unjustly we are charged 1. For prayer giving of thanks that is publiquely performed by our Pastor or Teacher who invocate the name of God praise him for his benefits â—s the spirit directs their harts to conceive and giveth utterance â—ithout the use of any book during that action according to those â—ptures Rom. 8. 26. 27. Eph. 6 18 19. Col. 4 2. Act. 6 4. Num. 6 23. â—4 27. Nehem. 9 3 38. Ezra 9 5 15. 10. 1. Ioel. 2 17. 2. They read the holy scriptures translated into our owne language â—me two or three chapters or moe as tyme wil serve shewing briefly the â—eaning thereof Which is warranted by these Scriptures Neh. 8 3 8. â—eut 31 11. Act. 15 21. Col. 4 16. 1 Thes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 4 13. 3. The Pastor or Teacher taketh some Scripture which they ordinarily â—llow and after the reading thereof do expound and apply the same by doctrine exhortation c. to the further edification of the church according to these scriptures Luk. 4. 16. 21. Act. 8. 35. 13 15. and 26. 7. â— Tim. 4 13. 2 Tim. 4 2. And together with the preaching of the word the Sacraments are administred after the rules of Christ with prayer and thankesgiving according to these Scriptures Mat. 28 19. 1 Cor. 11 23. c. Act. 20 7. c. 4. Some of the Psalmes of David before and after the exercise of the â—ord the same being first read and opened by the Pastor or Teacher is â—ing of the whole church together to the praise of God and our own ediâ—â—cation according to these Scriptures Eph. 5 19. Col. 3 16. Mat 26
such imputation but your self is become faulty in calumniating the ordinance of Christ viz the baptisme of infants accounting it an Antichristian error which I wish you well to consider of and not to adde sinne vnto sinne both in pleading for error and in disgracing the truth and the professors thereof Further you say it will not helpe me that these two truthes have bene condemned for heresie by the Churches in all ages for if the Apostles affoard contrary to the succeeding ages that which is most auncient is the truth I graunt if you can prove that the Apostles age affoards contrary to the succeeding ages for the iustifieng of these your opinions that then you have good warrant of your syde for calling them truthes but if the Churches which have coÌ„demned your positions for error have agreed herein with the holy scriptures then I say the brand of heresie lies iustly vpon them And whereas you alledge that many truthes wherevnto we are come have bene condemned for heretical in as many ages as those truthes which you defend I answer that not many truthes if any which we hold to my remembrance have bene condemned in the ancient Churches for heresies And suppose those Churches did fayle in some things as every Church is subject to erre yet followes it not that therfore they erred in condemning your opinions for haeresie some things I think you wil graunt are heresies which those ancient Churches succeeding the Apostles age did condemne as those of Arius Eutiches Macedonius and the rest and then is not their iudgement so lightly to be passed over that no reconing is to be made of what they have done agreable to the scriptures As for your errors we reject them not onely because the ancient Churches have so censured them but finding them contrary to the word of God therfore we condemne them 3. Whereas I did feare your broaching of these and your former opinions would be offensive and to the hindering of the truth this you passe over in presuming of the goodnes of your cause saying if any be hindred froÌ„ the truth it wil be their sinne but if you feare you say that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground I say it is that which is appointed to perdition and to perdition let it go Indeed if any be hindered from the truth by the publishing of the truth it is their sinne Mat. 11. 6. but if you which haue stood for the truth shall now by publishing of error cause the truth to be the more blasphemed give offence to weak professors that is your sinne and wil be too heavie to be answered at the judgement day if you repent not And as for our Church which you blasphemously call Antichristian know you that I do not feare the fall of it for it is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2 20. which hath a sure promise that the gates of hel shall not prevayle against it Mat. 16. 18. And therefore your Anathema cannot hurt vs but shall rebound back agayn whence it came 4. You say though I haue professed to forsake myne errors vpon their discovery and as I have practised for which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never profeessed my readines to be perverted from the truth which you call heresie and therfore if you did vndertake to write vpon this ground you might well haue spared your paines and saved your self from so grevous a sinne by pleading for Antichristian corruptions c. The ground of my perswasion concerning your willingnes to yeeld vnto the truth did arise partly from that perswasion which I had of your sanâ—tification and partly from the speaches of the messengers before named â—ho did affirme vnto me that if I could manifest by the word of God â—hat it was error which you hold you would acknowledge it And still â—ou say if you be in error it is * Passages page 71. ignorantly And therefore desirous of â—our good I did vndertake according to my small abilitie to manifest â—he truth vnto you by such reasons as I could at that present gather for the confirmation of the same which seing you make so small account of and answer me that I might have spared my paynes and saved my self from sin I am sory in that respect that I did write yet in regard of witnessing the â—ruth and performing a duty towards a brother fallen into error I repeÌ„t â—e not neither yet of committing any grevous sinne thereby as you charge me withall seing I plead for that which is of Christs and not for Antichristian corruptions And as for your errors so often graced by you with the title of truthes which you say you never professed to be perverted froÌ„ I mervayle not greatly therat for heresie is a work of the flesh Gal. 5. 20. that is easily and quickly imbraced but not so left and herein differs froÌ„ the truth to the receiving whereof we are hardly drawen as both you and I had experience but error drincketh as a pleasant potion Rev. 18. 3. without resistance and bewitcheth many that they should not obey the truth described and plainly manifest in their sight Gal. 3. 1. the poison whereof I am sory hath so infected your soule that you seeme to be changed into the nature thereof and to be as confident therein as in any truth of the gospel and though you account my praying to be for an overthrow of the Lords truth which is in deed for the conversion of you and that deceived company with you from your errors yet will I pray stil that God may open your eyes if you belong to him to see your grevous fall glorifie the truth of God which in this your writing so greatly you have disgraced Now I will come to answer the Positions with the reasons thereof and first concerning the former which is this 1. That infants are not to be baptised Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adheâ—nts was one of the first that denied the baptisme of infants 〈◊〉 after him Pelagius the heretique against whome Augustine others of the ancient fathers have opposed and condemned for heresie and that according to the scriptures which by Gods grace we shall together with them also further manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vntertake and then answer the reasons to the contrary Mr Smyth Now in the next place you make a speciall preface to the first point affirming thaâ— baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius c. Rich Clifton I sayd that Auxentius the Arrian was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of infants and then Pelagius whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned for heresie and you answer thus that one heretike condemned
sayd to be coinheritors with them and of the â—ame body see also Ephes 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the Iewes were called the * Mat. 8 12. children of the kingdome and of of the “ Act. 3. 25. covenant and unto whom the †Act. â— 32. promise was made And now it being proved that this spirituall covenant apperteyned to the Israelites and the conditions therof required at their hands I hope you will grant as much to the faythfull and their seed under the Gospel or els shew vs where and when the hand of Gods grace was shortened but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be lesse bountiful now then he was to the Iewes and therefore as the chidren of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circumcision so are the children now that descends from beleeving parents * 1 Cor. 7. 14. holy and have right to the covenant “ Mat. 19 14. and kingdome of God and consequently to baptisme the seal thereof But you say Infants wanting actuall faith cannot truely be sayd the children of Abraham I answer that actuall faith is required of such of Abrahams children as Here noâ— that actuaâ— faith in alâ— this treatisâ— is put for tâ— actual usâ— faith are grown to yeares And therfore you must proove that infants wanting actuall faith cannot be the children of Abraham and then must you prove that they are not Christs for if they be Christs they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29. But are that they are in secret to the Lord whatsoever they are Christ hath sayd playnely “ Mar. â— 14. that of such is the Kingdome of God And the promise is * Act. 2. 3. made to the beleevers and their seede And you leave them in secrete to the Lord thus shutting your eies against the cleare light of the truth The Scriptures following viz Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9. compared with GeÌ„ 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most playnly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham you leave vnanswered Next folow your reasons against poedobaptistrie the first wherof is this As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with the children of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first beleeved actually and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision Ergo the childreÌ„ of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive the baptisme of water This Argument which you alledge against Paedobaptistrie the very 〈◊〉 serves to confirm it for thus we reason for it observing your termes As it was with Abraham the father of the faythful so must it be with thâ— children of Abraham But Abraham first beleeved and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision he and his children Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeveâ— and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive baptisme of water they and their children Here let the reader consider yf you by this your owne Argument have not yeelded the cause for this is that which we stand for viz that As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his children the beleeving Gentiles Now Abraham beleeved that God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the †seale thereof he himself and all his males yea Isaac of eight dayes old â—om 4. 3 â— Gen. 17. â— 14. â— 27. â— 21. 4. Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeeve and then receive the seale thereof which is Baptisme themselves and their children But if your meaning be this that as Abraham beleeved first after was circumcised so every one of Abrahams seed must first actually beleeve and then be baptised then I must intreat you to shew me when and where this difference was put between the seed of AbrahaÌ„ which descended from him by the course of nature his seed that are of the Gentiles that the former being infants might notwithstaÌ„ding first receive the seal before they did actually beleeve And that the other viz the infants of the Gentiles must first beleeve and after receive the signe surely before the comming of Christ the Lord put no such difference but that such of the Gentiles as did turne to the faith “ their infants were circumcised as well as â—xod 12. the infants of the Iewes After Christs comming the Apostle witnesseth that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the Iewes for he sayth Ephe. 3. 6 * the Gentiles are coinheritors also meaning with the Iewes and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel And therefore the Apostle did not doubt to “ baptise the households with the beleeving parents Act. 16. â— 33. Act. 10. â— I wil answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not God hath purifyed the Gentiles and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham therfore yt is an iniury offered to pollute that is to reject from the coveâ—ant our children whom the Lord hath received Your second â—s this As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admitâ—d into the Church of the old testament so in the new testament the spirituall children â—ust be spiritually circumcised and then be admitted by baptisme into the Church â—f the new testament But the first was signified by the type Ergo the second is â—rified in the truth First If this Argument should hold proportion then it would folow that as circumcision was a seale of the covenant so should baptisme be a â—eale likewise for it is brought in here to answer circumcision as the dore into the Church But you deny * Charaâ— pag. 9 Baptisme to be a seale of the covenant 2. I answere that the carnall children of the Israelites were not admitted to be members of the Church of the old testament by circumcision for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day “ Gen. 17 the covenant apperteyned unto them and therfore were they circumcised for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong Also to the Majors consequent I answer that they which enter into the Lords covenant be they beleevers or their Infants we are to hold them †1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk â— 15. Ier. 1. â— spiritually circumcised and therefore to be partakers of baptisme Concerning your assumption as * Mat. 3. 8. Act. â— 12. 37. repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoyned to the Church of the new Testament so was it of “ Gen. 17 â—
blessed And though you say I cannot from hence conclude Baptisme yet from hence I do conclude that Christ performed that action to Infants that his disciples did afterward unto such as were baptised viz. laying on of hands and prayer likewise I can conclude that Christ admitted of Infants to come to him and that he prayed for them And “ he prayes not for the world â—oh 17. 9. Mâ—r. 10. And that also he pronounceth that †of such is the kingdome of God And therfore whether Baptisme can be denyed to such let the godly reader judge I avouch constantly against you that eyther they were not the children of the Iewes or they were not the Infants of beleeving Iewes or if their parents beleeved yet it followeth not thaâ— those Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised for Christ doth not say of these but of such is the kingdome of God Although you do so constantly avouch against me yet it is but your stout denyal without any reason or probabilitie to the contrary That these Infants which were brought to Christ were of the Iewes I have shewed my reasons before But not beleeving say you I answer how dare you deny them to be professors of the hart we are no judge stood they not members of the visible church and are they not so long to be accounted for beleevers nay they came to hear Christ and by presenting their children unto him and desiring him to pray testifyed their fayth in him and †1 Cor. 1â— 7. charitie binds us to esteem of such in the better part If their parents beleeved yet it followeth not that therefore these Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised c. It doth follow that these infants were of the kingdome of God in that Christ prayed for them Mar. 10. 16. conferred with Mar. 19. 13. but he * Joh. 17 â— prayed not for them that are not of his kingdome Yea Christ sayth not of these say you but of such And do you not think in your conscience that Christ in these words of such included those infants would he include others like to them exdude them As coÌ„cerning that place of Mat. 18. 3. 6. which you alledge to crosse my interpretatioÌ„ of these words it gaynes you nothing for the disciples coming to Christ and asking who is the greatest in the kingdome of heaven he teaching them humblenes called a little child not a man of years and set him in the midest of them saying except ye be converted become as little children ye shal not enter into the kingdome of heaven using the same word in this place for little children Mat. 18. 3. that is in Mark 10. 15. In Mat. 18. 6. for little ones is used another word that wil as wel agree to men of yeares so they be humble as to children And in verse the third Christ doth not deny children to be of the kingdome of God but teacheth his disciples by a simile to be humble mynded as little children or els they could not enter into the kingdome of God †Esa 66. 3â— Jam. 4. 6. 10. 1 Pet. â— 5. 6. who regards the lowly and giveth grace to such And this doth rather confirm my exposition in teaching none can enter into the kingdome but such as shal be like to infants Besides how can you prove that by the kingdome of God Christ understandeth the visible Church of the new Testament First for answer to this question I wil send you to Mr. Smyth in his * printed A. 1609. Paralels Censures and Observations pag. 22. who sayth That the true visible Church is CHRISTS sheepfold his kingdome c. Also pag. 15. of the same book The true Church in the scripture is called the howse of God the Temple of God the howsehould of faith and the kingdome of heaven of Christ and of God And in 17. pag. of the same book these are your words they that are not of a constituted Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome and pag. 16. you say that the visible Church is the onely kingdome of Christ that therefore they who are not members of Christs true visible Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome the like is affirmed in pag. 18. 19. considering therefore what you have written I marvel you demaund this question for by your owne words you insinuate that the kingdome of Christ or of God is the onely visible Church in that you say they are not of Christs kingdome that are not members of a true constituted Church and then must it needs follow that by kingdome of God in this place is understood the visible Church Rev. 18. 4 Luk. 19. â— 12. Act. 3. Mat. 5. â— Gen. 17. â— Psal 73. â— Psal 147 â— Rom. 9. Esa 28. â—6 51. 3 â— chap. 54 â—s 132. 13 â— 17. Ps 128. 1 â— Ps 1-3 â— 112. 1. 2 119. 1 â— 92. 13 4. 4. 5. â—at 5. 1 â— Eph. 5. 25 of the new Testament seing you say it is the onely kingdome of Christ. but I do not consent unto you herein for there be many of the kingdome of God that are no members of a true coÌ„stituted visible Church as * God 's people in Babylon and those seven thousand in Israel that never bowed their knee to Baall The kingdome of God extends more largely though invisibly then to the visible Church 2. To your question I answer that the visible †Church of the new Testament is the kingdome of God and so to understand it in this place of Maâ—k 10. 14. 15. is nothing repugnant to the circumstance and scope thereof although the kingdome of glorie is also intended both which are but one yet diversly considered And he that hath right to the one part hath right also to the other and therefore Christ saying of such is the kindome of God he meaneth his whol kingdome of grace and glorie Or how can you prove that Christ blessed none but members of the visible Church First I never did affirme that Christ blesseth none but the members of the visible Church and therefore you have no reason to require the proof thereof at my hands 2. If your question be of Gods general blessings then I answer that the Lord causeth “ the sunne to shine upon the iust and uniust and the rayne to fall vpon the good and evil all nations and people are partakers of many temporall blessings But if you speak of spirituall blessings and of those that are purchased by Christs death then I say * such blessings apperteyne to the Church and to the †true members thereof whether visible or invisible because “ Christ is given onely to his Church 〈◊〉 * 1 Cor. â— 2 Cor. 1. â— 21. 22. whom all the promises of God are yea and in him Amen Or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham apperteyneth onely to the members of the visible Church c. And I
Apostles put infants back and why Christ did not command them to be baptised c. Why would you know that which is not written that the Apostles did not well in putting them back Christ his rebuking of them doth manifest What may be coniectured hath bene noted before And as foâ— Christ his not commanding them to be baptised I answer Christ performed that which they required of him the text doth not mention that they came to desire baptisme and therefore there was no cause that he should command them to be baptised Next you labour to weaken such proves as I brought from the scriptures to confirme my Argument withall saying You see by that which hath bene answered that both your maior and minor ar weak and the scriptures alledged by you do not confirme them for the place 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours that is theirs that actually beleeve and are baptized c. My major and minor are so weak that you can disprove neyther of theÌ„ As touching your answer to this scripture 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply it Cor. 3. 21 â—2 onely to them that actually beleeve which the text sayth not the Apostles meaning in this place is that all such helpes as the Lord Iesus hath appointed for the benefit of his people are theirs whether they be men of yeares or infants for he speakes to the whol Church inclusively whereof the children are members †as hath bene proved But you say I must prove Mat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 â— that infants have the use of all I have answered that they are to have the use of so many of Gods ordinances as they in regard of their yeares and knowledge are able to partake of But not satisfyed herewith you demand further saying Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of salvation c. I answer that all the members of the Church are capable and partakers Eph. 5. 25 â—6 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12. of all the meanes of their * salvation which is Iesus Christ yea children †els can they not be saved But as concerning the outward ordinances of the Church as the ministerie of the word Sacraments and such like though they be necessarie in their due place yet the use of them is not at all tymes and of all persons required the Israelites borne in the wildernes were not circumcised by the space of fortye yeares neyther was the Passeover commanded to infantes to offer sacrifice or the like though †Dâ—â— 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. â— Mar. 10. these were necessarily required of them that were growne to yeares so that tyme and age doth priveledge some from the practise of those things which otherwise they are bound to observe The next Scripture is Rom. 9. 4. wherein you except against the Kom 9. word appertayneth and say It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning â—f the Apostle For your excepting against the word appertayneth saying it is â— into the text you seeme to contend before you be provoked I onely quoâ—ed that place of Rom. 9. 4. and did not set downe the wordes And therefore to strive about a word added in the translation is to strive against your owne shadow I defend no words added whereby the text is misconstrued But although no verbe be expressed in the original yet gramatical coÌ„struction requires some verbe to be vnderstood as this verbe is or appertainâ—th or some such like and if is be vnderstood it is the same in sense with appertayneth But you say Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnall Israelites were actually within the covenent of grace c. Paul intends to set downe the dignitie and prerogative of the people which he had chosen to him selfe to be his inheritance and to shew that Gods word is true although Israel be cast of he performeth his promise to so many of them as he had chosen in his secrete counsel And this is all that the Apostle intendeth To your carnal covenant and to the offer of the spiritual I have answered before Lastly whereas I did affirme that infants vnder the Gospel were as capable of baptisme as children vnder the lawe you answer That baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Testament as Circumcision was the seale of the old Testament and that infantes of the old Testament were capable absolutely seing that to be circumcised there was nothing requyred but a foreskin apt to be cut of but to baptisme in the new Testament there is required actual fayth repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47. That †pag. 37. Baptisme is the seale of the new Testament is proved before also that circumcisioÌ„ was * pag. 12. a seale of the same spiritual covenaÌ„t to the Israelites and that our infants are as capable of baptisme as the Iewes were of circumcision your reasons alledged to the contrary are of no force for the difference you put between the two sacraments of circumcision and baptisme is but a florish for as the profession of actual fayth and repentance is â—zra 6. 21. â—ter 8. 17. required of all them that are of yeares to baptisme so †was it of the proselytes to circumcision And if you would compare Infants with Infants and men of yeares with such like then shall you see that there is no more required of our infantes that are to be baptised then of the children of the Iewes and proselites nor lesse looked for of men of yeares vnder the old Testament then now vnder the new As for the scriptures that you alledg they witnes what is required of the elder sort to be received into the visible Church and not of infants Out of this your answer you collect 5 arguments against Paedobaptistry the first is this They that are not members of the visible Church have no title to the holy things of God and therefore are vncapable of them and so of baptisme Infantes of the faythful are not actually members of the visible Church for these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of these infantes were beleeving Iewes or if they were beleevers their infantes were already baptized with their parents according to your doctrine and so Christ cannot intend baptisme to appertayne to them but the rest of the ordinances Ergo c. I deny the minor the reason proves it not do affirm that the infants of the faythful are meÌ„bers of the same Church with their pareÌ„ts have right to the holy things therof as may thus be shewed first AbrahaÌ„s house was a visible Church of God the infantes of Abraham and of his servantes are Gen. 17. â—2 sayd to “ be born in his house wherevpon I conclude that they were part of Abrahams family for in
Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5. Secondly for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament which you say was of another nature then that of the new I answer that former church was of an heavenly constitution a †kingdome of Preists and a “ holy nation the people * saincts as wel as the members of the church of the new Testament And this people being separate from al other nations called out to be the Lords “ peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them and so became the people church and kingdome of God as in renuing of their covenant is manifest Deut. 29. 9-15 Exod. 14. 8. They were †natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by fayth on Christ then to come in whom they beleeved 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation Gal. 3. â—6 Luk. 1 68-75 This old church by their constitution admitted of no prophane person to be a member therof but such as professed holynes They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con 〈…〉 their syn Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch 5. 5. NuÌ„ 14. 40. to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged Num. 5. 7. Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be coÌ„â—idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof with that of the â—d and there wil be no such difference in substance between them as you pretend the matter of them both being holy and living stones and the forme an holy uniting together in the covenant of God to walk in al his commandements els could not the Gentiles be made one body and coâ—heriters with the Iewes Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promises in Christ if the constitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not spiritual Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament 〈◊〉 onely a carnal holynes viz. the circumcision of the foreskin c. I have already proved that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holynes Lev. 11. 44. saying I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and â—e holy for I am holy Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after Gods example who neither is carnally holy or yet delites in carnal holynes without the spiritual Psal 50. 7-23 Esa 1. 11-20 chap. 50. And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not onely the truth but your self for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal holynes carnal yet in your Differencâ— pag. 10. book of Differences you say that the Septuagint Translation was a gree 〈…〉 synn for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles So by your own confession Israel had the covenant of grace els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant can not your hearers mynd how unstable a leader they follow Wel let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer that the Apostle by the law of carnal commandement intendeth not thereby to teach that the coÌ„stitution of the old church was carnal but sheweth the diversitie of Christs priesthood from Aarons understanding by carnal commandement those frayl and transitorie things which the †law commanded â—… 24. 1. â—sa 61. 1. â— 45. 7. in the consecration of the Levitical Preists so called in respect of Christ his anoynting which was “ spiritual Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for justification exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. c. to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath madâ— â—… 5. 3. us free c. testifying to every man that if he be circumcised he is bound to keep the whole law Noting circumcision especially because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification And he reasoneth against it not as it was in it self by the ordinance of God but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it which made circumcision a part of their salvation And he that so esteemes of it as a work to justifie must also sayth Paul keep al the rest of the commandements For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances the whole observation therof Deut. 27. â—6 Gal. 3. â—… RoÌ„ 3. 20. â—al 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promise no * life And because no man can be “ justifyed by the works of the law therfore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them and calleth them †beggerly rudiments And now if a papist or any other should contend that a man is justified by Baptisme as by a work wrought we might so speak to them as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians that if you receive baptisme to be made righteous thereby ex opere operato you are bound to keep the whole law for baptisme being made a work to justifie is perverted And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision in this place as a work urged to justification the very next verse viz. ver 4. sheweth wherein he sayth ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are iustified by the law And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth 2. The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self true is nature and reason The constitution viz. the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. the constitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Test is the truth c. Heb. 10. 1. 9. 19. 23. I answer first to your Major that one and the same thing may both be the type and the truth for Isaac was a type of the faythful as your self doth affirme yet was he also faythful and so was both the type and the truth Secondly to your Minor the constitution viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type c. of the church of the new Testament in that sense as you take matter and forme for the matter of that former Ch. â—as not to be ceremonially but truly holy as before I have proved and these †Deu. 2â— 9. 14. â— Esa 5. 4. â— 15. 24. 3. 4. 5. Esâ— 58. 2 7. â— 14. Deu. â— 12 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further
confirme Their * Deu. 2â— 10 13. “ Gal. 3. â— coâ—enant was to be the Lords people is the same that we are entred into els could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise through fayth if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed Also Peter affirmes it to be the same Act. 2. 39. If then the Lord required of Israel true holynes and made no other coâ—enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people but that everlasting covenant and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Testament true holynes of the members and communion in the covenant and Gospel then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this but even the same with the church under the new Test I speak of the substance of this covenant and not of the outward administration thereof which was divers wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption Heb. 10 â— In the former Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle sheweth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect because they were yearly renued proveth also that Christs sacrifice is one and perpetual here it must be minded that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their coÌ„stitution no spiritual promise but onely carnal typical things Heb. 9 â—â— 23. In that other scripture Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed between the legal sacrifices and purifyings the purging of synne by the blood of Iesus Christ between the old Testament and the new c and so shewing how the truth answereth unto the type concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sinnes of many by the sacrifice of himself And this is that which the Apostle intendeth and not to shevv that the constitution of the old church vvas the tipe of the constitution of the nevv 3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected â— produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Testâ—â— Iustification and fayth and sanctification and repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament Heb 9. 9. Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo c. Deut. 29. â— Ier. 13. â— â— Luk. 1. â— 74. 1 pet â—â— 9. 10. â— 2. 12. â— 22. Gen. 17. 7 â—om 4. 11 â—a 26. â— Heb. 4. 2 â— 11. 30. â— Cor. 10. 3 â— Ezech. 18 â— 32. Ioel. â— 3. â—b 9. 9. â—â— 2. 15 The assumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before for the members of that church might have and had fayth repentance justification sanctification seeing the †Lord was their God in that standing he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ therfore it must follow that they were partakers of fayth justification c. in that their coÌ„munion Again as the covenant was geven to Abraham so was “ it to his seed but to Abraham it was geven †for justification therefore to his seed I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test Also I have proved * before that God required of the Israelites “ fayth and repentance and that they did repent beleev so consequently justification sanctification were effected accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof and required in the constitutioÌ„ Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument yet this I will further add that the Apostle having described the partes of the Tabernacle c. in ver 9. sheweth the use of those things to be a figure for the present preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ in whom they beleeved the same to be fulfilled And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh were such as by Moses were given to that church long after the constitution thereof In that other scripture Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reasons not about the constitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether justification was required therein but having to deal against the false teachers that taught the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law affirmeth the contrary in these two verses saying we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law but by the fayth of Jesus Ch. c. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by fayth without works doth not deny the church before the coÌ„ming of Christ to be justified by fayth but teacheth that both that church and this under the Gospel were saved not by works but by the free promise of God in Christ received by fayth And thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire 4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members presupposed not â—â—th and repentance to the members and so not real or true holynes But the old Test â—e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the â—hurch of the old Test Heb 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. c. First concerning the major The old Testament though it brought not perfection yet did it require fayth in Christ to come 2. Touching your â—inor first I require what you mean by the old Testament whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator if the former then is your minor false for those books conteyn as wel Gospel as law the promise made unto the fathers in Christ to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance aswell before Christs incarnation as since But iâ— you â—ind it †Rom. â— Heb. 10. of the law onely administration of Moses it is true that perfection and life came not by the law nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law but withal you must know that the Iewes were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ as * pa. 23. ◠“ Gen. 3. â— 12. 3. â— 17. 7. 21. Esa 1. â— 7. 14. â— 9. 6 GeÌ„ â— 10. Numâ— 24. 17. Gâ— 3. 8. 14 before is proved 3 For the church of the old Testament it could bring or publish life to the members thereof seing it had the promises “ of the Gospel and so presupposed fayth repentance true holynes as you speak To the scriptures first to Heb. 7. 19. I answer that the law indeed maketh nothing perfect nor could give lyfe but I have told you againe and
not that onely they that beleeved were baptised but that they preached to al that were in his howse and waâ— baptised with al that were his Next you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants the former is this The Apostles practise is our instruction but the Apostle in baptising howsholds First Preached to all that were in the family and then they beleeving were baptised Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised This argument might have bene granted had not the conclusion contayned more then the former propositions viz. this word onely which ought to have bene placed in the one of them and if in the assumption then were it false to say that onely they that beleeved were baptised and â—o more the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before And it is to be further observed that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church Your other Argument is this That which the Apostles practised in one family they practised in all families that they baptised But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. c. This argument also may be granted and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants except your heretical collection which I deny And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this the rest of my argumeÌ„ts OF THE TESTIMONIE OF THE fathers concerning the baptising of infants HErevnto I will adioyne some testimonies of the fathers not to prove that children ought to be baptised which is to be done is by the scriptures already proved but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches Augustine as I find alledged writing to Ierome epist 28. sayth Cyprian not making any new decree but firmely observing the faith of the Church iudged with his fellow Bishops that as soone as one was borne he might lawfully be baptised See Cyprian epist to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. 24. sayth that the baptisme of infants was not derived from the authoritie of man neither of counsels but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles Ciril vpon Lev. Cha 8. approveth the baptisme of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptisme Origine vpon the Rom. sayth that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum 3. sayth that baptisme agreeth to everie age to every condition of life to all men if thou hast an infant it is sanctified from his infancy yea from the finger ends it is consecrated After he sayth some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne what shal we baptise those he answers yea verily Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha 11. Speaking of baptisme sayth neyther old man nor Proselyte nor infant is to be excepted because every age is guilty of sinne and therefore stands need of the Sacrament These many other of the fathers do beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the lawfulnes of the baptising of infants Mr. Smyth And for conclusion you produce the fathers I say that the producing of fathers who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies shall availe you nothing in your cause and you that deny the testimonie of fathers contrary to the Scriptures how can you with any colour produce fathers against vs in case contrary to the Scriptures c. R. Clifton I plead not for the errors of the fathers but for the truthes which they held according to the Scriptures And where you charge them to hold pleÌ„tie of antichristian heresies you tax them very deeply and you that so censure others had need to judge your selfe otherwise the Lord wil find out a sentence against you Also I desire you to shew where I produce the testimonie of the fathers contrary to the Scriptures you are growen to be very careles what you affirm For my producing of the fathers against you I do not recall that I have done seing theire testimonie is the truth who shew the practise of their times according to the Scriptures I know the device of your producing of fathers viz. 1. to set a glosse vpon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy c. what would you answere would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt tymes c. even so say I to you c. Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptising of infants antichristiaÌ„ heresy †Esay 5. wo to him that speaks evil of good 2 with sinne in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a glosse vpon my antichristian heresy c. for were it a falseshod that I defend as I know it is not yet know you that my soule is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf It is one thing to produce the testimony of the fathers witnessing the truth according to the scripture another for the defence of errors the latter we reiect you take vp but the former we approve and you condemne And although we are not to build our fayth vpon the fathers yet for matter of fact done in their tymes we may give credit to their report and so theire testimonie serves to prove something namely to shew the practise of their tymes to which end I did alledge them and that is not to confesse that they prove nothing as you charge me And say Remember that and let al men take notice that you produce testimonies that you say prove nothing And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers forsooth to shew the practise of ancient Churches But all these Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession c. Yea Sir I do produce them to shew the practise of Auncient Churches whose testimonies is not so lightly reiected save of you and such like that condemne all Churches for antichristian except such heritical Synagoges as your owne is As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred yeares after Christ albeit some devises of men crept in and as they grew elder so increased yet that they were Antichristian where have you my confession it is strange that you dare affirme such untruthes And for anticihrstiaÌ„ antiquitie vniversality I could wish you were as free froÌ„ Anabaptistical novelitie as I am froÌ„ approving of any error or superstito eythâ—â—oâ— the antiquitie or universalitie of it the truth we defeÌ„d needs no such Popish propps but yet antiquitie when the thing is found to be true that is ancient is not lightly to be regarded seing the truth is
more auncient then error And although you esteeme not of the testimony of the fathers witnesâ—â—ng against you yet haue you summoned togeither such men as you thought would give any contenance to your error to batle against both the Scriptures and them but their testimony doth little pleasure you as shall appeare by the examination of the particulars The first you alledge is Henr-Pantalâ—on Chro. fol. 6. who saith that Victor Apher anno 193. ordeyned that aâ— Easter it should be indifferently administred to all wherevpon I gather that before his time onely such as were catechised in the faith were baptised for he would not decree that heathen should be baptised This man I take his words upon your report doth mention Victors decree for the time of administration of baptisme to all yong and old viz at Easter But would any but you inferre hereupon that baptisme was not administred before this time to infants You might aswel say that before that time it was not administred to the elder sort for he speakes in generall of the persons to be baptised Victor brings not in baptising of infants which was then the Churches practise but prescribes a certaine time for the general administration of that sacrament as Gelasius did the like anno 494. That infaÌ„ts were baptised before Victors time appeareth by that â—eliques 〈…〉 e p. â— 96. â—â—bius * of Higinius who decreed that children which were to be baptised should haue a Godfather and a Godmother Anno 143. Higinius lived before Victor about 50. yeres Your next Eusebius Hist lib. 7. cap. 8. saith that Novatus reiected the holy baptisme and overthrew the faith and confession which was accustomed before baptisme whereby it appeareth that faith and confession were required before baptisme and therefore the rudiments thereof still remaine that in the baptising of infants a confession of sinne and faith is required of the suretie or parents That confession was required before the baptising of men growne to yeres and newly come to the faith is not denyed and more then this can not be gathered from Eusebius words as you set them downe But what is this against the baptising of infants Howbeit I find not this of Novatus in Lib. 7. chap. 8. but in that chapter mention is made of a certayne faithful brother that being present when some were baptised and heard what was demanded and what was answered weeping c. began to confesse that he had otherwise received baptisme of Hereticks c. Now if he was baptised of Hereticks without confession of his faith it was contrary to the practise of the Church of the Apostles concerning such as came newly to the faith Eusebius ecclesiastical hist lib. 6. c. 33. thus writeth of Noâ—atus that â—e being vexed with an vncleane spirit in his youth and having spent sâ—me 〈◊〉 with Exorcists fel into a great sicknes and lying in his bed for necessity he was baptised neither any of those things which were accustomed to follow baptisme wâ—re so 〈…〉 nly fulfilled c. As for the rudiments of this confession which you say still remaynes therevnto I answer that this practise is a kind of imitation of that which was observed in former times towards them of yeres and it may be that the parents which brought their childten to be baptised did make some short confession of their faith for of confessing of syn is no step remayning that I know onely a promise to forsake sinne which after did grow as other things into corruption Againe you alledge Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 15. reporting a story of one that did baptise children in sport and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria though dâ—ne in sport yet finding that the children had questioned and answered according to the manner of the catechumeni in baptisme did approue it whereby it appeareth that then onely persons by confession of their faith and sinnes were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria This storie I doe not find in that chapter before quoted but such a like in chap. 14. yet both your written copie and printed book appoints to cha 15 If you meane that of Athanasius baptising of certaine Catechumeni lib. 10. c. 14. I answere that those children so baptised seeme not to be any children of the Church but some of the heathen which with their parents were instructed in the faith but not yet in communion or baptised Againe in that they being thus baptised were by the Bishop delivered to his Church to Athanasâ— vero atâ— eos c. â— vocatis pâ— reÌ„tibus sâ— Dei obteâ—tione tradâ— ecclesiae suâ— nutrienâ—â— to be brough up their parents thereto consenting which consent the Bishop needed not to haue required or so committed those children to be educated if they and their parents had bene already of the Church for to them then had this care apperteyned Besides if none but the elder sort had bene baptised which by that which is here obiected is not proved yet was this but the practise of one particular Church which might be tainted with that error about baptising of infants as Tertullian and some others were in those times Next you alledge Hoseus Petricov Confes de fide cap. 27. saying that these 2. Apostolical traditions which the Scripture teacheth not viz that there are 3. persons and one God and that Dionysius Origin do testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostolical traditioÌ„ Now you know their Apost traditions were antichristiaÌ„ inventioÌ„s This witnesse wil do you little pleasure for as he calleth the baptising of infants a tradition so doth he the Trinitie which the scripture doth manifestly teach in sundry places Now if you accept not his testimonie in calling the Trinitie a tradition why do you produce him against baptising of infants Besides though this man was a Papist yet is his witnesse with us for calling the baptisme of infants an Apostolical traditioÌ„ he meanes as the Papists do such doctrines of the Apostles as were not written which they hold equall with the scriptures Againe this he sayth is so called by Dionisius and Origen who understood thereby the doctrine of the Apostles And those Apostolical traditioÌ„s whereof you dream were not in their times in esse Polydore Virgil you bring in also to testifie that it was the use with the Auncients that persons of yeres sere in a manner should be baptised clad with white garments c. and this was performed at Easter and Whitsontide c. This witnes tels us that it was in use with the Auncients not onely to baptise the elder sort that turned to the faith but appointed the nâ— to be clad in white that they were instructed until Easter thâ—ir time appointed for baptism these it seemes were the Catechumeni for in those former times many had not imbraced the faith now this authoâ—â— sayth not that children borne in the Church were kept unbaptised until they could make profession of their owne faith whereof our dispute is The wordes of
in force to the faithful and their seed Rom. 9. 6. 8. 15. 11 1. 2-5 2. Christ speaketh to such of the Iewes as by their works did shew themselves to be of the Divil he intendeth not to teach that this was the constitution state of the whol Church under the old Testament as much as Christ sayd to these Iewes may be sayd to us under the Gospel as of those Antichristians whereof Iohn speaketh 1. Iohn 2. 19. and therefore all that you have sayd proves nothing for the question in hand Againe to prove the Disciples to be baptised you cite Ioh. 4. 1. 1. 35. 40. I answere in the latter place is no mention of baptisme and in the former it is sayd that Iesus baptised moe disciples then Iohn which in verse 2. is explaned that he did not baptise but his disciples shewing that Christ baptised disciples by the hands of his disciples So I think they were baptised of Iohn as Christ was but I wil not contend there about And for that you answer concerning the Eunuch that some mention should have bene made eyther of Philip or of the Eunuch towching his children It is nothing that you say for what occasion was there to speak of his children And it is for you to prove that the Eunuch had children seing he was one as it is like that was made chast by man Mat. 19. 12. the rather because in regard of his honour and auctoritie he was called Cheiffe governour as also in respect of his country an Ethiopian Act. 8. 27. see Esa 56. 3. 4. 5. Now to your second reason The 2. reason against baptising of infants answered R. Clifton But having thus discovered the weaknes of this first reason let vs come to the next which is this Reason 2. Because Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptise them Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 4. 1. But infants can not by doctrine become Christs disciples and so can not by the rule of Christ be baptised Answer 1. The Apostles were indede commanded to make Disciples and to call vnto the faith and felowship of the Gospel not onely the Iewes but the Gentiles throughout the world and gave them power to preach the Gospel which before had bene preached to AbrahaÌ„ 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 AbrahaÌ„ enter into Gods covenant first beleeve and then be baptised as the Eunuch Act. 8. 37. Lydia Act. 16. 15. the Keeper of the prison verse 33. but when such have receved the fayth then are their infants and houshold capable also of baptisme as Abrahams family was of circumcision he beleeved the promises Gen. 17. therefore it is written that when God opened the hart of Lidia that shee did attend to the word that Paule preached and beleved not onely she herselfe but all her household were baptised and yet is there no mentioÌ„ of the fayth of any of them save of Lidias onely And so the Keeper beleeving all that appertayned vnto him were baptised And this is proportionable to the example of Abraham whose fayth we find sufficient to interest all his in the covenant and make them capable of the seale 2. Christ taketh the same course in giving out his commission to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to bringe the Gentiles into Gods covenant that the Lord tooke with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the father of many nations c. he did not first command him to be circumcised but preached to him the Gospel or covenant and he beleeving was circumcised and his houshold So here is a commandement first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ and for baptising such as beleeved with their families for it is included in this commandement els had not the Apostle baptised the families of Lidia and of the Keper as before is observed And it is wel to be minded that there is no mention made of the faith of any in the familie of Lidia save of Lidias onely for it is not sayd all in the house that beleeved were baptised which had bene necessary if this commandement of Christ should be expounded after the mind of the Anabaptists 3. If children shal be excluded from baptisme because they can not be made Disciples by teaching and so beleeve then by as good reason may they be excluded froÌ„ salvation for he that sayth he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved sayth also he that beleeveth not shal be damned Mar. 16. 16. if therfore want of fayth be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme then likewise the want of faith is sufficient to exclude them from salvation If the former be held to be the meaning of Christ then must also the latter be graunted a thought whereof is to be abhord Lastly generall rules must be taken with their sense and meaning It is a generall rule given by the Apostle 2 Thes 3 10. that if any would not work he should not eate Yet if any should gather froÌ„ hence that the impotent infants should not eat because they do not work this were to offer violence to wrest the Apostles doctrin So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples and baptising them now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme because they cannot receive instruction which is intended onely of them that are capable thereof is to diminish the commandement of Christ alike as he that should say infants can not beleeve and therefore cannot be saved Againe it can never be the true meaning of a scripture when it is so expounded that the exposition contradicteth other scriptures or any sound conclusioÌ„ 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 AbrahaÌ„s 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 iustâ—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
confesse the Lord these were called “ Acâ— 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 theÌ„ that wil ioyne to the Church of the new And so I hav shewed you that more was required of theÌ„ 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 coÌ„cerning baptisme no more And to your particulers I answer that these things were also required of the Israelites CoÌ„cerning the two former infants both have Ch. wer are circumcised in hart in that they are partakers of the covenant of graceâ— we are to hold them partakers of Christs benefits Mat. 19. 13. 14. For the third point that we must learne what the schoolmaster of the old Testament doth teach It is for such as are of yeares and was required of the Israelites and not of us onely as the writings of Moses and the Prophets do shew And where you say this must be done of al before they can be baptised it is your addition which you can never prove Moreover if you by old Testament do mean the writings of Moses the Prophets then can not we †learne al that they can teach us whylest we live Cor. 13. â— 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. â—3 Gal. 3 25. it is * abrogated and seing “ fayth is come we are not under that schoolmaster to be taught by such legal types and ceremonies as were the Iewes And so your doctrine is false howsoever it be understood And whereas you wonder at me and at your self that we could not see so evident a truth al this tyme for myne owne part I saw I thank God long since and stil do see your evident truth as you cal it to be a manifest Act. 13. 10 error And further I see that God hath given you over to †pâ—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 Câ—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 calumniatioÌ„ of yours and that my exception is not frivilouâ— 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 â— Cor. 7. 14 needs be spiritual and as the Apostlâ— 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 subiâ—ct as to give the Lords supper to an infant of two yeares old so to baptise an infant is â—â—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 fâ—rst to baptisme So absence of confession of fayth shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the church in communion And afterward you say Although I dare not say this or that infant is not under the election of God yet I dare say that never an infant in the earth is actually seazed of the new Testament which is onely attayned by confession of sinne and of fayth c. Mar. 1. 15 Ioh. 3. 3. Eph. 3. 17. c. To this I have answered before and have shewed that profession of fayth is required of such as were never of the church and that with them their seed enters in also but that absence of confession shal debarre every one from the orrdinances of the church can never be proved seing there is not a like reason of persons without and of infants borne in the church Also I have shewed that infants are actually seazed of the new Testament according to the â—enure of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed I mean so actually seazed as we are to repute them children of the covenant And here also I mynd that al infants to you stand in the state of condemnation this is your Gospel contrary to Gen 17. 7. Act. 2 39. 3 25. Gal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Concerning the Scriptures which you alledge I answer first that all Mar. â— three places are applyed to them of yeares secondly in Mar. 1. 15. the Evangelist setts down in breif the summe of Christs doctrine the unfolding thereof doth reach to the faythful and their seed as by his own action Iohn 3. â— appeareth Mat. 19. 13. 13. Mar 10. 14. In Ioh. 3. 3. Christ speakes of regeneration without which none can enter into the kingdome of God and he speakes to Nicodemus that was a member of the Iewish church into which as also into the visible Churches under the new Testament many did and may enter into with outward confession onely as did Simon Magus though their harts be not regenerate And therefore this scripture speaking of that grace of God which is imvisible is not fitly alleadged for this purpose where we are to judge of members of the church not as they stand so before God in his secret counsel but as they externally appear to us within Gods covenant by their confession or otherwise That of Ephes 3 17. is also spoken to them that were of yeares who â—h 3 17. being beleevers they theirs were Christs of whom is named the wholâ— familie in heaven
and worshipped him though corruptly professed also many of his truthes which neither the Sodomites Egyptians Babylonians or Gentiles did And therefore are not comparable with the heathen in all respects much lesse to be held the worst kind of Paganisme For in Paganisme it was never heard that God had his people yet in Antichristian Babylon the spirit witnesseth that he hath his people amongst them and so many truthes of God are therein taught as thereby Gods elect do come to some knowledge of God and to faith so can none do in Paganisme by any doctrine there taught 2. I declare playnly the difference between the Apostasie of Antichrist and Israel Aâ—â— in this that Israels apostasie did not destroy the true constitution of the Church but Antichrists apostasie did rase the true Apostolike constitution For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or proselytes circumcised and so long as they reteyned circumcision in the Land of Canaan they reieyned a true constitution though there apostasie was never so great c. This which you say is a playne difference is none at all it is your false Re. ground that deceaves you The reason of your difference wil not hold for if reteyning of circumcisioÌ„ preserved the constitution of the Church of the old Testament though their apostasie was never so great as you say it did then should the reteyning of baptisme in the greatest apostasie preserve the Churches constitution under the new testament but this you deny ergo the other can not stand Seing baptisme by your owne confession * Char 〈…〉 in the prâ—fâ— is the constition of the Church under the Gospel as circumcision was of the old Church Now if this be true doctrine which you teach I pray you shew us some reason why Apostasie more raseth the constitution of the Church now then it did under the law for circumcision was as corruptly administred by the apostate Israelites as baptisme is by the Antichristians But your iudgement of the Churches constitutioÌ„ fayles you in holding the Sacraments to be the constitution thereof 〈◊〉 them appertayne vnto it yet can they not be counted the whole constitution of the Church And if this should be granted you it would follow that if Israels constitution was carnal for circumcision you say was carnal so should the constitution of the Church of the new testament be carnal also seing baptisme is an external ordinance as well as circumcision was and both alike carnal in that respect And therefore you must eyther renounce this opinioÌ„ or els grant that the constitution of the Church of the old Testament was spiritual then all your building is overthrown But to prove that Israel reteyned a true constitution in their apostacie you alledge Hosea the fourth saying Though their apostasy was never so great thâ— their worship ministerie and government as it is to be seen in Hosea 4. 6. 8. 12. yet they reteyned a true constitution so long as they reteyned circumcision in the land of Canaan I answer although the Lord call Israel his people he doth it in regard of his covenant formerly made to their forefathers not in respect of their present outward estate The Prophet sayth There shall be like people like Preist And in verse 12. they are charged to go a whoring from under their God How can this people be sayd to stand in a true constitution or covenant with God that went a whoring from under their God Hath Rome done any more then this the people * perished for want of knowledge Hose 4. 6 and the Lord reiected their Ministers from being his because they refused Hose 4. 12 knowledge The Israelites did †ask counsel at their stocks and the spirit of fornication caused them to erre they sacrificed to strange Gods c. â—hroÌ„ 13 â— King â— 31. â—hr 11. 14 â— Chron. â—â— â—ers 8. â—rse 9. “ Ieroboam drove away the true Prophets placed Preists after his own devise Israel set up an other governement and * refused the governement of the Lord †had a false ministerie and worship What more can be sayd of Rome then is here sayd of Apostate Israel And what though the Prophet Abijah did not charge Israel with a false coÌ„stitutioÌ„ but with the other particulars before meÌ„tioned yet that sufficeth to declare that they had broken covenaÌ„t with God which what is it els but to depart froÌ„ their primitive constitutioÌ„ Needs a man to say any more to prove that a wise hath violated the bond of mariage but that she hath played the whore and foloweth other lovers and so much have the Prophets testifyed of Israel â— Chro. 15 Azariah beareth witnes against Israel thus †now for a long season Israel hath bene without the true God without Preist to teach and without law And this was â—n the tyme of Asa king of Iuda Also Eliah complayneth †◠〈◊〉 10. that the children of Israel have forsaken the covenant of the Lord and this was in the dayes of Ahab now it cannot be that they that had forsaken Gods covenant could be a true constituted Church so continuing also which were without God and without his Law c. Câ—n you say more agaynst the Antichristians and them you deny to be a true Church and yet you iustify Israel withal her abhominations but let vs consider furder of the difference you make between Israel and Antichristianisme you saye That Antichrist hath not onely set vp a false government c. but also a false constitution Ans of the Church for whereas the true Apostolike constitution was of baptised Disciples that confessed theire sins and their fayth he hath foysted in a false matter of â— Church viz. infants and persons vnbaptised and so a false forme c. I answere 1. that the Apostolike constitution did not shut out the children Re. of beleevers as I have formerly proved 2. I iustify neither the matter nor forme of Antichrists Church neither their ministerie worship nor government they have in all these corrupted the wayes of God But the falshood you tax them of in their matter form is the baptising of infants otherwise if they had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. theire constitution had bene with you Apostolike such a deadly feud have you against infants that to admit them to baptisme makes a false Church For the lawfulnes of baptising children you may be satisfyed before if the eye sight of your soule be not quite put out Your saying that infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole or mad-man or pagan Argues in you the want of spirituall wisdome but that which you drive at in this your bitternes against infants is to prove That the Church of Antichrist is constituted of a false matter viz infants uncapable of baptisme and a false forme viz. infants vnable to enter into the new Testament
Re. or example or els you reiect it as Antichristian now yâ—â— being pressed with this Act of Zippora you shew nether nor any reason for the lawfullnes of the fact and yet you defend it answering that you know nothing to the contrary but Zippora might circumcise her son c. What nedes the Scripture to forbid women to circumcise when for the adminisstring of that ceremony God gave coÌ„maundement that AbrahaÌ„ the * Gen. 17. 7. â—om p. with â—ers 10-13 â—osuah 5. 2 â— 4 master of the family should circumcise al his males as baptisme is now †Mat. 28. 19. injoyned to the Apostles and Ministers of Christ the which commaundements disable all others whether women or men that have not such calling from God for the administeration therof That Zippora did circumcise her sonne by Moses commaundement appeares not in the Scripture but that “ Exo. 4. 24 â—5 she being greeved at her husbands neglect did it But if Moses ought to do it himselfe the question is whether he might commaund his wife to do it The non-residents in England are condemned for preaching by their substitutes and you deseâ—d that a woman may be a substitute to administer a sacrameÌ„t If Zipporah may circumcise in case of necessitie at the appointment of her husband why may not the midvvives in case of necessitie baptise by the appointment of the Preists You pretend rule but in this you practisâ— it not 4. I yeeld that the Minister shall not preiudice baptisme if the baptisme be the Ans Lords owne ordinance c. In this we agree that the Minister if he be not lawfully called doth not Rep. so farre preiudice baptisme as to make a nullitie of it what is further here to be answered is done els where The 2 obiection you answer is that although baptisme be administred in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subiect yet it shall not be repeated no more then circumcision in the dayes of Jeroboam c. My words were these That â—epl the children in that apostasie are as fit subiects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the dayes of Jeroboam were to receive circumcision And you pervert my wordes and say that I affirme that although baptisme be administred in a false Church vpon an vnfit subiect Is this to confesse that infants are vnfit subiects to say they were as fit as the infants of Israel Your self doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apostasie were capable of circumcision I sayd that the infants of the Antichristians were as capable as they not approving of the state of eyther but arguing that if the former might stand for circumcision then also the other without iterating the state of the Antichristians being alike to the apostate Israelites but I will come to your further answer which is this I say that the Israelites infants in there defection were the subiect that God commaunded Ans to be circumcised so are not the infants in Antichristianisme both for that they are 1. infants 2. members of a false Church 3. the seede of vnbeleevers That the Israelites infants in their defectioÌ„ were coÌ„mauÌ„ded to be circuÌ„cised Repl. can not be proved God is no approver of apostasie When he gave to Abraham and his seed circumcision he did intend that it should seale his covenant unto them and that they should continue therein and not apostate and therefore to speak properly the Israelites in their apostasie could be no fit subiects although upon their repentance the Lord let stand their circumcision And so if the state of this people be rightly coÌ„sidered the dissimilitude between their circumcision and baptisme in Antichristian assemblies wil not prove such as you pretend Your reasons to prove infants in Antichristianisme to be no fit subiects of baptisme are of no weight The first of them is answered in the former part of this writing where is proved that infants are fit subiects of baptisme Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichrists Church and deny them to be members of true Churches but to let this passe I answere that this reason is of no force seing your self confesseth that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. it had bene true baptisme To the third I answer that the infants in Antichristianisme are no more the seed of unbeleevers then the infants in Ieroboams Church were the seed of unbeleevers both were the seed of apostates and that is all you can say of them Their parents although apostating from many truthes and polluted with mens inventions yet were not fallen from all profession of Iesus Christ but stil did and do acknowledge salvation by him retayne and beleeve many mayne grounds of faith excellent truthes so many as the Lord hath his people in * Rev. 18. Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by those doctrines there taught And therefore thus I think of such apostates that in respect of their outward standing they remaine in apostasie having forsaken many truthes pollute Gods ordinances practise the cursed inventions of men yet professing faith in God in Iesus Christ though corruptly I can not hold them as infidels simply but as the Israelites in their apostasie and their seed may rather be termed the seed of Apostates then of infidels or vnbeleevers And whereas you say that the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ did â—â— truely belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Israelits though both in defection I deny it for the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelits the carnal seed of Abraham even in their parents Apostacy and the spiritual covenant did never appertayne to the Apostate parents 2. much les to the infants of them c. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be vnder stode of the blessing of Abraham to come vppon any of the Gentiles in their Apostacy but onely being in Christ as the words are also ver 7. and 9. c. I speak comparatively of the seeds of the apostate Israelites and Antichristians affirming the one as fit subiects for baptisme as the other for circumcision because the Gentiles since Christ have as much title to the covenant with Abraham as the Israelites had This you deny shifting off with your devised carnal covenant It is not for the spirituall covenant or Sacrament to belong to Apostates that I contend I know it belongs to the faithful and their seed though you say no. But this was the end wherefore I did alledge Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is inlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as iust clayme to it for them selves and their seed as Israel could do And therefore did reason thus If the children of Israel could chalendg right to the covenant and circumcisioÌ„ their parents being in Apostacy
without this washing with water into the name of the Father c. it cannot be baptisme And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptised may be called an accident as al such formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced yet to baptisme it selfe I meane to the external ceremony it is no accident or adiunct but is of the very essence and being thereof and without which it cannot be baptisme And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident I do not conceive otherwise then as before I have observed in respect of the party baptised els might the ceremony of baptisme be for substance without this washing with water into the name of the Trinitie But whether it be of the essence of baptisme or an accident look with what warrant you do repeate it For suppose I should graunt as much as you desire that this forme of washing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptisme yet the Lord having coÌ„maunded that accident to be but once vsed without repeating how can you iustifie the iterating of such accidentall truthes as you call them for if it were of God in that baptisme administred in Popery as you confesse then can you not repeat it Therefore your iterating of it argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord And so you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptisme as you pretend to do UI. Argument AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sathan and all his instruments shal never be cut of So he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the law Gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the faithful And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were partakers in the Apostate Church and devising a new do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking vpon them to baptise themselves without al warrant from the word for I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptise him selfe without special coÌ„maundement froÌ„ God as Abraham had for circumcision Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptisme Mark 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be sayd the tymes be extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby we may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the world to informe vs in every thing that we ought to do Mr Smyth I answere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus Ans If the gates of Hel shal never prevayl against the Church then there hath alwayes bene aâ—rue Church and antichrist could never make the Church false and so you of the sepâ—ration have sinned most shamefully in callinge the Church of antichrist false verum â—rimum Ergo secundum Rich. Clyfton First I deny that your Argument is of like nature neither wil your false Re. relating of my words give you this advantage for it is one thing to say that God hath preserved the seales of his covenant and an other to say that these seales cannot be abolished through the malice of Sathan I know the outward seales and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Sathan if the Lord would have permitted it For as Antichrist Sathans instrument hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to abolish them out of the church As the worship Ministerie Government Censures c. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptisme and if God had not otherwise disposed could have foysted in a new forme of baptisme in the roome of it 2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16 18. that there should alwayes continue a true visible church upon the earth which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt for the Scripture †2 Thes 3. 7. Reâ— 13. 11 â— 18. 4. speaketh to the contrarie But the promise of Christ to his church is this that the gates of Hell shal not prevaile against it that is against his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Christ this promise the Lord performeth to everie true visible Church so long as they cleave unto him continue faythful and to his invisible for ever even in the very dayes of Apostasie Sathan did not prevaile against the elect of God The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in al the tyme of Antichrist as even Reâ—nerius the Popes Inquisitor acknowledgeth whose Testimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true understanding yet doth it not follow that that church from which we did separate was that true church or yet that this true church was alwayes visible But I come to your second answer which is more properly as you say solvendo That the covenant is sayd to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existance Answ in the world in an established church but in respect of the stabilitie of it in regard of Sathans inalice c. This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not for Rep. I did not intend in saying the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Sathan that there was alwayes a true visible church walking in all the commandements of God but this I mynded and do say that the covenaÌ„t of God could never be cut off through the malice of Sathan but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes yea through the great Apostasie of Antichrist You say There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme and so no true baptisme Ans This consequent will not follow for though the church of Antichrist was no true church yet everie thing therein was not so for the Scriptures though by them abused even in that Church were the true word of God â—ep and so baptisme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned though corruptly administred I deny that the covenant Church or baptisme was visible alwayes An. â—epl Baptisme which was appointed to be a seal of Gods covenant hath ever since the first institution of it been visible that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasie And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen wher is no apparance of Christianitie for in them remaynes some kind of visibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or lesse accordingly as they are more or lesse corrupted For if all visibilitie should cease they should cease to be called Apostate and indeed become no churches And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footsteps of that image of God wherein he was first created so in
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
to teach us that live under the Gospel And if they be in force to teach then are we to learne and to be taught by them As for Christ his faythfulnes in teaching us his new Testament which you think is diminished if we labour to prove any of the ordinances thereof from the Scriptures of the old Testament know you that we hold Christ * Heb. 3. 2. to be faythful to him that hath appointed even as Moses in al his howse And yet no disparagement to him or the new Testament but rather an honour to prove the parts and observances thereof from Moses and the Prophets For he that bad us Search the scriptures did also himself to the two disciples that went to Emaus “ Luk. 24. â—â— beginne at Moses and at all the Prophets and interpreted unto them in al the Scriptures the things which were written of him Which practise of Christ as it doth teach us that we may learn Christ and the new Testament out of Moses and the Scriptures of the old Testament so doth it manifest his faythfulnes that taught and fulfilled al that was prophesied of him not imposing upon his church any new doctrine not heard of before Baptisme under the Gospell is proved out of the old Testaments the Iewes did not think it strange to be at the coming of the Messiah Ioh. 1. 25. And Mr. Smyth sayth that the Iewes baptismes were into the Messias to come in type Ergo our baptisme being the thing typed must needs have warrant from the old Testament and then it is no disgrace to goe to school to Moses to learn it And first I would know why we may not as wel with the Papists fetch one high Repl. Priest from Moses succession in the Ministerie from Moses succession in the Church from Moses as a succession in baptisme from Moses and in effect you fetch a succession of the Church from Rome for in fetching a succession of Baptismâ— from Rome which is the forme of the church yea and in fetching a succession of the matter of the church which is the seed of the Parents baptised you of necessitie make the church of Rome a true Church First for the Priesthood of Moses the Ceremonies and such like ordinances Answ of the church under the old Testament they are †Heb. 7. 12. c. cha â— ch 9. â— cha 10. Col. 2. 16. 17. removed by the coming of Iesus Christ and therefore there cannot be any succession thereof under the Gospel save in Christ but of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and sealed to him and his seed before the law was given is no abrogation thereof There is an everlasting continuance which you call a succession not onely in the Church of the old Testament but also under the Gospell as the Apostles do * Gal. 3. 8 9. Act. 2. 3 witnes as also “ Mat. 28. 19. a continuance of the sealing of the same And therefore we must plead such a succession both of the covenant and sealing thereof from our father Abraham seing it is the †Gal. 3. 8. 14. 17. 28. 4. 28. same wherein we of the Gentiles are comprehended And this difference between this Covenant and the law and ordinances of the old Testament if it please you to take notice of will answer your question about succession Yet I would not have you mistake me for although I hold in this sense a continual succession of the people of God partakers of this covenant of salvation I affirme not that there hath been alway and at al tymes known established churches keeping soundly all the ordinances of Christ and making visible profession thereof In the Apostacie of Israel the Lord had his seven thowsand that never bowed their knee to Baal to whom this covenant belonged and so had he in “ Rev. 18. 4 antichristianisme Again we fetch not a succession of Baptisme from Moses otherwise then the Apostles have taught us Col. 2. 10. 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21. The sealing of the covenant was commanded to Abraham and never repealed save onely the outward signe changed as before is sayd And as we fetch no otherwise succession from Moses or the old Testament then hath been sayd No more do we succession of the Ministerie or of any other ordinance of Christ but in like manner and upon like warrant 2. Concerning fetching of succession of our church froÌ„ Rome because of our Baptisme I answer 1. that Baptisme as also the Scriptures were given to the Church of Rome when she was a true church and she retayning them in her Apostasie we receive them as Christe word and baptisme though continued through her corrupt Ministerie and estate 2. If according to your terming succession of Baptisme be graunted being an ordinance of God yet will it not followe that therefore we must reteyn the whoredomes of the church of Rome which we are coÌ„manded to separate from Rev. 18. 4 because we retein baptisme but rather thus as we have baptisme froÌ„ Christ so are we to have the coÌ„stitution of our church what is polluted in eyther by Antichrist to reject 3. Our retayning of baptisme administred in the Apostate churches doth no more prove that we fetch succession of our church from Rome then the Israelites that were circumcised in the church of Ieroboam returning to Ierusalem did fetch the succession of their church froÌ„ the Apostate church of Israel If it be objected that this people now separated from that Apostacy were matter of that false church and so we fetch a succession of the matter of our church from a false church I answer that al such of Gods people that stand members of those Antichristian assemblies must be considered two wayes 1. in respect of us and their outward standing so are they members of those Assemblies 2. in respect of the Lord and their election so are they no members thereof but the matter of Gods invisible church in tyme becoming visible As on the contrarie in a visible church al the people thereof in our account are held true members yet †hypocrites 1 Ioh. 2. 19. in the Lords account are no members or matter thereof And as the Apostle sayth of Antichrists if they had been of us they should have continued with us so I say of Gods people in Babilon if they had been of that Antichristian church they should have continued with them but by their coÌ„ing out it appeares that they are not of them and therefore we cannot be sayd to have the matter of our church by succession froÌ„ Antichristianisme but by the gracious work of God in his people of al ages and to use your word of Succession as it were by a secret and hidden succession even from the Apostles tymes And thus it wil not follow as you say that we make the church of Rome a true church If Infants of the church of Rome have true tytle
to Baptisme by reason of the fayth Repl. of some of their Auncestors that were faythful then are they the true matter of the visible church c. We do not say that the Infants of the church of Rome have tytle to An. Baptisme by reason of their Ancestors fayth but do afferme that in respect of that Apostatical standing neither infants nor their parents have right to any of Gods ordinances neither is it inough that people be elected and thereby to have right to Gods covenant c. before God but to be members of the visible church and partakers of the holy things there must be a * Rev. 18. 4 visible going out of Babylon “ 2 Cor. 6. â—6 fâ—r what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols the vessels of the Lord must be caried out to Ierusalem then are they in their due place and shal have their true vse which in their Romish standing they could not have albeit in Babylon they were the vessels of the Lord. And herein are you deceived that if any of the ordinances of God be reteyned in the hands of Autichristians these ordinances must eyther make them a true visible Church or be none of his and when they are brought out thence have no vse These thing may also answer that which followes For upon this that we deny Baptisme administred in Poperie to be iterated you would conclude these absurdities to follow viz. That infants of the Church of Rome are a true visible Ch in the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ essential Repl. causes therof That the Church in the new testameÌ„t coÌ„meth by successioÌ„ of carnal genealogie through the church of Rome to our dayes That the matter of the church viz. Infants descending of baptised parents is by genealogie the form of the Church viz. baptism vpon those infants is by descent and therefore the Church is by succession I demaund why may not the Ministerie be by succession as wel as the Church and England and Rome true Churches their Ministery true c. To all which particulars I answer thus 1. Infants may be members Ans of a visible Church but that a visible Church can stand of infants onely we deny 2. Neyther Infants nor the elder sort standing in Antichristianism can be the matter of a true visible Church being so looked vpon according to that estate and respect 3. Baptisme which you would have the form hath his true use in the visible Church of Christ and to Gods people 4. let the people of God in Babylon and the Baptisme that there they receive be compared with Gods people in the apostate Church of Israel with their circumcision And it will appeare that the infants of the Church of Rome are not a true visible Church in the essential causes therof any more or otherwise then as they were in Israel CoÌ„cerning the Churches successioÌ„ by carnal genealogie I answer that as the covenaÌ„t was made with AbrahaÌ„ and his seed so vnder the Gospell doth the promise belong to the parents their childreÌ„ And that God had “ Apoc. 14. 4. his people in all the tymes of Popery that were within his covenant Neyther is this to hold succession of visible Churches but to vse your terme a succession of true beleevers in all ages though not alwayes known in publick it being the lot of the †Rev. 1. 13. 14. Church to be persequuted by the Dragon and driven to flee into the wildernes for a time times half a time And therefore seing the matter of the visible Church is not alwayes nor otherwise seen to descend from baptised persos by genealogie then as it did from parents circumcised in Israel there can be no other succession visible of the Church or Ministerie then is incident to such estate but as in Israel there was * a breaking off of both so hath King 12 33. â—ev 11. 7. 12. 14. â— 13. 7. 8. it fallen out under the new Testament a †surceasing of succession of true visible Churches and of the true Ministerie in the apostasie of Antichrist And this may satisfie you why we may not returne back againe to churches continuing in Apostasie But where you say you hear some are mynded to take up their former ministerie and returne back againe into England You should have done wel eyther to have forewarned such if you knew in them a purpose to sinne els not so easily to have received the report thereof to make it publike and so to cause suspition to arise against any brother undeservedly For myne own part I know none of the church to have any such thoughts If any that have left the fayth as you have done and departed from the church or for their sinne justly cast out so do purpose what is that to us look to it your selves And truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retayne the church and Ministerie of England as to retayne the baptisme and when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of England I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church Ministerie of England c. It may be you speak truer of your estate then you think But whatsoever Ans your perswasion is I mynd a difference to be put between baptisme administred in churches standing in Apostasie and the constitution and ministerie of these churches For baptisme being the ordinance of God may not be repeated as before is proved but those Assemblies that consist of confused multitudes and are not set in the wayes of God that have a false Ministerie and worship we have a speciall commandement * to separate Rev. 18. 4 Cor. 6. 17. from as we have from al corruptions of Gods ordinances but in no scripture to reject the ordinances themselves for any pollution that is upon them Now it is further to be remembred that we in retayning baptisme do not retayn the corruptions wherewith it was administred but that which is of God therein Neyther do we hold it lawful for them that are come out of Babylon to returne thither to fetch Baptisme And to make this difference to appeare more playnly Let be considered the example of those Israelites that returned to Ierusalem who cast not of theire circumcision yet might they not iustify for true that apostate Church or Ministery from which they did separate or continue in the coÌ„munion thereof without sinne But because I know the Ministerie and Church of England is false therefore it must needs be that Baptisme which is the forme of the Church essentially c. Repl. For the Ministerie of the Church of England whether it be true or false Ans is not the thing controverted between you and me but that baptisme in an apostate Church is false essentially I deny and your self confesseth * Charâ— pag. 35. that if it be administred by Antichrist to such as confesse their faith and sinnes it were true and not to be repeated which
of the Israelites was not false The churches of Antichrist were false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised which was not that one seed unto the which the promise was made that is the faythful c. I have shewed before how wel you agree with your self concerning the Ans church of Israel which here you say was nor false and yet have published to the contrarie As for your grounds or reasons of the trunes of the Israelitish church and falsenes of Antichrists whatsoever you can plead for the one the like may be alledged for the other If Israel in her defection be accounted a true church then must Rome also in her Apostasie Certayn it is that both are to be esteemed Apostatical Churches and this is that which we testifie And towching Israel if the carnall circumcision alone of the Israelites had ben the sufficient coÌ„stitution of that church to keep it free from being Apostate they continuing it why should the Lord bidde tel her †Hos 2. â— that she was not his wife nor he her husband Or did the * 2 Chro. 13. 14. Priests and Levites wel to leave their suburbes and possessions to leave that church to goe to Iuda and Ierusalem but hereof before 2. For the matter of the Antichristian churches which you say was false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised I answer that they were not therefore false or Apostatical because infants were baptised whose baptisme is proved lawful already but for that they brake covenant with God forsoke their first love as now you do and followed strange lovers “ Rev. 17. 2-6 16. â— 18. 2. 3. 9 24. shed the bloud of the Saincts were a cage of every unclean and hatefull bird c. and these are the sinnes which they are charged with but never is it imputed to them for sinne their baptising of Infants Wherefore an Edomite or Ismaelite coming to be a proselyte of the Iewes Church Rep. that had omitted circumcision is a true president of the Antichristian Apostasie c. This is against your self for if they were uncircumcised they ought to Answ be received into the Iewes Church by circuÌ„cision And so if any be unbaptised they ought now to be received into the ch by baptism But tel me if an Edomite or Ismalite having circuÌ„cisioÌ„ becoÌ„ing a proselyte was recircuÌ„cised Now if the Edomites Ismalites turning to the fayth eyther were uncircumcised or being before circumcised were not recircuÌ„cised what is this to the purpose to prove that Antichristians must be rebaptised You adde also so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church Why say you not rather the Proselytes were types of the Gentiles that under the Gospel are converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church As for their being types of Antichristians you know there is a great difference seeing the Proselytes were uncircumcised afore their convertion but the Antichrists are baptised already But if this be your thought that Proselytes their entrance into the Iewish Church were types of Antichristians converted and admitted into the true Church then I trust you wil that the thing typed be answerable to the type But you know when a Gentile or Edomite was coÌ„verted to the profession of the Iewes and became a proselyte he vvas received 〈◊〉 12. into the church of the old Testament vvith his familie and †al his males must be circumcised as vvel as himself Why admit you not that the Proselytes of Antichristianisme as you call them should enter into the church with their children according to the type propouÌ„ded by your self Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have received us into the Church without baptisme I answer if such an example had been left us we would then have rested satisfied but seeing the Apostles have left no such example or precept therefore you are stil in your Apostasie having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are still unseparated do still retayne the mark of the beast and are subiect to the woe that the Angel threatneth to persons so marked Example is left of such as vvere circumcised in the Apostasie of Israel were not circumcised againe when they came to the church of Iudah and â—s this is written for our learning RoÌ„ 15 4. That baptisme is but †one not to be iterated the scripture teacheth no precept nor example for rebaptising And therefore we may not forsake our baptisme howsoever you cal â—ph 4. 5. or esteem it seeing we know it is not to be repeated but upon our repentance it sealeth unto us the covenant of salvation is effectual for the confirming of our fayth As for Apostacy whether we stand therein or no let it be tryed by the word we know you an unequal judge that hath apostated from the fayth And for the marke of the beast and the woe that followes we know it is due to them to whom it belongs And if this marke were the baptising of infants as you say it is then the Angel should threaten the woe to such as keep the commandements of God and fayth of Iesus which is directly contrarie to the Angels speech intendement But it were good for you to take heed lest while you shoot of such thundering peeces against others they do indeed recoyle upon your selves Of M. Smyths second Reason for Anabaptisme of elder people R. Clyfton Now let us come to the 2. Reason which is this 2. Because true baptisme is but one but the Baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme and so not that one baptisme of Christ But al the members of Christ must have true baptisme Answer 1. There is but one fayth and one baptisme Eph. 4. 4. and therefore it is sufficient to be once baptised as it was to be once circumcised 2. That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt and do also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme and what then must it follow that now such as are baptised must be rebaptised els cannot be members of a visible church I deny it and do further answer 1. That the baptisme which we received in the Apostate church is no more Antichrists then the word that we received therein For Antichrist did never ordeyn a new kind of baptisme but did onely pollute with his inventions that holy ordinance of Christ And therfore if this baptisme that we have received be called the baptisme of Antichrist it is to affirme an untruth seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Christ who commanded his Apostles to baptise all nations with water in the name of the Father and of the Sonne of the H. Ghost Mat. 28. 19. And the same baptism for substaÌ„ce is stil reteyned in the Apostate churches and none other 2. This baptisme may in
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
which the Apostle also speaketh Rom. 11. chap. and how he conveigheth the same to the seed of beleevers then it may be sayd that God loveth the children for the fathers fake with whom the Lord had made his covenant so to love them Not for that the children shal be partakers of that covenant because of their parents fayth or because of Gods covenant made with their parents and their carnal infants but because God elected them in Christ to life invisibly c. The children of beleevers are partakers of Gods covenant because the Lord of his free gift and mercie giving it vnto their parents includeth their seed with them as before I haue proved And thus we are to respect the external dispensation thereof and of this is our question and not of the particular election and reprobation of this or that person For so all are not †Israel which are of Israel And many â—â—â— 9. 6. Mat. 20. â— 16. 25 11. â—k 13. 24. â—â— Mat. â— chap. 1. 2. 19. Act. 3. 25 to vs are visibly within the covenant which are not elected * to salvation Hypocrites will ly lurking in a visible Church which shall not be discerned until the last day yet the holy things of God are administred unto them and they of vs are to be reputed members because visibly they appeare to vs so to be And should we not then thus reckon of the children of the faithful the promise being made indefinitely to “ them and to their seed Neyther is it the carnal lyne that is beloved of God for his mercie sake but the spiritual line c. I answer God for his mercie sake loveth the line of the faithful because of his promise as I haue sayd to chose out therof eveÌ„ out of their carnal line so to call it such as he wil save by Iesus Christ And al this line of the faithful so loÌ„g as they continue in the Church to vs is holy spirituall though in Gods electioÌ„ none be holy to him but those that he hath chosen which two things you confounding make all this doctrine obscure unto your hearers But what is this to prove that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant for the carnal line descending from a beleeving auncestor Re. I do not say that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant unto vs considered according to their outward standing but this I say that Ans in an apostate Church there be though to us unknowen until they come out thence of Gods people that are descended of beleeving auncestors and are beloved and come under the covenant because God wil be found faithful in his promise †Ex. 20. shew mercy to thousands of them that love him Or if it were graunted how doth it follow that the baptism visibly receved in the Re. Antichristian false Church is true baptism sealing vp the covenant to them that the Lord converted in the false Church I answer that while they remayne in that estate they can not make this comfortable vse thereof vnto themselves but when such as be converted Ans in that false Church do separate from the same and turne to the Lord having right to the covenant they have right also to the seale and to all the holy things of God in that they are the people of God And so as the word converteth so baptism sealeth because the efficacy thereof is of God which can no more be hindered by the wickednes of man then the word could be hindered from converting them that belonged to the Lord. Lastly whereas you fetch the Title to the covenant and to baptism for infants in Re. the false Church from some ancestor beleeving 40. generations happily before according to that Exod. 20. 6. I answer three things 1. You must prove that some of our Predecessors had that actual faith and were members of true Churches and this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptisme thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant and baptisme by his carnal line 2. You must by the same reason receave by baptism if you can come by them all the infants of the Thessalonians Galatians Collossians Philippians and Churches of Asia that did sometime beleeve 3. I deny that you expound that place Exod. 20. truely for the Lord directly doth require that they vpon whom he sheweth mercy should feare him and keep his commaundements c. To the first particular I answer in that our Predecessors were all in apostasie Ans yt argueth that they descended from beleevers Apostasie must be from the faith once publikly defended And where there is a publik face of an Apostate church there was formerly a publike face of a church professing the truth from which they are fallen And even their retayning of baptisme to this day is a confirmation thereof Againe this is witnessed by them that came out of Babylon that they are descended from beleevers whose seed the Lord now remembreth in his mercy to do good unto But we are not to stand upon particulars the general estate sheweth what was the precedent estate of Antichristians neyther are we to inquire any more into the particular condition of their Predecessors or parents that come out of Babylon then they of Ierusalem did inquire into the particular estates of the forefathers of those Israelites that left the Apostate church of Ieroboam to joyne unto them For receiving in without baptisme you are answered before To your second particular I answer that the estate of them must be considered whether these be in Apostasie as Rome is or be quite fallen from the fayth and be no churches at all but as infidels that beleeve not in Iesus Christ and his word if their estate were but apostasie and that they beleeved the Scriptures worshipped God and reteyned baptisme though all these in a corrupt manner then should we do alike unto them as we do to the papists But if they were become infidâ—ls and the candelstick removed from them so that no stepps of a church remaynes amongst them then are we to receive both parents beleeving and their children into the church by baptisme as the Apostles in the like case did Accordingly for receiving the infants of the Thessalonians c. if we can come by them we hold it thus if their parents returne to the Lord and his church or if some of the faythful undertake their education as their own children In the third particular you deny that I expound the place of Exod. 20. 6. truly My words are set down before pag. 213. And my meaning was this that concerning those that ar born in an apostate church the Lord remembreth his covenant made with their forefathers that beleeved doth cal of their seed whom it pleaseth him to the knowledge of his truth fayth in Christ not regarding their immediate idolatrous and apostate Eze. 18. â— 17. â— Chro. 30. â— 11.
that we may receive a ful reward And now unto him that is able to keep vs that we fall not to present vs faultlesse before the presence of his glorie with ioye To God onely our Saviour be glorie and Maiestie Dominion and power both now and ever Amen Richard Clifton AN ANSWER TO Mr SMYTHES Epistle to the Reader which he hath directed To every one that loveth the truth in sincerity BY these wordes it seemeth Mr Smyth would intimate that his care is to mainteyne the truth and that in sinceritie he loveth the same whereas in deed he hath destroyed the faith is become an enemy to the covenant of grace a perverter of the right wayes â—f the Lord and withall so confident in defence of his heresies that he â—â—es to challendge a combate with all the Separation belike to feare men â—ith great words and to boast with Rabsake as if his forces were invinâ—ble But what they are it wil appeare in this discourse following In the Epistle it self first Mr Smyth seemeth to excuse their mutabilitie in ReligioÌ„ saying It may be thought most strange that a man should oft times change â—s religion and it cannot be accounted a commendable qualitie in any man to make â—ny alterations c. this must needs be true and we confesse it if one condition be 〈…〉 itted that the Religion which a man changeth be the truth for otherwise to change 〈…〉 lse religion is commendable c. But Mr Smyth and his company have changed a true Religion for a â—alse and therefore that can be no commendable qualitie in them And â—uch inconstant persons as himself saith cannot escape the deserved imputation â—folly or weaknes of iudgement therein Thus out of his owne mouth proâ—ouncing senteÌ„ce against himself For that alteratioÌ„ of him his coÌ„pany â—s not froÌ„ falshood to truth but the leaving of the truth which formerly â—hey professed a taking up of error after error first calling into question whether the scriptures being translated into other tongues were not the writings of men Differenc pag. 10. Then casting the reading of them out of the worship of God affirming that there is no better warrant to bring translations of Scripture into the Church and to read them as parts and helps of worship then to bring in expositions paraphrasts and sermons vpon the Scripture seing all these are equally humane in respect of the worke equally divine in respect of the matter they handle Differ pag. 10. And for the same cause separated themselves from other Churches that did read and vse the same in their publike meetings After this they dissolved their Church which before vvas conioyned in the fellowship of the Gospel profession of the true fayth Mr. Smyth being Pastor thereof gave over his office as did also the Deacons and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptisme and taking upon them an other of mans invention bringing in an other Gospel besides that which was preached to Abraham Gen. 12 3 17. 7. c. Gal. 3 8. And now againe many of this new communion have separated themselves from the rest holding the error about the incarnation â—f this new â—aptised coÌ„â—union â—ere are reâ—ayning as â—is reported â—t above â— persons â—l the rest â—e runne in â— further â—rors of Christ An other sort are excommunicate namely M. Smyth divers with him for holding as it is reported by some that were of them that their new washed companie is no true church and that there cannot be in a church the administratioÌ„ of baptisme other ordinances of Christ without Officers contrarie to his former judgment practise writings yet resteth not but is inquiring after a new way of walking as the same persons affirme breeding more errors as is strongly suspected and by his manuscripts partly appeares Whereby it is manifest that these men can not cleare themselves of instabilitie changeablenes in Religion but are guilty of that inconstancie that is worthy reproof and damnable Further he sayth For a man of a Turke to become a Jew of a Iew a Papist of a Papist a Protestant are al commendable changes c. so that not to change religion is evil simplie therefore that we should fal from Puritanisme to Brownisme and from Brownisme to true christian baptisme is not simply evil in it self except it be proved that we have fallen from the true religion c. Here Mr. Smyth would make the world beleeve as it is the manner of al heretikes that their alterations were goings forward to further truthes and therefore commendable But if their true Christian baptisme whereof they boast prove a notable heresie as it is indeed in this Treatise is proved then his comparison holds not but rather their estate is like to those in 1 Tim. 1 19. that put away fayth a good conscience and as concerning fayth have made shipwrack And that bring in damnable heresies 2 Pet. 2. 1. c. denying the covenant of grace and the lawful use of the scriptures c. to bring upon themselves swift damnation if God give them not speedy repentance Next M. Smyth setts down the questions controverted and hereafter answered affirming that this controversie is between them and the Separation whereas he might as well have sayd betweene them and all christian churches that have been or are at this day for it is not we alone that â—ndemne these their heresies but both the ancient and moderne Churâ—es and vvriters in all ages as vvith one consent have opposed against â—em But where he pretends the publishing of this controversy to be for the â—ay of God the manifesting of the truth to our owne nation and the destruction of â—man of sinne he geveth vs to mynd how Satan hath bewitched his soule â— beleeve that such can be the effects of his heritical opinions It is the â—ollicy of the Divil to propound glorious ends to such as he seduceth as â— Evah and others teacheth his Ministers to do the like that by fayre â—attring speeches and shewes of good they might more easily deceave the â—mple And therfore seing we are forwarned that there shal be false Teachers â—mongst vs which privily shal bring in damnable heresies it behoveth vs â—o mynd the counsel of the Apostles to try the spirits 1. Ioh. 4. 1. And not â—o be caryed about with every wynd of doctrine Ephe. 4. 14. Now happely sayth Mr. Smyth some man wil wish that the controversy had 〈◊〉 with the Rabbies of the Separation and not with Mr Clyfton whome they ca 〈…〉 iate to be a weake man vnable to deale in so great a controversy wel let the Reader take notice that though it be Mr Clyftons pen yet it is not onely Mr Clyftons 〈…〉 se defâ—nce but his allegatioÌ„s Reasons are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies theÌ„â—elves And if they can say better they may now speake for by publishing answere to
then I hope it cannot be denyed but so it is lawfull to do for other ordinances also Touching the error of the Incarnation of Christ which also Mr. Smyth desyreth may not be imputed vnto them It is wel knowne that many of theire company holding that error about the incarnation are separated from the rest And Mr. Smyth him selfe as some amongst them have reported maketh a question about the first matter of Christs humane nature as if it were not a poynt of fayth to beleeve that it was of the virgin though it be to be beleeved that the second matter was nourished in her womb Whether his hearers do wrong him in such reports or how he resteth satisfied it is best knowen to himselfe And be it that he stand cleere of this error yet is be taynted with the errors of general redemption and free wil els why hath he given forth these Positions 1. Christs Redemption strecheth to all men 2. Man hath not lost the facultie of willing any good thing that is shewed him And with all added therevnto his Reasons in defence thereof Now let the Reader judge what cause he had to desire that these things should not be imputed vnto them Lastly Mr. Smyth taketh upon him to advertise our Church saying Let the Separation be advertised that whereas they do so coÌ„fidently through theire selfe-love self conceat fil their mouthes with heresie and hereticks as therby they would feare Babes that therein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors c. For this his advertisment if any have spoken otherwise then is meete I am no Patrone of any such speeches but if it was lawful for Iohn to call the Phariseis GeneratioÌ„ of vipers And Paul to say to Elimas Oh ful of subtilty all mischeiffe c. then is it not simply vnlawfull to vse such speeches so it be for reproofe and not for reproche Therefore to call them hereticks and their opinions heresies it being true and spoken in detestation of their errors not of their persons I see no evil in so saying see these places Io. 8. 44. 2. Pet. 2. 1. 2. 1. Io. 2. 18. Act. 13. 10. Gal. 3. 1. Rev. 2. 6. 15. And if this be a fault in vs why doth Mr. Smyth fil his mouth with Antichristian errors so calling those truthes which we hold Hath he a dispensation so to speake agaynst the truth and yet to blame vs for calling their false doctrynes heresy I should rather have thought that he ought to have advertised himselfe for these reprochful sclanderous speaches that he hath vttered agaynst our Church the Teachers thereof calling them †Charâ—â— Epistle the Reâ— Rabbies of the Separation The greatest Rabbies And thus speaking to the Church Be it knowen to the Separation that we account them in respect of their constitution as very an harlot as eyther her mother England or her Grandmother Rome We protest agaynst her as wel for her false constitution as for her false Ministery worship and Goverment I could wish as the Tyrant wished Concerning the people of Rome that all their heads were joyned into one We desire the Separation they wil not in craftines withdrawe from the Combate We require them nay we charge them yea we chalendg them to the defence of their errors We protest agaynst them to be a false Church They treade in the steps of all the Antichristians their Predecessors Let them take heed that notwithstanding their Syrenes songs they prove not Cages full of most vgly and deformed Antichristian Hereticks All these reprochfull speeches if not more hath he published in lesse then a sheete of paper besydes what are contayned in his Book And yet notwithstanding all these speaches have thus passed from him he takes vpon him to advertise vs for that we can justifie against his doctrines against themselves for their obstinate defending of their errors But where he chargeth vs to call them Heretikes their doctrines heresie through self love and self conceatednes c. If he had applyed self love and conceipt to him self I take it he might more justly have done it if we may judge by his words As for selfe love and selfe coÌ„ceipt we condemne in whomsoever And howsoever we have our infirmities I trust he shalnot be able to tax any of vs iustly of these imputations And as Mr. Smyth wisheth us not to be wyse in our owne eies through pryde c. we hope the Lord wil so teach vs. And we pray the Lord to geve him a sight of his damnable heresies whereinto he is fallen openly sinning in the publishing thereof to the great dishonor of God and greiffe of al the godly and that the almighty may preserve all that are his chosen from being poysoned with the same Richard Clyfton THE PROCESSE OF THE PASSAGES between Mr Iohn Smyth and Richard Clifton Mr Smyth CERTAINE REASONS PROPOVNDED To Mr Rich. Clifton concerning the two Propositions following 1. That infants are not to be baptised 1. Because there is neither precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples Only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their Faith were baptized Marc. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. 2. Bicause Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptize theÌ„ Mat. 28 19. Ioh. 4. 1. but infants cannot by doctryne become Christs Disciples and so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptized 3. Bicause if infants be baptized the carnal seed is baptized and so the seale of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenant apperteyneth not Rom 9. 8. which is a profanation 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admited into the true Church by Baptisme 1. Bicause Churches are so to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist as they were first erected by the Apostles But in the constitution of Churches the Apostles received in the members by baptisme go So must wee doe now 2. Bicause true baptisme is but one but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme and so not that one baptisme of Christ but all members of Christ must have true baptisme 3. Because as the false Church is rejected and the true erected the false Ministery forsaken and the true received So false worship and by consequent baptisme must â—e renounced and the true baptisme assumed Richard Clifton AN ANSVVER TO TVVO ANABAPTISTICALL OPINIONS vid videlicet 1. That Infants are not to be baptized 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to vndertake this busynes against him that was deere vnto me yet being therevnto provoked by the sending to me these two Positions with certayne reasons annexed vnder the Authours owne hand I thought it my part although the vnablest of many to contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given to the Saints Iud. 3. And by the
his seed indefinitely as we also doo beleeve that God will â— our God and the God of our seed because he hath so promised and therefore doo we in assurance hereof cause our Infants to be baptised according to the * coÌ„mandement of Christ if any of them coÌ„ming to yeres do manifest Mat 28. by their vnbeleef that they are reprobate then are we to take notice that they ‡ were not of vs but till then we are to account them as children Io 2. 19. of the Covenant as well as we do those that being hypocrites do outwardly Act. 8. 13. professe the fayth so are baptised as SymoÌ„ Magus Secondly you say The spirituall covenant was offerred to all Abrahams seed vnder the carnall c. How Gods covenant was geven to Abraham and his seed not barely offerred I have shewed before so also have I answered to your carnal covenant and confesse that the Lord vnder types figures did teach and shadow forth vnto Israell diverse particulars of the Messiah as of his †sacrificing Heb. 8. 5. 9. 8. 9. â—c 10. â— c. Col. â— 17. Heb. â— 9. â— chap. â— Cor. 10. 1. 6. death resurrection Preisthood and such like and of good things to come to his Church vnder the Gopell and of the Kingdome of heaven but that there was a carnal covenant or Testament made with Abraham over besides the covenant of grace sealed vnto him and his carnal seed by circumcision all your learning can never prove it You coÌ„clude That as it was offred to AbrahaÌ„s seed so to ours This I hope theÌ„ if it be proved that the spirituall covenant was not onely offerred but geveÌ„ to AbrahaÌ„s carnall seed I meane the Israelites that the same covenaÌ„t is giveÌ„ to our childreÌ„ vnlesse the grace of God be lessened vnder the gospel to prove the former viz that the spiritual covenaÌ„t was giveÌ„ to the Israelites besydes that which hath bene formerly observed I will add some sew reasons moe to confirme the same 1. Deu 29. 10-15 Moses speaking vnto all Israel sayth ye stand â—y every one of you before the Lord your God your heads of your tribes your â— and your officers all the men of Israell your children your wives c. that â—houldest passe into the covenaunt of the Lord thy God and into his othe â— he maketh with thee this day c. neither make I this covenaunt with you â— but with him that standeth here with vs this day as with him that is not here â— vs this day c. Which covenaunt is the †Deut. 2 13. confâ— with Gen 17. 1. 2. 7 19. 2â— 3. same that was made to â—raham and renued both on Gods behalfe and the peoples Now that â—venant that God confirmed to Abraham with an othe is the covenant â— grace as Luke 1. 72. 75. conferd with Gen. 22. 16. Heb. 6. 13. 14. And his covenaunt that was made to Abraham is the very same that Israâ—l renued with the Lord for themselves and their posterity Deut. 19. 13. â—4 15. which was not barely offred but confirmed vnto Abraham his â—ed by the Lords oth Yea in verse 10. 12. it is sayd ye stand this day to passe â—râ— the covenant of the Lord and into his oth which he maketh with thee this day for â— establish thee this day a people unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as â—e hath sayd vnto thee and hath sworne vnto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Iaâ—ob And this to be their God they to be his people their posteritie was no carnall covenaunt but the very ‡ 2 Cor. 6. 16. same that is made with vs vnder the Gospel 2. That the Lord made with Israel his spirituall covenaunt may also be proved Deut. 10. 16. where Moses exhorts them to circumcise the foreskinne of their hart and by all these exhortations of the Prophets to repentance Ier. 3. 14. 4. 1. 4. 7. 3. Hosea 10. 12. and 14. 1-7 Ioel 2. 12. 13. Amos 5. 4. 6. Zepha 2. 1. 2. which are the conditions of that spirituall covenant that the Lord requires on our part therein the promises of pardon annexed therevnto which is the other part of the covenant on Gods behalfe Now the covenaunt of the law admits of no repentance nor promiseth any pardon onely the covenaunt of grace admits thereof If therefore they had not had the spirituall covenaunt given vnto them wherevpon could the Prophets have grounded their exhortations or with such reasons have perswaded them to repentaunce This was the ground of Peters exhortation of the Iewes to amendement of life as before is observed out of Act. 2. 38. 39. And by the Lords requyring of repentance at the hands of the Is 〈…〉 it is most cleere that God required then the same thing that now 〈◊〉 †gospel is required of vs Ergo they were interessed in the same cove 〈…〉 Mar. 1. â— 15. that we have And therfore not onely the outward observation of ce 〈…〉 nies was required of the Iewes by their covenant but also the obs 〈…〉 of the conditions of the covenant of grace as to walke before God anâ— be vpright Gen 17. 1. to beleeve and repent And it is a notable err 〈…〉 hold the contrarie 3. Israel were held to be the people of God and the Lord to be their God and so God did ‡ account of them Now I would know if they could â—r 23. 2. â—ay 5. 7. â—icah 2. 8. â— Hos 11. â— Deut. â— 8. Gen. â— 8. Ehe 2. â— â— Cor. 6. â— 17. Aâ— c. 18. 4. be sayd to be his people and not to be within his covenant of grace doth God accept of any by a carnal covenant to be his people and not in Christ do not both Iewes GeÌ„tiles become Gods people through Christ and all that are not within his covenant are sayd to be * far of and without God But the offring onely of the Gospel or covenant makes not a people to be Gods people for the Gospel may be preached to them that are without but then are they sayd to be Gods people when they imbrace his covenant and not before and such as do receive it are commanded †to separate themselves from the prophane which wil not have the Lord to be their God which separation argues a difference between a people to whome the promises are offred and such as have received them for that Gospell that converted some in a false Church was offerred to moe yet is it received onely of the faithfull in which respect they are sayd to be the people and Church of God This resteth then for you to shew that God intituleth any to be his people which have not eyther themselves or â—om 9. 4. â— 2. 39. â—eut 29. their forefathers received the covenant of grace And as Israel was called the people of God because the ‡ covenant belonged
Esra 6. â— Abraham and of them that were Gentiles and to be adioyned to the Church of the old Testament And therefore this manner of admitting members into the Church being morall vnder the law so continueth to be vnder the Gospell And the †“ Deut. 1â— 4. â— 6. Ier â— Deut. 30. 6. Circumcision of the hart was commanded and promised then to the Israelites and their seed as wel as now it is to us and not onely to them that adjoyned to the Church but continually to all the members of the same And therfore it is noâ— true that theirs was the type onely and ours the truth seeing the things signifyed by Circumcision were required of the circumcised as the thing signified by baptisme is also required of vs and a like enterance into the Church vnder both Testaments The third is this As in the old Testament carnal infants were carnally begâ—tten and borne by the mortall seed of generation by their carnal parents and then â—ere carnally circuÌ„cised received into the carnal covenant so in the new Testament spiritual Infants new borne babes in Christ must be spiritually begotten and 〈◊〉 the immortall seed of regeneration by spirituall parents and then being spirit 〈…〉 circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be received into the new Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second was verified in the truth This reason is a like to the former and hath answer already This I add further that circumcision though it was a cuttyng of the foreskinne of the flesh yet was it an holy action †sealing vnto the beleevers and theire RoÌ„ 4. 11. seed the righteousnes of faith 2 I deny that the seed of Abraham after the flesh was by circumcision received into a carnall covenant the covenant is spiritual vnto which Gen. 17. 7 â— Act. 7. 8. â— 4. 11. they were sealed * by circumcision as before I have proved for had they bene received into a carnall covenant then should the Church of the old Testament be also carnall for according to the nature of the covenant so must the Church be and GOD must be a carnall GOD and delited with carnall things contrary to Psal 50. 8. 13. Esay 1. 13. 14. But the Lord required of his people the Israelites more then outward or carnal service and that which stood in ceremonies types and shadowes Lev. 19. 2 even †holynes the circumcision of the hart * repentance “ Deut. 10. the service of the hart and soule And that the Lord did principally require â—6 Jer. 4. 4. â— Hos 14. 2 â—el 2. 12. â—3 Ps 4. 4 â— Deut. 10. â— 6. 4. 5. â—sa 1. 11 â— 58. 2 â—4 5. Ps â—0 8. 13. spirituall worship of them appears by his †rejection of their ceremoniall worship when it was offerred vp without the spirituall and by exhorting to the spiritual as Psal 50. 14. 15. to offer praise and to call vpon him and Psal 4. 5. to offer the sacrifice of righteousnes and in Hoseah 14. 2. to pray for pardon and to render vp the calves of their lips And consequently faith in Christ without * Heb. 11. 6 which all their worship was vnsavory to God the Psal discribeth the true members of the Church and dwellers in the Lords †Ps 15. 1. â—2 3. c. Ps 24. 3. 4. â— Tabernacle not by an outward observacion of legall ceremonies but of their spirituall obedience The Lord sayth “ Prov. 23 â— â— Esa 29. â—3 my sonn give me thy hart and reproveth †hipocrisie By all which testimonies it is manifest that the members of the old Church were received into a further covenant with the Lord then into a bare carnal covenant which hath carnal conditions onely as before is proved The fourth is this If the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the new Testament must not be baptised because that as circumcision is abolished which was the singe or seal so the infant is abolished which is the subiect of the signe or seal And a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the spirit and by the word But the carnal infaÌ„ts in the old TestameÌ„t were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the new Testament to be baptised The consequent of the major wil not follow the reason proves it not For although circumcision be abolished in that there was somewhat 〈◊〉 â—t was typical as the circumcising of the males onely whereby they were directed vnto Christ by whom our corrupt nature is clensed yet was â—t not abolished as it was a seale of the covenant but the outward ceremoâ—ie onely changed no more is the carnal infant of the beleeving parents abolished or made vncaple of the seal of Gods covenant for the children of Christians †Gal. 3. 29 are Abrahams seed I say not in respect of the flesh but by grace of the covenant comprehending the whole seed of the faithful and therefore have right as well to the signe of the covenant as had the carnall sede of Abraham Towching your proportionable infant as you term him it is to be obserâ—ed that in the old Church it was required of al that were to be adioyned thervnto that they should * Exod. 12 48. Ezr. 6 21. separate from the filthines of the heatheÌ„ to seek the Lord as now it is vnder the gospel And therefore it wil not follow that circumcision was a type onely of the time to come the fift is this As in the old Testament when the male appeared the eight day their was a paynful circumcising and mortifying of the foreskin when the party was received into the covenant actually so in the new testament when the Lord Iesus Christ typed by the male appointeth that when there is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous fore â—kin of the hart the party so qualifyed should be received into the new testament actually But the first was signifyed by the type Ergo the second is verified in the truth First the covenant to the infants of the Iewes was actually sealed by circuÌ„cisioÌ„ but this caÌ„not properly be said a receiving into the covenaÌ„t wherin they were before comprehended with their fathers but a confirming therof to the parties circumcised And this appeareth to be so by the Lords threatning to * Gen. 1â— 14. cut of from his people the vncircumcised male-child Can he be cut of that was not of his people or for the refusing circumcision to be be sayd to have broken the Lords covenant 2. Your simile holds not proportion for you say the party circumcised was by circumcision actually received into the covenant then by your reason if you will make it proportionable the parties that are to be received into the new Testament must be received therin by the mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of his hart or els you must shew some ceremony folowing
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.
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
before and have shewed that the Apostle handles there no such thing as you do gather As for the reveyling of this division of the sonâ—s of Isaac which you say was to the church indeed thus much was reveiled to Rebecca Gen. 25. 23. it was told her that two nations are in thy wombe and two maner of people shoâ—ld be devided out of thy bowels and the one people should be mightier then the other the Elder shall serve the yonger meaning that they that should descend of the Elder brother should serve them that came of the yonger see the blessing of Isaac to his two sonns Gen. 27. 27. 28. 29 39. 40 Abdi 10. but that the personal reprobatioÌ„ of Esau was revealed then to Rebecca or to the church doth not appear in these words before rehersed can any say that none of Esau his posterty was in Gods secret electioÌ„ if this scripture wil not warrant any so to judg then neyther would it warrant Rebecca so to apply it to her sonne being so generally spoken The personal rejection eyther of Ismael or Esau was not reveled vntil by their evil workes they manyfested themselues and therefore these children being borne in the church as Esau was in Iacobs house were to be reputed holy to be circumcised and held of the covenant vntil there wickednes threw them out That the whole church of the Jewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ but onely vnder the offer of it I use these reasons first the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament Fayth and 〈…〉 tance is the condition and obedience of the matter and members of the new Testa 〈…〉 Mar. 1. 15. Ergo fayth and repentance is not the condition or obedience of 〈◊〉 matter or members of the old Testament Your proposition is not true you exclude fayth and repentance from â—he members of the old Testament as if by their covenant they were not â—ound to beleev and obey his commandements which is contrary to these â—criptures Gen. 17 1. 6. Rom. 4. 3. 13. Heb. 11. 17. Iam. 2. 21. 23. Deu. 19. 9-20 10. 12. 13. 20. That repentance was required of the Iewes not onely the prophets often exhorting of them to repeÌ„tance do witnes as before is observed but also in that their repètance †Iud. 2. â— 1 SaÌ„ 7. 3â— Ezr. ca. 1â— Neh. cap. â— Deut. 9. 10. Esa 1â— 16. 17. turned away Gods anger from them and the conditional * Esa 1. 1â— Jer. 3. 22. Hos 6. 1. â— 3. 14 â— Ioel. 2. 13 promises of pardon if they did repent Also Gods threatning of judgments against them if they repented not And that fayth was also required of them see al these scriptures Psal â—8 5. 6. 7. 22. 2 Chro. 20. 20. Esa 53. 1. and 7. 9. Hab. 2. 4. Act. 26. 6. 7. Heb. 11. 13. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. And thus you see that that condition and obedience of the members of the new Testament which you say is fayth and repentance was also the condition and obedience of the members of the old Test The reason of the maior is evident c. seeing that as the ministerie worship goverment of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the ministerie worship and goverment of the new Testament is so the condition viz. the matter and forme of the Church of the old Testament was of an other nature then the constitution that is the matter and forme of the new Testament c. Heb. 7. 16. Gal 5. 3. I answer first that it is not simply true that the ministerie worship of the church of the old Test is of another nature from that of the Gospel For although in their worship and ministerie were many things typical ceremonial yet vvithal God required of them spiritual vvorship obedience without which their “ Esa 1. 12. 15. Gâ— 4. 5 ceremonial was abhominable Also if preaching of the word and prayer c. be of a spiritual nature then was their ministerie and worship more then carnal The prophet †Esa 56. 1â— complaynes of neglect of teaching in the Preists which argueth that they were bound by their calling to instruct the people Malachy sayth * Mal. 2. â— 6. 7. The Priests lips shal preserve knowledge c. they shall seek the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts and this was by office for the Lord sayth My covenant was with Levi of life and peace c. the law of truth was in his mouth And in Ieremy the Lord complaynes of the Preists saying they that should minister the law â—ow me not promising unto the people if they repent that he would give them “ Pastors according to his owne hart which should feed them with â—â—r 3. 15. â—eh 8. â— Act. 13. â—â— Act. 15. â— knowledg and understanding And in Nehemiah it is written that the Priests and Levites †read in the book of the law and gave the sense and caused the people to understand the reading and this by their office Lev. 10. 11. The Iewes had the * lectures of the law and Prophets in their Synagogues And “ Moses had them of old tyme in every citie that did preach him Thus we see that the opening of the law and preaching of the scriptures Lev. 9. 22 â— Num. â— 23. 27. â— 9. 4 13 â— 10. 1. â—â—h 8. 6. â—l 1. 14. â— 2. 16. 17. was a part of the ministerie of the Priests and Levites and of their publick worship on the sabboth Also the Priests †gave thanks unto God for the people blessed them and prayed The Temple was called the howse af prayer Math. 21. 13. also they had certaine howres of meeting at the Temple which were called howres of prayer Act. 3. 1. And they were coÌ„manded spiritual sacrifices as Ps 4. 5. 50. 14. 15. 23. as formerly is observed Concerning the goverment of the Church of the old Testament which was by the Priests and Levites Elders I know no great difference in nature of thâ—t church and of this under the Gospel The former was governed ecclesiastically by the Priests Elders Mat. 26. 47. Luk. 22. 66 Act. 23. 14. and 6. 12. and 13. 15. 18. 8. 2 Chro. 19. 8. And so the churches of the New Testament are to be governed by the Mat. 18. â—5 16. 17. â— Cor. 5. 3. 5 â— Exo. 19 6. â— Exod 22. â—1 Lev. 14 â— 11. 44 â—â—d 20. 7. â— Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 11. 16 â— Deu. 4. 20 5. 2. Psa â—0 3. 4. Deu. 14. 2. Rom. 11. â—-19 23. â— 27. ministers and Elders Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thes 5. 12. Hebr. 13 8. The censures ecclesiastical under the old Testament were admonition casting out of the Synagogue
againe that the law was not that proper onely form of the Iewish church but the covenant in Christ received by Abraham Concerning Gal. 3. 21. The Apostle teacheth that if the law could have given life righteousnes should have bene by the law this who denyeth but with al you ought to observe that he sayth the law is not against the promises these †Luk. 1. 69. 74. Rom. 9. Ephe. 2. â— 3. 6. promises were geven to the old church as wel as the law was given thereby they might have had life under the old Testament 5 That which was a schoolmaster onely to teach Christ did not presuppose that the schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ which is onely done by fayth â—d repentance The law or old testament was a schoolmaster onely to teach Christ Gal. 3. 24. Rom. 10. 3. 4. Ergo c. The major is not simply true for a scholler may have learned somethings by his schoolmaster and yet continue vnder him stil to be further instructed And so the lawe might lead them to Christ lawe being taken in that Place for al the ordinances of Moses and they by fayth put on Christ to come But I answer to the minor That the lawe was a schoolemaster to teach Christ I say it was that they might be made righteous by fayth but can a schoolmaster teach Christ without teaching fayth in Christ if they were taught fayth did they not learne fayth The Apostle Gal. 3. 24 setts downe the use â—d 3. 24. of the lawe or legal oeconomy 1. That the Iewes thereby might be kept as it were by a garison shut up unto the fayth which after should be revealed verse 23. Secondly that they might be instructed of righteousnes and salvation by Christ vers 24. for during the legal oeconomy their hope was nourished by the Prophets which prophesied of Christs comming Also by the ceremonies and sacrifices they were instructed by circumcisioÌ„ that Christ should be borne of the seed of Abraham that by his death and spirit should †circumcise their harts by the paschal lamb they were taught â— Col. 2. 11. â—2 â— Ioh. 1. 29. that Christ as * an innocent lamb should be slayne to take away their sins and by the other sacrifices and sprinkling of blood and washings was signified the offering up of Christ to come the applycation of his death to the purging of them from al their syns whereof they were partakers by fayth Thirdly this Argument may thus be returned upon you That which was a schoolmaster to teach Christ doth presuppose that the schollers should learn Christ and put him one by fayth and repentance But the law or old Testament was a schoolmaster to teach Christ Therefore the law or old Testament did presuppose that the schollers should learne Christ and put him on by fayth c. Touching the other scripture Rom. 10. 3 4. The Apostle there layeth out RoÌ„ 10. 3. 4. the blind zeale of the Iewes that being ignorant of the righteousnes of God which is by fayth sought to establish their owne righteousnes which is of works and submitted not to the righteousnes of God this he reproves in them and then vers 4. setts downe the reason of their ignorance of the righteousnes of fayth because they did dispise the end of the law which is Christ so called because the * Mat. 5. â—7 Col 2. â—4 Mat. 3 â—5 1 Pet. 2 â—2 Heb. 7. 26. 27. Gal. â— 13. 1 Pet. 1. 19 22. 23. T it 3. 5. Ioh. 3. 5. law is fulfilled onely in him Thus you may see the Apostle speaks not against the coÌ„stitution of that former church but against the corruption of some members of the same 6. That which was hidden kept secret was a mysterie and not reveyled the â—embers of the old testament in their constitution were not indued withal Fayth or â—bedience to the Gospel was a mysterie and not reveyled but kept secret from the begin 〈…〉 g. Gal. 3. 23. Rom. 16. 25. Ergo c There is a fallacy in your setting down of this word Fayth you conclude Gal. 2. 23 that which is not in the propositions or els your Argument is not to the purpose For Fayth in the second proposition according to the meaning of the Apostle Gal. 3. 23. which you cyte for proof thereof is not put for the gift of fayth which is given to al true beleevers whereby they are justified as in Gal. 2. 16. 20. and 3 6. 8 9 11 12 14. but for the things beleeved or fulfilling of the promises of God for in the tyme of the law was sayth els the former church could not have been saved seeing the prophet sayth †Hab. 2. â— the iust shal live by fayth the Gospel was preached to them without * Rom. 10 14-17 which they could not beleev yea to “ Gal. 3. 8. Abraham And though the things promised were not fulfilled during the tyme of the old Testament yet had had Iewes †Heb. 11. 33. 1 Cor. 4. fayth in Christ promised and thereby were saved If you reply that the church of the old Testamant was not indued with fayth in her constitution I answer that there can be no church to God * Ephes 2. 20-22 12 19. Lev. 2â— 12. 2 Cor. 6â— 16. founded without the everlasting covenant in Christ by “ Gen. 1â— 7 which Abraham his seed became the people of God and therefore indued with fayth in their constitution Concerning Rom. 16. 25. By mysterie the Apostle meaneth the calling RoÌ„ 16. â—â— of the Gentiles which now is opened and published among al nations And if it be understood of the Gospel or preaching of Christ as some doe yet was it called a mysterie partly in respect of the nations to whom it was not reveyled before the comming of Christ as ver 26. Also to the Iewes in respect of †1 Pet 1. 10-12 Luk. 10. 24. the things promised but the promise of salvation was preached to Adam to Abraham and to the whole church and was no mystery kept secret from the beginning of the world but in al tymes and ages revealed to the Lords people and by them received 7. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ There is condemnation to them that are under the law for it is the ministerie of death or condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7. Ergo the law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ or they that are under the law are not in Christ and so the members of the church of the old testament are not truly holy Surely this reasoning of yours makes me doubt that you reason against your own knowledge for how can you be ignorant that the church of the Iewes was not under the law as it is the ministerie of death I mean in respect of their constitution There is indeed condemnation to them that are under the law
that is which by the works thereof †seek justification â—l 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. â—or 3. 7. and so were some members of the old church under the law as the Pharisees that * sought to justifie themselves as now they ar that do the like but to hold that the whole church was under condemnation without faith in Christ is an error to be abhord That scripture 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death coÌ„pareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that coÌ„tinued not in al things to fulfil it then much more the ministration of righteousnes shal exceed in glorie which bringeth salvation to them that beleev This is the meaning of the Apost and not to shew that Israel was under condemnation seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ And as they so wee under the Gospel have the law to accuse condemn us if we transgresse it but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Christ are freed from the curse of the law so were the Iewes also Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur eyther before or since Christ but to the “ faythlesse and disobedient both â—s 1 Tim. 1. â— 10. under the old Testament and under the Gospel Finally you say the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iustification by fayth in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iustification Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the disputation of Paul concerning justification is a notable error For where Paul reasoneth against such as mainteyned justification by the works of the law he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holynes for albeit some of the Iewes fel into this error to hold justification by works of the law yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then as wel as now And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification yet fayth in Christ could effect it which I have proved that the old church had in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could â—ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament iâ— the matter or constitution of it was not really holy but onely typically c. I have shewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes not to make them holy and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given and therefore your bould defence against al men that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically hath in it more boldnes then truth the contrary is proved †pag. 23. c. before And therefore your inference is false fiz that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant c. but onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham and afterward assumed written â—mplified by Moses Ioh. 7. 19-23 with Heb. 8. 8. 9. That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed see pag. 20. c. concerning these scriptures in the former Christ charging Iohn 7. 19-23 the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabboth day proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practise reasoning thus if you may circumcise on the Sabboth and not break the law then why may not I as lawfully heal a man this is that Ch. intendeth now because it is sayd ver 22. that Moses gave them circumcision c. it seemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test were given first to Abraham and afterward assumed written by Moses but thaâ— cannot be proved by this place For circumcision was a signe of the promise in Christ not of the law as before is proved In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apostle sheweth that Christ is the Heb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Priests and ther fore his ministerie more excellent then theirs this first hee proveth because this covenant was established upon better promises and then he sheweth the excellency of it compared with the former And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of Ieremy Now concerning the first Testam it was made with the church when the Lord gave his law in Sinai the people did covenant with him saying Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do of Abraham we do not finde that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse as Israel did Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law the covenant of works or old Testament was not first made with him and after examplified by Moses but â—xo 19. 5 24. 3. Lev. 34. â— Dâ—u 5. â— Heb. 9. â— 23. it was †made with Israel as further also may be shewed by the description thereof in Heb. 9. 1-10 which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme. Agayn the Apostle * sayth when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law he toke the blood of calves and of goates and sprinckled al the people saying this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you c. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministerie of Moses And Paul sayth that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham his seed in respect of Christ Now if the law had been geven to Abraham the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of tyme had been of no force And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs Next followes your answer to my objections wherein stil you afferme That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy but tipically that their holynes was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trained or schooled to Christ c. What is here sayd is answered elswhere here I deny that the Iewes holines was onely typical though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Christ whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Israel was called a holy â—od 19. 6 people you answer thus I say that eyther the meaning is that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes or that they by atteyning the end of the law should attayne true holynes in Christ so that this place
But the first is true Mat. 28. 19. Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13. 48. 16. 14. 15. 32. 33. It wil be objected against the Major that it followes not that the infants are any more bound to receive baptisme then they are bound whilest they are infants to receive the word but the word they cannot receive Ergo. I answer that the coÌ„mandement is general to al nations and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circumcise him self and al his familie yea the infants he should grevously have rebelled against God so whosoever of the Gentiles shal not beleev and be baptised both himself and his seed shal have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ seeing he cutts himself and his seed from the covenant of God Genes 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant which notwithstanding they are bound unto as they shall come to yeares of discretion yet are they capable of the seal as before is shewed and therefore by vertue of this generall commandement Mat. 28 19. are to be baptised M. Smyth The errors of this Argument I wil discover in order first I deny that baptisme is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ Thirdly Baptisme therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision c. Fourthly I deny that although Abraham had a speciall commandement did circumcise his male infants therefore Christians upon this generall commandement Mat. 28. 19. shal baptise their infants Fiftly I say rather the contrarie is hence proved c. R. Clyfton This is a ready course in answering if it might be admitted of to denye one thing after another without shewing any reason to the contrary As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors of three of them I have spoken before more particularly the fourth is now to be answered unto concerning the baptising of infants upon the general commandement of Christ Mat. 28. 19. which you deny to have warrant from that scripture I prove it thus If there was a commandement given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children then is this Mat. 28. 10. a comandement and faithfully described in the institution of baptisme as the person condition and tyme of circumcision But for paedobaptisme there is no expresse description of the person condition or tyme of their baptisme c. I answer to the consequent of the Major that our Saviour hath †reveled â— 17. 6. â—14 26. â— â— â— to his church the whole will of his father which is conteyned in the Scriptures not onely in the writings of the Apostles but also of the prophets which hee hath for that end commanded us to search Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter to take heed unto 2 Pet. 1. 19. and Paul commends to be profitable to teach to convince to correct and to instruct in righteousnes c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods wil must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles that the prophets be excluded but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expresly then the writings of the Apostles But to come to the point I answer that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner which before had been written and were stil to continue as example the sealing of the covenant the persons yong and old that were to be signed and such like what needs a new repetition hereof when the Lord purposed not to disaÌ„nul them so much as was to be altered concerning the outward signe Christ omitted not to declare And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaithfulnes if he in expresse words had not commanded infants to be baptised seing under the old Testament they had the signe of the covenant Again the Apostles writings do plainly ynough declare unto us that infants are to be baptised as both from that commandement of Christ Mat 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles in baptising of families and by other reasons hath been shewed And concerning the tyme of baptising I see no reason why you should cavil about it more then about the tyme of administring the Lords Supper which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day nor tyme of the day for the administring thereof as Moses did of the passeover And the scriptures which you cite do shew that bap is to be administred when men enter into Gods covenant and children entring in at the same tyme with their parents are to be baptised at the same tyme with them as Ismael and al Abrahams howse were circumcised * the same day with Abraham Deu. 17. â— And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major which â—so serveth to answer your minor But touching those scriptures which you alledge for proof of your Minor thus I answer in general to them all that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel to beleeve that Iesus was the Christ who were never baptised before And this rule I confesse to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptisme that they make confession of their fayth sinnes as they did but they serve not to teach vs to deale so towards their infants or the infants of beleevers that are borne within the covenant For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it is not the same as concerning the administration of baptisme no more then it was in the Iewish Church towching circumcision for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their owne profession and the other to be within it by their being borne of beleeving parents if you had instanced an example of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament of pareÌ„ts that were members thereof whose baptising was differd until he was able to make confessioÌ„ of faith then had you sayd more to the purpose though in such an example there might haue bene neglect as was in Moses in circumcising his sonne Argument VII Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly the Apostles practise is our instructioÌ„ but they baptised not onely the maister of the familie which beleeved but all his household Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now also the like is to be done and so consequently the infants are to be baptised for they are a part of the family see Gen. 45. 18. where Ioseph bad his brethren take their father and their househoulds and come to him Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is sayd they caried their children and wives in charets noting hereby
beleevers may and ought to be baptised though they can not by teaching be made disciples 2. to that you answere to my first particular thus I reply That of Abraham his circumcision of the Church of the old Testament I haue spoken before this now I wil adde further that AbrahaÌ„ was an * Iosh 2â— 3. idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church As for his faith it was not onely a president or example to others but was also necessarie for him self as the scripture teacheth he beleeved the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes And being thus iustifyed he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousnes of faith by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemne covenant of the Lord to become his peculiar people and to haue him to be their God which at that time the Lord made with him so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood And where you say that Circumcision was not a seal of Abrahams iustification c. you give the holy Ghost the lye which testifieth the contrary Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason that he was sealed by the spirit long before it is nothing to the purpose for the spirit was no external seal as circumcision was The spirit sealeth inwardly and is proper onely to the elect yea to all Gods people in Babilon and so is no visible signe of of Gods promises given to the Church visible whereof our dispute is And here remember by the way that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit and so was under the new Testament as also others had Esa 63. 11. Psa 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4 39. that being the pledge and earnest of the sowles of al the faythfull in al ages of the love of God in Christ But Abrahams iustification in uncircumcision was a type of the iustification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised And Abrahams circumcision after his iustification sealed him up to be the father of all the beleevers circumcised That Abrahams justification was an example to al that should be justified both of the Iewes and Gentiles I graunt viz. that as he was justified by fayth so should al others that beleeve be likewise justified But as concerning Abrahams circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father Rom. 4. 11 â— 13. of al beleevers circumcised the Apostle sayth thus * Abraham received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of fayth which he had when he was uncircumcised c. that he should be the father of al that beleeve not being circumcised c. and the father of circumcision c. In which words I observe 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousnes of fayth yea of Abrahams 2 that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised beleeving And the father of al the circumcised his posteritie the Israelites and so was father of both sorts of people and of the parents and children 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised he meaneth Mat. 15. â— Act. 25. Rom. â— 4 5. of his spiritual fatherhood in regard of the “ covenant 4. He is called the father of circumcision not onely of beleevers circumcised as you say but of their infants also seeing they were circumcised and in this you deceive your hearers by perswading them that Abraham was the father onely of beleevers circumcised not of their seed whereas Paul sayth he was father of the circumcision And so circumcision had a triple vse one general two special â— 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 circumâ—…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 â—e affirme that both beleeving Iewes and Gentiles are justified and †Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20. live by their fayth and that the one and the other have but * Rom-4 3. 24. 2 one way of justification as they have but one Christ and one covenant of salvation And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham so was it given to have the same use to al that were circumcised viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by “ Rom. 3. 2â— 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. 4â— 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 acrâ—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 havâ— more for your addition then the Translator had for his the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain that the Translator saw his
comparison toucheth not the thing in question you might know that faith could not intitle the females to circumcision when they had no coÌ„mandement for it In the Gaylors Lydias families the women were capable of the seal by the ordinaÌ„ce of God Againe concerning the males infidelitie might and did hinder from circuÌ„cision as it did the Gentiles vvhich 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. 2â— were they under condemnation To the second particular of my answere you reply thus I answere that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abraham and the other of Lydia and the Gaylor according to the commission of Christ Mat. 28. 19. 1. Abraham and all his family by the Lords commaundement came under the covenant of the old Testament actually the males onely were circumcised but Christ doth not commaund all persons of a family in the new testament to be baptised but onely such as are made disciples 2. the Gospel was onely preached to Abrahams owne person but in the Gaylors case Paul preached to all that were in his house c. 3. The gospel was not preached to Abraham thereby to prepare him to circumcision as if thereby it should follow that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel for it is not so c. but Christ in the new testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every parricular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme and so Paul did to the Gaylors family To your first difference I answer as formerly I haue done that Abraham and his family came not under the old testament or covenant of works seing it was not made with him but with Israel afterward by the Ministery of Moses 2. Your comparison should thus be propounded as Abraham all his family came under the covenaunt of God so likewise do the faythful of the Gentiles and their families therefore as Abraham and his family were circumcised so ought the faithful and their families to be baptised thus holds the comparison and thus it is against you and you do but beg the question in saying that Christ commaunds not all the persons of of a family in the new Testament to be baptised for this is defended against you that Christs commaundement of baptising extends to the infants of the beleevers as wel as to themselves To your 2. difference I answer that the Gospel which was by the Lord preached to Abraham was by †Gen. 11. 1â— 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 â—â— Lydias familie the Gaylors Did your self perceave that you could not shew it so in Lydias familie Did you therfore passe by that exaÌ„ple 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 preachedâ—â— every creature I answer that as it was preached to such as were received into the Christian Church so was it to Abraham all the Gentiles which entred into the old Church and therefore in this is no difference To my 3. exception thus you answere Christ speakes onely of such as to whom the gospel may be preached that are of a docible age and nature I graunt that Christ intendeth by his commaundement that they should be taught that are of a docible age but with all intendeth it so to be preached to them as it was before to Abraham which was not to exclude their infants from the covenant or seale thereof To this obiection how infants not being in the covenaunt can be saved you answere Eyther they are all saved though they can not come to faith by hearing or that they are one of the Lords secrets Can you speak of faith to say they are all saved and not within the covenant of grace but it is not your faith for you hold it doubtingly and being driven to a non plus you answer as the Preists and Elders did to Christ concerning Iohns baptisme who sayd wee can not tell whether it be from heaven or of men and so you make the state of children one of Gods secrets but the contrarie I have before proved And here you might see if your erronious opinioÌ„ had not blynded your eyes that you cannot beleev that any infants shal be saved seing by your doctrine you haue no word to grouÌ„d 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 coÌ„fesse as much as I haue spoken In this scripture Mat. 28. 19. Christ commaunded to make disciples and to baptise them the former I sayd Christ intended to such as were unconverted but yet so as they receiving the gospel their infants came also under the covenant the latter I did and stil do affirme to be vnderstood of the beleevers and their seed and so I have not contradicted my self as you untruly speak Next I say that general rules shal be expounded with their senses and as impotent persons infants shal eat though they can not work so infants shall be saved though they cannot be baptised seing they cannot by teaching be made Disciples c. Now you affirme infants shal be saved a little before you doubted whether it were not a secret thus vnstable men are when they erre from the truth But if infants can be saved as now you affirme then tell me whether you hold them to be saved in the covenant or out of the covenant if within you crosse your self and if without shew me what warrant out of the word you haue so to beleeve certainely * Act. 4. â— 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
as the Lord God should call meaning to the Gentiles which should beleeve and to their seed Therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed c. To this I haue answered that 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 shal be condēned c. It is wel that you detest the condēnatiō of infants if they be not condēned 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 vs so must we judge but secret things belong not unto us the salvation or condemnation of this or that particular person is a secret nay wee are not able certainely to determine thereof amongst such as be external members of the Church because many that haue not on their * Ma◠11-1◠mariage garment may thrust in with the guests the †Ma◠1. c. five foolish virgins had lampes as wel as the wise But this is not the question we reason concerning the dispensation of Gods covenant in respect of us which we affirme according to the “ Gen. 17◠Act. 2. 3◠scripture to be given to the children as wel as to the parents And you deny it and therefore by your opinion in respect of us no hope can in deed be had of the salvation of any infant nay the infants of Turks and infidels wil be in as good estate as the children of beleevers for if infants be without the covenant as you affirm if we wil speak according to the scripture we must hold 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 onely upon them that confesse their fayth and sinnes and are made disciples c. Your Answer stands in begging the question I say it is no more an injurie to baptisme to be indifferently administred to al them to whom the covenant is indefinitely given as it is to the seed of the faythfull then it was before for circumcision or is now when hypocrites are baptised For we can not be sayd to prophane the sacrament by administring it to them that appear to us to be within the Lords covenant as both hypocrites infants until they break off An other thing you except is that this reason should availe against circumcision seeing the males of eight dayes old could not be discerned to be the spiritual seed And I insist that it was not then needfull that then they should be discerned to be the spiritual seed for that carnal seal of that carnal covenant it was ynough for investing of them with that carnal and typical seal that they were the carnal typical seed and that they were Israelites or proselyts c. Your answer stands upon a false ground confuted before I have proved pag. 12. 13. that circumcision is a holy seal of the covenant in Christ and that your carnal covenant is a devise of your owne And where you call the Isralites the carnall and typical seed I have answered and do again say that though they may be called carnal in respect of their natural generation or in regard of the infirmities hanging upon them or some of them termed carnal in respect of their evil works yet the bodie of the Israelites considered as they were a body and children of the covenant were a spiritual seed and holy And it was needful that they should be so els had not †Rom. 9 5. Psal ◠16. 21. the holy things of God belonged unto them or they pleased God in their slanding And shew me that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised but to be a male But in the new Testament it is taught 1. that Christ the male must be in us and 2. that there must be circumcision of the hart 3. that wee must attayn to learn al that the schoolmaster of the old Testament could teach us before we can be baptised I answer that the Lord required as much of them that were to be circumcised as of them that are to be baptised of the infants both of the Iewes and Christians God requires onely that they be the seed of the faithful but for such as were of yeares and without the church as under the Gospel they are to turne from sinne and professe their fayth in Iesus Christ that require baptisme so likewise before Christ was the case of Abraham himself such of the Gentiles as would be circumcised were to * Exo. 1◠48. Este◠17. Esra ◠21. Ac◠27. renounce their hethenish and idolatrous worship and to professe the true God of Israel and his religion In Ester it is sayd many became Iewes that is addicted themselves to the religion of the Iewes which is to celebrate or
c. And therefore to be as Pagans or Gentiles in the Lords account and to iustifie Apostate Israel reteyning circumcision to be a true Church For your pleading against the adulteries of Rome I dislike not but by these your Arguments manner of pleading you shall never convince her or ever be able to justifie that adulterous Church of Israel neither wil this your reason stand good That circumcision in the Israelites Apostasie was true because it was performed vpon carnal Israelites or proselytes the 8. day And that baptisme in Popery is false and in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing c. for as much may be sayd for baptisme administred to the apostate Church of Antichrist as yoâ— can say for circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel And all that can be sayd is this that neither of them both is in deed capable in that standing For the sacraments belong to the members of a true Church not to apostates But if to be circumcised the 8. day prove that Israels circumcision was true in her Apostacy what letteth the circumcision of the Edomites and Ismaelites to be true also they keeping the 8. day seing they were of the seed of Abraham The right of circumcision belonged to the children of the promise which was made to Abraham in Christ And therfore when any of Rom. 2. 5. 2 Chro. 30 â—-11 AbrahaÌ„s seed did cut off themselves by infidelitie their †circuÌ„cisioÌ„ became vncircumcision on the contrary circumcision though administred in Apostacy vnto infants yea * those coming to yeares and seeking the Lord their circumcision was then profitable to them And so is baptisme in like manner to them that receive it in apostate Churches when they by repentance shall returne to God But you drive all to this yssue that not the profanes of the apostasie but the fittines of the subiect makes the sacrament true or false That infants are as fit subiects for baptisme as the infants under the law for circumcision I haue proved in the former part of this writing Your third answer 3. I declare that Israel was the true church of God or a meÌ„ber Answ of a true Church though infinitely corrupt as wel as Iuda in the dayes of her apostasie c. and therefore if Iudah reteyned true circumcision in her apostasie c. surely the circumcision of Israel was also true This is strange that Israel can be a true Church yet infinitely corrupt caÌ„ â—â—l a wife be a true wife also a harlot thus you may as wel iustify Rome all Antichristian assemblies The holy ghost calleth both * Aholah and Aholibah Ezech. 23 harlots and you in their infinite corruptions instifye them to be true Churches and particularly of Israel the Lord sayth †plead with your Hose 2. 2. mother for she is not my wife And you say she was a true Church that is a true wife directly contradicting the holy Ghost But you reason If Iudah retayned true circumcision in her apostasie then Israell c. Then if eyther Iuda her circumcision was false or that your comparison is not equall your argument is of no forse The sacraments seale up Gods covenant to his people walking in his wayes and not to them when they fall from the faith That of Hosea 2. 2. alledged by some is you say to Prove Israel a false Church you thus answer unto Hosea â— I say it was after the Passeover of Ezechias which was in the first yeare of his reigne 2 Chron. 29. 3. 14. and 30. 2. and the bill of divorce was given the sixt â—re of his reigne 2 King 17. 23. compared with 2 King 18. 10. yet notwithstanding Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophecied of the bill of divorce â—â— be given her Hose 4. 6. 8. 12. c. Concerning the time of Hosea his prophesie when he sayd plead with 〈◊〉 mother c. I take it was in the dayes of Vzziah king of Iuda and about the * Perkiâ— Specimen â— c. pag. 3 †2. Kinâ— 17. 23. 23. yeare of his reigne which was almost 60. yeres before Ezechias began to reigne and before the Lord †put Israel out of his sight Now so long before the prophet was bidden to tel Israel that she was not the Lords wife This being so I would know how you or any can iustify Israel to be a true church when the Lord denyes her she had broken covenant her divorcement as you call it argues as much for men put from them wives that had broken the band of mariage and not true wives To that of Hosea 4. 6. 8. 12. I have answered pag. 152. Furthermore you say when the bil of divorce was given divers of Isâ—ael kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme and went yeerly to Ierusalem I doubt thereof no more then you according to these scriptures 2. Chron. 34. 6. 7. 31. 32. 33. and 35. 18. and 30. 11. but we reason of the face of that Church as it stood in apostasie and so continued and not of particular persons In Babylon god hath his yet the face of that Church of ANTICHRIST is apostate and false to the LORD And so we say of Israel that if we respect the outward face of it it was a false Church to God long before Samaritanisme began And here I observe that you agree not with your self for here you say no manner of sinne made the Church of the old testament a false Church and yet you call it apostate as also you do the like in your Paralels pag. 14. and 26. And it is as much as we say of it for that people that are fallen into apostasie have broken faith and covenant with God And if in any place we call Israel or Antichrists a false Church we meane no other but a Church that hath unfaithfully departed from the LORD and so continues in Apostasie II. Argument BAbylon in Chaldea which was a type of spirituall Babylon Reve. 18. 2. though she did abuse and profane the vessels of the Lord Dan. 5. 3. yet did not that make a nullitie of them that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lord but were brought with them of the captivitie that came up from Babylon to Ierusalem Ezra 1. 11. Even so although spiritual Babylon have profaned the holy things of God as baptisme the rest yet remaine they still Gods ordinances to all them that come out of her Rev. 18. 4. and returne to the celestiall Ierusalem And as these vessels of the house of the Lord need not to be new cast because of Babels polluting them no more is baptisme to be iterated to the people of God because it passed through the polluted hands of the Papists If it be objected that they that administered baptisme in Babilon were Idolaters and had no calling therevnto I answere that they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters so standing
in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods holy ordinances And that the wanting of a lawfull calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nullitie thereof the circumcising of Moses sonne by his mother Zippora Exo. 4. 25. doth playnly teach For as the Lord makes effectuall his word to his people though coming vnto them by the hands of a false Ministery so doth he baptisme to al that be his though administered by them that have not a lawful calling therevnto The sin of the Minister makes not a nullitie eyther of the word or Sacraments els should the efficacy of the word anâ—â—acraments depend vpon him that administreth them which is noâ— so for both have their effect from the Lord Esay 55. 11 If agayne it be obiected that baptisâ—e was not administred in the Apostate Church of Antichrist to a fit subiect I answere that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the tyme of Ieroboam Ahab were to receave circumcision seing the covenant of Abraham after the coming of Christ belonged as properly to the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. as before it did to the Israelites Mr Smyth I answere many things 1. this Argument is an excellent argument for the retayning Ans of idol Temples the worship government ministerie of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England c. Rich Clifton This Argument is not so excellent for idol Temples c. as you pretend Re. For how can you reason from the ordinances of God to iustify the devises of men wil it follow that because the vessels of the Lord his sacraments and ordinances though polluted in apostaticall Churches or by the profane Babylonians may be restored to the right use for which God ordeyned them therefore so to reason justifies the inventions of men devised to religious vses you may shew your wit in composing of your Argument But with all you answer That baptisme of theirs was never appointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist Antichrist devised no new baptisme but polluted the Lords ordinance ordayned by God 2. I answer that the vessels of the Lords house were his owne ordinances therfore An. need not to be new cast But the baptisme of Antichrist is not the Lords owne ordinance c. Baptisme reteyned in the Churches of Antichrist is as much the Lords Re. ordinance as the vessels of the Temple were in Babylon and therefore nedes no more to be new cast then they But you distinguishe betwene the vessels of the Lords house and baptisme thus That they were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the Lords appointment but the baptisme of the Lord is a compound or concreete ordinance limitted in certayn essential p 〈…〉 lars not being a substance but an accident in definition Now if Antichrist hâ—â— reteyned the essentiall parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated c but â— is salse â— neither â—tter nor â—â—e â— invenâ— by Anâ—rist but â—ng the or â—ancâ— of â—d were â—uted seing baptisme in Poperie is not the Lords ordinance but Antichrists invention * the matter and forme being invented by Antichrist the matter being a carnal infant the forme washing one into the covenant and cannot consent to the covenant or baptising without a contract and sealing to the covenant c. Here you confesse that if the essentiall partes of baptisme be reteyned in Popery it is not to be repeated But you make question about the parts affirming that both matter and forme of baptisme in Popery is invented by Antichrist you saye so but proves it not Concerning the matter it is before shewed that infants are capable of baptisme not as they be natural and borne in sinne but as they are the seed of the faithful therefore being the †children of God and of the “ covenant are not in that respect carnal matter but spiritual As for the forme which you say is the washing of one into the covenant which cannot consent I answere that the forme â—zech 16 â— 21. Act. 2. 39 â—3 25. of baptisme doth not any more stand in the Actual consent of the parties baptised then the forme of circumcision did consist in the assenting of the party circuÌ„cised for there is alike reasoÌ„ of the form of these two sacrameÌ„ts and therefore as infants of the Iewes were circumcised notwithstanding by reason of their age they could not consent to that action So infants of beleevers may be baptised especially seing they are but patients in this Mat. 2â— Action This is the Lords ordinance to †baptise the beleever and his seed with water into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost And of this are infants capable As for sealing to the covenant it is already proved that the Lord sealeth his covenant to infants And for their sealing to the Lord they do as much as at that age is required or was required of the infants of the Iewes circumcised Nether is there baptisme without a coÌ„tract for the Lord hath made his covenant with the faithfull and their seed For the Scripture describeth true baptisme thus The matter must be one that confesseth his faith and his sinns one that is regenerate and borne againe The form must be a voluntary deliveraÌ„ce vp of the party baptised into the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost by washing with water Mat. 28. 19. and 3. 6. Joh. 4. 1. Act. 2. 14. and 8. 36. 27. with Rom. 6. â—-6 where there must be a mutual confent of both persons contracting together And that this is so the forme of baptisme retayned in Popery yet teacheth c. That the matter of baptisme as you terme it or subject must necessarily be one alwayes that confesseth his fayth and synnes al that you have said Re. hitherto hath not proved it the scripture sayth it not and the contrary is confirmed before viz. that infants are to be baptised although they can not make actual profession of their fayth to us they are partakers of remission of synns and regeneration seing they are in the covenant 2. Concerning the forme of baptisme I confesse it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water into the name of the Father c. but your voluntarie deliverance up of the partie baptised to make that action a part of the forme of baptisme al the scriptures you cyte proves it not we confesse that such as are of yeares must voluntarily offer up themselves to be baptised and so were they that were to be circumcised notwithstanding the infants that could not do this were also circuÌ„cised so must our infants be baptised The Lord sayd to his Ministers baptise but sayd not let every one that is baptised offer himself voluntarily thereunto as he doth in the Lords supper say take eat c. it is otherwise in baptisme wherein the baptised are not ageÌ„ts but onely patients
God thus disposing that the infants of the faithful might be capable thereof sealed up for the Lords as wel as their pareÌ„ts And it is to be noted that the desiring or offering to receiv baptisme is an action differing from the thing desired so not a part of the same As for your mutual consent of both persons contracting together it must be understood of God with the faythfull their seed for such was the contract or covenant making with Abraham which continues stil in force to al beleevers their seed this precedeth baptisme is no part of the external forme thereof Gen. 17. 1 7. c. Act. 2 39. And for that forme of baptising in poperie with credis credo c. which others speak for the Infant declaring as you say that there must needs be a mutual coÌ„tract c. You know very wel how it is coÌ„tinued upoÌ„ a blynd custome imitation because such as were to be received into the church in the primitive tymes and to be baptised being of yeares did make confession of their fayth answered to such interrogatories as were demanded of them concerning the same This the papists apply to infants the questions being answered by the godfathers who ar sayd to be brought in by Higinus before whose time the parents presented their children to be baptised This corrupt custome apish imitation your self hath condemned Yet now having cast off baptisme it self you scrape in the filthye Dungehill of Poperie to advantage your selfe against the truth whose practise you know condemnes your opinion of not baptising of infants If Yf therefore you wil crave their testimony for your forme of baptisme why dispise you theire witnes of baptising of infants which is the matter And thus much for answer to your description of baptisme Now concerning the outward ceremony of baptisme the Scripture Mat. 3. 11. 16. â—ar 1. 10 Act. 8. 38 Mat 28. â— â— Jo. 1. 7 Act. 2. 38 â— 3. 19. Gal. 3. 27 Rom 6. 3 â— Col. 2. 12 â— 3. 5. 6. thus teacheth that the element in this sacrament is * water onely the forme of administring thereof Christ commaunded thus †baptise them into the name of the father and of the sonne of the holy ghost This is that which the Lord hath instituted whereby he would signify and seale unto his people “ the remission of their sinnes * and the ingraffing into Christ †the mortification of the old man and renuing of the spirit This is the substance of this ceremony and is found to be stil retayned in the Apostate Churches And therefore although it hath bene polluted by the hands of Apostates as the vessels of the Temple were by the Babylonians and by adding of humane inventions yet is it in substance that which Christ ordeyned in his Church neither the element nor forme of administration changed and therefore not to be iterated Your third answer 3. I answer that if the Antichristians had baptised persons confessing their sinnes their faith into the name of the sonne of God and the Trinitie it had been true baptisme though in the hands of the Antichristians c. First you confesse then that the apostasie of Antichrist is not so great but that in the papal Churches there may be true baptisme not to be iterated That they baptised with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy ghost can not be denyed all that you except against is the administring of it to infants so this second question is answered in the former for if the infants are to be baptised then stands their baptisme good without repeating which they have in Apostate Churches Lastly where I sayd that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament made not a nullitie thereof instancing the circumcision of the Israelites by Apostats and of Zippora her circumcising of her sonne you answere saying 1 What say you to Cyprian and al that counsel of learned Bishops who concluded that baptisme of Heretiks was a nullitie and decreed rebaptising This I answer that if Cyprian and those learned Bishops did erre what is that to this purpose for those examples that I have alledged are such as are recorded by the holy ghost to be done not by such as had lawful calling and yet stood without recircumcising But suppose Cyprian those Bishops fouÌ„d that some were baptised by Hereticks and not in the name of the Trinitie for seing some denyed the Deitie of Christ some his humanitie others held other errors about the Trinitie It is not like that they would observe the true forme of baptisme but some strange forme of their owne devise as some report how truly I know not that you baptise your selves into the fayth of the new Testament And so decreed not rebaptising but baptising of them that were not before baptised with Christs baptisme Indeed it is recorded by some that the Novatians Arrians Aetians Donatists did as you do rebaptise those that fell to their errors which had been baptised before into the name of the Trinitie Lastly if Cyprian those Bishops did erre about this poynt of rebaptising as in some others they did I am no patron of their errors 2 I say that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church and Antichrists Ans baptisme was in a false and that is a dissimilitude That Israel in her Apostasie was not a true church I have shewed before how you in this disagree with your self here I wil set down your own Re. words in your book of Paralels c. against M. Barnard pag. 14. thus you write A church falsely constituted as in the old Testament was the apostate church of the 10. Tribes and in the new Testament is the Church of Antichrist is such a communion of men where to God hath not given the covenant the holy things the promises Christ for King Priest and Prophet c. Also in pag. 26. of the same book you answering such as plead that they have the Word Sacraments conversion in the English Assemblies have these words I say it is but as a thief hath the true manns purse and as the false church of Ieroboam had and as the Samaritanes Edomites c. had circumcision the sacrifices by usurpation Here you have testified to the world that Ieroboams church was a false church falsly constituted c. And now seeing a disadvantage thereby to your new erroneous opinion you doubt not to cal it a true church This inconstancie befitts not him that wil be a leader of others 3. I know nothing to the contrarie but Zippora might circumcise her sonne her An. husband commanding her For where is it sayd in the old Testament that a woman shal not circumcises for Moses did circumcise though Zippora was the hand of Moses in that action c. When you deal against us about baptising of infants you wil have coÌ„mandement
then might the infants of Apostats in Antichristianisme do so and this is all that I sayd not iustifying the standing of the one or of the other III. Argument IF the word of God passing through the false Ministery of Anchrist was of force to convert Gods elect in Babilon Then is baptisme passing likewise through theire false ministery of force to seale vp Gods covenant vnto them and so consequently not to be iterated But the first is true Apoc. 18. 4. for in babylon were Gods people converted other ordinary Ministery was there none but that false Ministery of the Papists and therefore it is apparant that God made thereby his word effectuall to al them that beleeved Ergo c. If it be obiected that if God should convert his people by an AntichristiaÌ„ Ministery it were to give ApprobatioÌ„ to a false Ministery and to teach that men might lawfully vse it which is absurd I answere for vs to vse a false Ministery is vnlawfull but it is no more absurd or yet any approbation of a false Ministery for God to worke thereby the good of his owne people then it was his approving of the evil service of Iosephs brethren selling him into Egypt because he vsed their Ministery for the saving of Iacob and his houshold for God can worke good by an evil instrument If it be stil vrged that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptise I say no more had the Iewes to put Christ to death yet was his suffering avaylable to save al that beleeve and so is the Sacrament to al Gods people avaylable to seale vp salvation vnto them Mr. Smyth I answer First the word converteth none visibly vnto me particulerly knowen so Ans can Baptisme seale vp none visibly vnto me c. Rich. Clyfton Although Gods people continuing in Babylon cannot so welbe discerned Rep. yet by their coming thensce they manifest to me particulerly that there they were converted by the word and so appeare visibly vnto me to belong vnto God and to be children of the covenant As for the tyme before we take no publike notice of theire secreete estate before God nor can do †Deut. â— 29. for the things revealed belong vnto vs. Further you say The marke of the Beast is vndoubtedly baptisme whereby they are initiated into Antichrist and receive his mark as Christs servants in baptisme receive his seale upon them c. Oh how fearful a thing is it to blaspheme baptisme is the ordinance of God though it was polluted by Antichrist you may as wel say the word of God is the marke of the beast for Antichrist did pollute it also as you formerly have confessed Your mark of the beast reacheth verie farr even to the Apostles tymes as the Auncients have witnessed of the baptisme of Infants And if this was the mark of the beast then was the mark before the beast which is absurd to affirme for can the beast before it be in esse make â— both great and smale to receive a †mark in their right hand or in 〈◊〉 13. â— their forehead And that this baptising of infants was before the beast was we have shewed out of the scriptures and it may appear out of Origine Tertullian and others that speak of infants baptisme to be in practise in the church before their tyme as in the former part of this writing is observed And it appeares both by the * Revelation And that of the Rev. 13. â— 10. 11. â— 17. Apostle in 2 Thes 2 3. that the man of synne arose not to this height and power to make small and great to receive his marke until there came a departing first And seeing this marke of Antichrist was such as smale and great rich and poor free and bound did receive it can not be the baptising of infants For then onely the smale should be sayd to receive it And therefore the marke must be such a one as shall agree to all persons “ great and smale rich and poor bound and free and be received of them Rev. 13. â—6 Rev. 14. 9. in that condition and state And it must be such a marke as they that worship the beast and his image shal receive by a †willing and actual consent the which can not be applyed to infants for neither can they worship the beast or give voluntarie consent to receive his marke in their hands or foreheads An. 2. Antichrists baptisme false as I have sayd in the definition is none of Gods ordinance no not in the hands of the most faythful Minister but Gods word is the Lords ordinance though in the mouth of the most vile Iudas or Antichristian yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000. heresies The same Lord that gave his word to his church ordeyned also baptisme 〈◊〉 to be therein Indeed if baptisme had been devised by Antichrist or any man els it were not to be reputed for true baptisme at al but that baptisme which is fouÌ„d to be in the AntichristiaÌ„ assemblies is not Antichrists the contrarie is proved before Answ So that in this respect alâ—â— it followes not that Gods word may convert in popery therefore Antichrists baptisme may seal c. It wil follow that as the word in Poperie so baptisme in that Apostasie retayned since the primitive coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of the church of Rome in the Apostles dayes as the word in poperie may coÌ„vert so baptisme may seal theÌ„ that are Christs being converted for God can as wel blesse the one as the other Gods word doth convert in BabiloÌ„ yet is not the promise any more annexed to that outward ministerie of Antichrist then that blessing * Gen. 1. bring forth fruit and multiplie is by Gods ordinance tyed to unlawful conjunctioÌ„s but it pleaseth the L. by the ministerie of his word ordinaÌ„ce to effect his own work in al such as shal be saved though through the haÌ„ds of apostates 3. You say If Antichrist had retayned the Lords true baptisme c. viz. Answ that he had baptised persons confessing their sinnes and fayth in the Trinitie it should not have been repeated But seeing he intendeth in baptisme to sett an indelible caracter upon them which is the marke of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth c. hence I conclude that hee hath sett upp his owne idoll of abhomination and cast the LORDS holy ordinance away c. Ergo his baptisme is anullitie or rather a seal of perdition c. Your self by your heresie setts up an idol of abhomination and casts away Rep. the Lords holy ordinance of sealing his covenant to his people their seed And here againe you destroy one of your reasons which you brought against the baptising of infants which was * Caracteâ— pag. 52. because they were members of a false church for you confesse that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their
churches degenerate from the truth remaynes some remnants of Gods ordinances that were given to his church The covenant is spoken of and preached in those Apostate churches And baptisme likewise administred but not in that puritie and light as they are in true churches And as in the heavens when the sunne is shadowed with clouds or mist the proportion of it may be discovered in the mist or cloudes be perceived to be the sunne So is the covenant of God and the seal thereof wading through those foggie mysts of Popish errors and Antichristian superstitions discerned seen to be from heaven of al the people of God whose harts the Lord opens to apply them aright Which if it were not so God could not have his people in Babylon or church in the wildernes As you take upon you to set up a true church as you say but we say a false church An. wil not be sayd to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel c. for you in your self conceitednes wil reiect them as Heretiques if there be any that dare so say of you forsooth So the Anabaptists as you cal them do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had â—verthrowen To passe by the manner of your speeches which well might be amended Rep. I answer first that for the setting up of churches it is the Lords work and not ours †Ioh. 10. who gathereth his sheep into his fold and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to joyne together to walk in his ordinances who also inableth us hereunto accepteth us to be his people and * Eph. 2. to be citizens with the Sainctes and houshold of God Therefore it cannot properly be sayd of us that we sett up a church but that God buyldeth us up to be his Temple And being thus “ Mat. â— 20. gathered together in his name we have the †Mat. 2â— 20. promise of his presence and are assured of our standing and that we are a true visible church of Iesus Christ though it please you to call us a false church and doubt not to approve our calling against you and al our adversaries And whereas you account it self conceiptednes in us to reject for Hereticks such as bring in damnable Heresies it were good for them whom we so reject to look into their estate and not wilfully to abyde in their errors to their perdition For the Anabaptists whom you say do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new baptisme What they do both their writings and practise shewes but howsoever they perswade themselves to retayne the old covenant and Gospel yet is it not so for whosoever receives not that Gospel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham and pretends to receive a Gospel or covenant they receive a new covenant and Gospel But the Anabaptists receive not the Gospel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant Therefore it is a new covenant and Gospel which they receive For that Covenant which was given to Abraham was given to him and to his seed to the Iewes and their seed but the covenant which the Anabaptists plead for is a covenaÌ„t that should be made to the parents and not to their seed therefore is not the same but a new and strange Gospel never heard of in the dayes of Abraham Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a sealed covenant to * Gen. 1â— 10. 13. The Aâ— baptists â—ny baptisâ— to be a seâ— of the covâ—nant indeed tâ— have no outward sâ— led covanâ— at al. him and to his natural seed but that covenant which the Anabaptists wil enter into and receive is an unsealed covenant at least but sealed onely to the parents and not to their seed and so is not the same but a new Gospel In my former answer I sayd that it can not be shewed that any man did ever baptise him self without special commandement from God c. and you thus replie I say as much as you have to set up a true Church wherein you answere not directly to the point but shift it of with saying that you have as much power to set vp baptisme or baptise your selfe as we to set vp a Church for suppose we have not this power to set vp a Church then how is your action of baptising your selfe iustified But how we have power for that we have done I have formerly shewed viz. that we have power by the Lords commaundement to * come out of babylon to obey the truth reveiled â—ev 18. vnto vs and to ioyne together in the †feloship of the Gospel to walk in al the wayes of God This is that we can do and all that we do is by Phil. 1. 5. divine commaundement for if the Lord had not so inioyned vs our coming together should have bene but an assembly of our owne devise and no Temple for the Lord. Now if you wil make your argument which stands vpon comparison answerable you must bring like warrant from the Scripture that you being vnbaptised may baptise your selfe or els that which we have done shal be iustified to be of God and your baptisme prove but a vayne fansie Further I desire it may be shewed that baptisme which is a part of the worke of the Ministery can lawfully and by warrant from God be administred by any but eyther by extraordinary authority as by Iohn Ananias the Apostles Prophets Evangelists or ordinary as by Pastors and Teachers Or that a person vnbaptised without speciall commaundement from heaven for ordinary rule there is none may baptise himselfe and having so done without any further calling to office take vpon him to baptise others And to do this I would knowe if it be Cor. 4. 6 not †to presume above that which is written For if you that baptise your self being but an ordinary man may this do then may an other do the like and so every one baptise himselfe You that stand so much for commaundement and example shew vs eyther of these two if you can or any sound reason out of the word or els consider wel if that you be not fallen into that which you would condemne in others viz. the practising of an vnwarrantable action But you say A true Church cannot be erected without baptisme c. If this be so as you say then eyther that baptisme which we receaved in the Antichristian assemblyes is baptisme or els one that is no member of a Church may induce the forme as you cal it vpon Disciples to make them a Church and this have we neyther commaundement nor example for He that was the first Minister of baptisme stode then a member of the Church of the Iewes had also commaundement to baptise but this new doctrine teacheth that one that was never
hath thus pronounced upon such transgressors †Mat. 1. 5â— In vayn do they worship me teaching doctrines mens precepts the Psalmist sayth “ Psal 11â— 21. cursed are they that do erre froÌ„ thy coÌ„maudemeÌ„ts the which iudgemeÌ„t of God you may behold in your selves if God so open your eyes who of one company are now at least divided into 3. ech one refusing communion with other stil increasing in nevv errors But for the baptising of a mans selfe you say There is as good warrant as for a man churching him self for two men singly are Ans no Church joyntly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church vpon themselves So two men may put baptisme vpon themselves This phrase of Churching a mans selfe is not the phrase of the holy Scripture Repl. it is the Lord that †Mat. 2â— 19. Act. 1 46. 47. Eâ— 4. 11. 12. calleth men out of the world gathereth theÌ„ together by his word and buildeth them vp to be his Church as Christ sayth * Ioh. 10. other sheepe I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall heare my voice And they whose harts the Lord openeth do willingly obey his voice and beleeving †Act. 2. 42. walk together in his wayes as before I have observed To passe by your strange phrases the scripture thus speaketh that the Eunuch Cornelius and others received baptisme administred unto theÌ„ by the Ministers of Chr. but that they or any other did ever put baptisme that is as I understand you administer it upon theÌ„selves I never read thereof in the scriptures unlesse we should think that Iohn B. did it who if it were so had his calling extraordinarie from heaven As two persons unchurched have power to assume the church ech of them for himself Ans with others in communion so each of theÌ„ unbaptised have power to assume baptisme for himself with others in coÌ„munion These things would do wel if they were proved Concerning 2. persons or moe coÌ„ing into coÌ„munioÌ„ together I have before set down what I think And now for assuming of baptisme if you mean therby receiving of it being lawfully administred theÌ„ I grant that they which are unbaptised †may â—cts 10. 8. 12. â— ought to receive baptisme in the coÌ„munion of the Saincts But that 2. persons or moe may take and baptise theÌ„selves or one another in your coÌ„munion I abhorre as an humane invention As for the exaÌ„ples of Abr. and Iohn B. administring the Sacrament upon theÌ„selves if so it were yet serve â—en 17 â— 13. â— 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. â— 25. 27. â— 13. 15 nothing to your purpose for AbrabaÌ„ had a * special coÌ„mandement to circumcise so had Iohn for his “ baptisme warrant froÌ„ God But wil it follow because these 2. administred the SacrameÌ„t upon themselves therfore who list may consecrate his hands to that office What is this â—ls that you plead for but to overthrow that order that Christ hath â—et down in his Church to make every one a Minister of the Lords Sacraments CoÌ„cerning the Proselytes that they did every one circuÌ„cise theÌ„selves is not proved by that of Exo. 12 48. for it is sayd there when a stranger shal dwel with thee wil observ the passeover of the Lord every male shal be circuÌ„cised unto him This scripture saith not that every one did circumcise himself but that every male should be circumcised Neyther if the Lord had sayd as the Translation is let him circumcise al the males that belong unto him had this proved that al the Proselytes had done it themselves for it is sayd of Iosua that the Lord bad him make sharp knives †return circuÌ„cise the sons of Israel the second tyme. And 〈◊〉 5. 2. yet wil any think that Iosuah did himself circumcise every uncircumcised male in Israel or rather that the Lord commanded him to see that it were done And so that coÌ„mandement given to Proselytes was that they should cause al their males to be circumcised or els they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Passeover But graunt that this was a special precept to the stranger to circumcise himself and his familie the Lord laying this upon him he had good warrant so to do but seing the Lord hath commanded the administration of baptisme to the Apostles and Ministers of the word now it is to presume above that which is written for any man to take upon himself to administer baptisme to himself or to others Neyther is this to follow the example of the Proselytes if they had done as you alleadge for then the Master onely and none els circumcised and he circumcised but his familie But this new opinion inableth any man be he Master or servant to baptise himself and also to baptise others that are not of his familie Note wel how this example serves to your purpose Howbeit for circumcision I take it that it was administred by the Levites after that they were called of office because †Num. 8. 14. 18. they were appointed in the roome of the first borne of Israel for the service of the Lord. And as I have heard the Levites amongst the Iewes do circumcise at this day But one thing more I would aske you whether by two assuming baptisme in communion you mean that two consenting together may the one baptise the other at one and the same instant or that one shal baptise the other first and then he that is baptised baptise him that was his baptiser and what rule or warrant you have so to do and do not with obscure termes seek to set a colour upon your errors to deceive the ignorant As concerning the administration of the Lords Supper to a mans self in communion with others prayer prophesying praysing of God uttered for a mans self as wel as for others of every unclean person washing himself at the door of the Tabernacle going to sacrifice of every master of a familie administring the passeover to himself all his familie the Priest dayly sacrificing for himself others All these proves not your desyre For as touching the administration of the Lords supper it appertaines to the Ministers of Christ to do it not to every man And by vertue of their office they do administer and as they are members of the church they participate of those holy things with the rest of the brethren And this is Gods ordinance your case of baptising one another is not alike for there he administreth the Sacrament that hath no calling and he that is unbaptised himself presumeth to set the seal upon himself or upon an other Also in the Lords Supper al are agents according to their estate and nature of the action but in the receiving of baptisme we are onely patients As for praying prophesying and praysing of God uttered for
a mans self as wel as for others this is Gods ordinance that men should †pray â—at 6 6 â— c. â—ph 6. 18 â— 2. 42. â— 47. Tim. 2. 1. praise God for themselves and others and is not onely a work of the ministerie save in publike but a general duty apperteyning to * all the brethren but the administration of baptisme is appointed to the Ministerie And there is great difference between our prayers and sacrifices offered to God and the Lords Sacraments and word ministred unto us the former we are commanded to doe our selves in our due place the other is from the Lord unto us and we are the subjects to receive the same by the administration of Gods Ministers and al these things are the commandements of God Concerning those in the old Testament that being unclean did purifie or wash themselves they did thereby shew forth their continuall voluntarie repentance and fayth to be clensed from their pollutions and sinnes by Iesus Christ Ioh. 13 10. Neyther did they this without the Lords Lev. 13. â— 15. â— 27. commandement For were not the * purifyings of the unclean prescribed by Moses shew us the like warraÌ„t for the new baptising of your selves and the controversie is ended and unlesse you do it what do all these examples prove for you seing al these were done by warrant of the word and you have no scripture to alleadge for your doings And for the Priests washing themselves in the Laver “ Exod. 30 â—â— 21. God so commanded But the Priests you say washing in the Laver at the door of the Tabernacle was a type of baptisme the doore of the church would you then have us to think that every one coÌ„ing to the Church should baptise himself yea that also every tyme they come to publike worship For if you hold thus you might also thus reason from your similitude But similitudes and allegories must not be pressed further then the intendement of them proportion of fayth wil suffer That washing no doubt did signifie that such as come into Gods presence to offer any sacrifices must be clean and holy the water in the Laver might wel be a type of the blood of Iesus Christ of regeneration in him teaching that al the faythful being made Priests unto God should be washed from al their sinnes in the bloud of Christ and sanctified in him to the service of the Lord. And that therefore they should continually repent of their sinnes and have fayth in Iesus Christ that so through him they and their works service may be accepted of the Lord and they in the end be received into his heavenly kingdome But this wil not justifie your baptising of your selves for besides that which is answered before the Priests were commanded to wash their hands their feet themselves for such use as is aforesayd But in the new Testament we are appointed to be baptised by the Lords Ministers as hath bene declared already The same answer may be given to that of the Priests sacrificing for themselves that they had the word for their warrant and were first to offer for their owne sinnes and then for the peoples And this was an offering up to God but baptisme is the Lords ordinance to be administred to us and therefore in this respect also your reason is not alike Lastly for that of every Master of a familie administring the Passeover the same is to be mynded as in the former instances And seeing they were altogether to eat of one food which shadowed out Iesus Christ and our Redemption by his death it lay upon the father of the family not onely to do the things of ministration parteyning to him but to partake also himself of the same common food and banket with the rest Moreover although the master of the familie did so as then was appointed to be done by him yet wil it not follow that every man may now administer baptisme to himself and others The Master did that then for himself and his familie by the †Exo. 12. 3â— 4. 10. commandement of the Lord who was as a Bishop a Priest in his owne howse and besides him none in the howse might do it But after that God had to his church by Moses given lawes and ordinances and the Priests to do the service of the Lord the * 2 Chr. 3â— 17. 35. 1â— 11. killing of the Passeover was performed by the Levites and Priests which teacheth us that it is not in every mans power to be a Minister of the Lords ordinaÌ„ces save they that have calling thereunto And therefore I marveil that you will bring in so many instances so unfitting to your practise all which examples might have taught you rather the unlawfulnes of your action they being al done by warrant yours without altogether Lastly you say A man cannot baptise others into the Church himself being out of the church Then I pray you Sir resolve me how you can baptise your self into the church being out of it yea and where there was no church or how you could baptise others your self being out of the Church or how two can baptise themselves to be a church that are unbaptised and without the church And what conclusion is this to say A man can not baptise others into the Church himself being unbaptised therfore it is lawful for a man to baptise himself with others in communion If you have no better warrant for the practise of your doings then these reasons which you have already alledged younâ—ed not to boast of your Plerophory of your Practise But what is now become of your plerophory and ful perswasion about it seing you have already chaunged your mind againconcerning your baptising of your self for this cause other the like matters are by some of your people excoÌ„municate It were good for you to remember and keep that saying of the Apostle It is good alwayes to be zealous in a good thing Gal. 4. 18. Mr Smythes Reasons for Anabaptisme of Elder people Answered R. Clyfton THus having set down Reasons to prove that Apostates or AntichristiaÌ„s coÌ„verted ar not to be rebaptised let vs come to the examination of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first whereof is this 1. Because Churches are to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist as they were first erected by the Apostles but in the constitution of Churches the Apostles receved in the members by baptisme Ergo so must we do now Answere The estate and constitution of people now is not a like to the state of the Gentiles or Iewes in the Apostles tymes they differ in divers respects First l the people then both of Iewes and Gentiles never had bene themselves nor were ever of the posteritie of those that had bene meÌ„bers of the Church of Christ vnder the Gospel seing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches But we are now the
posteriety of such parents as were members of the Church planted by the Apostles els could we not have Apostated 2. That people which the Apostles gathered into Churches were never baptised And baptisme coming in steed of circumcision and being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant it was fit that they which beleeved and became the seed of Abrah should so enter in to covenaÌ„t they their seed as he his seed entered that is as he his were received in by circuÌ„cision so they theirs should be receved in by baptisme Act. 2. 38. 41. 8. 38. But we are a people that ar already baptised the seed of them that were baptised had received the Gospel And although through Antichrists deceaveablenes both we and they were taynted with many corruptions yet had they or might have in that Apostasie and so we also so much faith as thereby both we and they might become the people of God Apoc 18. 4. And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches here it is to be noted that the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the imediate directioÌ„ of the H. Ghost And so serveth for a coÌ„tinual rule of establishing Churches to th' end of the world which forme or frame layed downe by them no man hath power to alter or change 1. Cor. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 6. 14. But the constituting of Churches now after the defection of Antichrist maâ—â— more properly be called a repayring then a constituting of Churches which through Apostacy have bene ruinated or a gathering together of the dispersed sheepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches the patterne whereof is shewed vnto vs in the word For as before hath bene noted our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches And so it wil not follow as is aledged that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessaryly must be by baptisme as in the primitive tyme it was except onely of such persons as have not bene baptised before And herein I take it lieth the deceat of this Argument that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming ouâ— of Babylon and them that came to the fayth from amongst the Gentiles equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an apostate Church the other no Church the one partaker of the word sacraments though with much corruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neyther at all the one professing Christ teaching many truthes of God so many as the elect thereby might coÌ„e to faith Apo 18. 4. The other neyther professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God whereby any might be converted to Christ and become Gods people in that estate of Gentilisme And thus having made playne the different estate of the first planted Churches and ours in Apostacy I answere 1. That Churches now are to be constituted if repayring be not a fitter speach as in the Apostles tymes that all such as are received in as meÌ„bers being vnbaptised must be received in by baptisme but for such as were baptised in Apostate Churches their repentance is sufficient without rebaptization as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vpon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were received of the Church without any new circumcision And therefore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Christ and not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could do no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptised but if they had mett with any that before had bene baptised into the name of Christ as they that received the baptisme of Iohn and as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptised them And therefore the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptised Mr Smyth As in the former point for baptising of infants you are compelled to runne to the old Testament and from thence to fetch the cheif corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new testament of Christ c. and set vs againe to schoole to Moses as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach vs his new Testament but we must go learne the new Testament of the old Testament Christ of Moses the Gospel of the law c. Rich Clifton Before you come to answer my exception against your reason you prefix Answ as it were for a ground certayn thinges which you intreat me and al the Seperation especeally the leaders wel to weigh and ponder and not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors In which your great observation 1. you charge me to be compelled to runne to the old Testament c. What my answere is to this your reason shal be iustified Now where you except about the former point for baptising of infants against my running to the old TestameÌ„t to fetch my cheif corner stone c. If I have done evil herein beare witnes of it but if I have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles who proved that which they taught by the Scriptures of the old Testament why impute you this unto me to disgrace search these * Mat. â— 23. 2. â— 15. 28. 3. 22. â— 32. Joh. 23. 5. 3â— Luk. 24. 2â— Act. 2. 2â— 3. 22. 4 25. 26. 18. 28. Roâ— 4 3 6. 7. 9. â— 11 with dâ—vers otheâ— places quoted in the margent and see if the things of the new testament were not proved out of the old Yet notwithstanding I have used other reasons from the Scriptures of the new Testament to prove the baptising of infants as in my answer is to be seen But my corner stone as you please to call it fetched from the old testament is so ponderous as you can not remove it Concerning the forsaking of the new Testament it is not I but your self Mr Smyth that sinns therin by casting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of salvation And as towching the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Christ himself set us to schoole to learne of them the things †Ioh. 5. 39 that are witten of him and yet this you fault in me as if it were not lawful to prove doctrines and ordinances of the new Testament out of Moses Characteâ— pag. 44. the Prophets But I pray you Sir that findes fault to be set againe to the schoole to Moses why say you “ we must attayne to and learne all that the school-Maister of the old testament could teach vs. Do not you herein set us to school to Moses But it seemes you are past Moses teaching I would wish you were not past Christs also The old Testament is not so abrogated that withal the †writings of Moses and of the 2 Tim. 3. â— 17. Pet. 1. 9. 21. Prophets cease to be in force
opinion of yours can not stand if the essence of baptisme be destroyed For your wish that the Lord would open all our eyes of the separation to see and our harts to understand that all the old Testament was carnal to type out to teach them heavenly things therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs the new Testament c. It hath pleased God and we are thankful for it to open our eyes to discern of your carnal doctrine to understaÌ„d the truth which you labor to obscure by your straÌ„ge expositioÌ„s As for the old Test which you cal carnal the church carnal I tel you agayn and againe that al the ordinances under the old testament were spiritual in their ordination and right vse as the †Rom. 7 law it self is holy spiritual and therefore are called “ Heb. â— ordinances of religion and the Tabernacle Mikdasch to teach that it was of an holy vse for the Lord. The old †Ioh. 1â— Ephe. â— 19. 3. 1 Cor. 10 4. Eph. 4 Church also was a spiritual house notwithstanding that the first testament had ordinances of religion which did shadow forth things to come for in substance both it and the Church under the Gospel are * Heb. 1. 10. the same onely differing in the outward administration of the covenant To the former Church holy things were administred under types and figures to the latter more simply and in the playn manifestation of the truth Now to prove your carnal and typicall Church you say The matter of the old Church was a carnal Israelite and the forme carnal circumcision Re. a carnal seal Gen. 17. 10-14 But the matter of the Church of the new Testament is a true Israelite the forme is the circumcision of the hart a new creature the holy spirit of promise whereby we are sealed which is manifested by confession baptism in water Act. 10. 47. Ephe. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 27. 6. 15. Io. 3. 5. Mat. 3. 6. RoÌ„ 10. 9. Act 8. 36. 37. c. Concerning your carnal matter and forme I haue answered pag. 12. and have also proved that God did require of that his people Israel to be †Exo. â— holy and “ RoÌ„ 2. 29. Dâ— 10. 16 Jer. 4. 4 Ans spiritual And for the forme of the old Church I have shewed likewise that they became * Gen. Deut. 2â— 10 15. a Church people of God by vertue of Gods covenant made with them wherevnto circumcision was added as a seal to coÌ„firme the same which they also received pag. 12. 13. 23. c. The form of the Church can never be wanting the Church continuing to be a Church but circuÌ„cision may be wanting and was wanting to all the Israelites 〈◊〉 in the wildernes by all that space of 40. yeres and yet I hope they were 〈…〉 bers of his “ Psal 43. Church all that time notwithstanding That which you set downe for the forme of the new testament viz. Circumcision of the hart a new creature and the spirit of Christ is internal proper to every true member both of the old Church and new yea this forme if it be so called belongs to Gods people in Babylon and to all the members of the invisible Church but that outward forme of a visible Church which we are to know it by must be visible and such as we can discerne them to be a people of God from all other assemblies But this new creature and inward graces you wil say are manifested by confession and baptisme in water so may it also where baptisme is not had as it might be in Israel when they could not have circumcision Also the forme of the Church must be one indivisible thing common to the whol that gives the being thereof as before I have observed but confession and baptisme as it is particularly applyed to every member as to the * Eunuch Paul c. so may it rest in one man if all the rest should dye or fall away who could â—ct 8. â— 9. 18 not be a Church and yet he hath that which you set down to be the form of the Church Wherefore Gods people ioyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel must have one general form whereby they receive the denominatioÌ„ of a Church that is their solemn eÌ„tring into coÌ„munioÌ„ vnder the covenant of the Lord vniting together to walk in all his wayes to be his â—eu 29. â— 13. â— 18. 20 â—i 1. 5. â— 2. 42 â—ifferenc â—he preâ— people which all that ar afterward †added to the Church must promise to observe And such a coÌ„munion do we hold for a Church so “ did you For as many stones may be heweÌ„ squared so be fit matter for an house yet have not those stones the denomination of an house vntil they be ioyned together in one forme No more people confessing Christ are to beheld a visible Church vntill they be ioyned together in such a forme as Christ hath commaunded But to follow you in your comparison of these two Churches speaking of the Iewes thus you say Their carnall Church in the matter and forme came by carnall genealogie and so they all of them were gendered vnto bondage vnder the rudiments of the world Gal. 4. 24 -25 vnder the carnal Testament Our Church in the matter forme thereof is by spirituall generation that is the genealogie of the faithful of Abraham the father of vs all Gal 3. 7. 9. 14. RoÌ„ 4. 10. 11. Their parents in that carnal Church was carnal Abraham and carnal Agar c. our spiritual parent is AbrahaÌ„ spiritual c. Their Ministery was a carnal Ministery by carnal genealogie c. First I deny that eyther the matter or forme of the Church of the â—â— Iewes came by carnal genealogie as you apply it They were made a Church and people of God through the everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham and his seede els could not the Proselyts and their children have bene matter of that old Church seing they descended not by carnall genealogie from Abraham Agayne that Church must be of the same nature with the covenant which gives the being thereof but this †Deut. 13. coÌ„f wâ— Luke 1. 7â— 73. 74. Cor 6. 1â— covenant is spirituall Ergo the Church also is spirituall That place of Gal. 4. 24. 25. which you cyte to prove that old Church to be carnal you missaply as before I have shewed pag 14. Secondly I deny that Hagar was the mother of the Israelites after the flesh though Abraham was their father neyther was Ismael the type of the Israelits as they were by nature the seede of Abraham but of such Israelits and others vnder the Gospel that by the works of the law sought to be iustified whereby they came in bondage to the law as the Apostle witnesseth See the exposition of Gal. 4. 24. 25. in pag. 14.
As for the spiritual genealogy both vnder the law and the Gospel I do approve to be the true seede of Abraham but not in your sense that excludes the infants of the faithful from the covenant which of vs are to be * Mat. â— Act. 3. accounted the children thereof as wel as these that outwardly professe their faith And concerning the Ministerie of the old Church although none could be Preists †Exo. 28. but of the line of Aaron yet was the “ Num. 6-19 Dâ— 33. 8-â— tribe of Levi chosen by God himself for that office And God * sanctified them to the service of his name and to the Ministery of holy things Lastly you charge vs with an introducing of a carnal line into the Church to be baptised by succession fetch baptisme vpon the carnal line through the Church of Rome c. “ Numb 19. 1 Cor. â— 13. Of this I have spoken before and I answer further 1. that we do not introduce any other carnall line into the Church to be baptised then the Lord himself introduceth that is the children of the faithful And this is not as you say to set up Iudaisme in the new Testament seing all the people of God of al nations and ages are bound vnto it for we know no other covenant by which we become the People Church of God but that same which was made with Abraham and his seed Concerning the carnall lyne as you cal it though in respect of vs it may seeme to stop in Apostacy yet the Lord continueth his promise to his elect therin Neyther by this our retayning of baptism do we iustify Rome to be a true church nor make our selves Schismaticks seeing we cast of her adulteries and keep that which is Christs ordinance by her polluted Also you charge us To be fallen from Christ and become a new second image of the beast never heard of before in the world For being fallen from Christ look that it be not your owne case Of the image of the beast I †read but not of a â—ev 13. â— 15. â— 9. new second image and therefore no marveil though it be never heard of in the world as you say and if it had been by you unspoken of also by so applying of it unto us your sinne had been the lesse And thus much in answer to your premised ground Next you set down the summe of my exception First I say that the new Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affairs â—l and occasions that befal in our tyme in the new Testament as the old Testament was for the occurrents that befel under the old Testament seeing Christ is as faythful as Moses and the new Testament as perfect as the old Gal. 3. 15. and therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostalike constituting of Churches and our constituting of them in respect of the persons to be admitted into the church and in respect of baptising and not baptising or rebaptising of them he could would have done it c. The sufficiencie of the new Testament we acknowledge of the books Answ thereof for that use wherefore they were written But it seemes that you confound the new Testament or covenant of grace with the books thereof for you reason thus that the new Testament meaning the bookes thereof are sufficient for direction of al affaires of the church And your proofe out of Gal. 3. 15. is of the covenant it self and not of the books thereof And afterward you alleadge as a reason for the same end that the new Testament is perfect and sealed with the blood of Christ thus deceiving the Readers with an homonomy of the word Testament The books of the new Testament were al unwritten when Christ sufferred and had sealed the covenant of Grace This Testament had been perfect if there had been never a book written The historie of the Gospel was written * Ioh. 20. 31 Rom. 1. 1. 2. 16. 25. 26. that we might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ promised and foretold in the holy Scriptures of the Prophets and that beleeving in him we might have eternal life Concerning the faythfulnes of Christ it consisteth in “ Luk. 1. 70 24. 27. â— Pet. 1. 10. â—1 12. Act. 26. 22. 13. 29. fulfilling of those things which Moses and the Prophets had sayd should come to passe And if he give us direction for all the affaires and occasions that fall out in our tymes eyther out of the books of the new Testament or old we ought to be thankful to God and accordingly to use them and not bynd him or our selves onely to the writings of the Apostles Seeing Christ is the Author as wel of the doctrine writings of the Prophets as of the Apostles 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 1 Pet. 3. 18. 19. Againe concerning the difference between the Apostolicke constituting of Churches and ours which you charge us with I answer we plead for no difference neyther do we practise contrarie to the first planting of the church witnesse Mr. Smyth Differences in the preface lin 12. â—ns â— for as then such as were to be received into the Church did confesse their fayth and so with thir families were baptised so wee hold that all such that are unbaptised and to be added to the church must enter thereinto they with their families after the same manner as in the Apostles tymes And we do acknowledge that all churches which have Apostated are to be reformed according to the patterne and platforme layd downe by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures But this difference we put between persons that were never baptised and such as have received baptisme in an Apostate church affirming that the former are to be adjoyned to the Church by baptisme the latter not to be againe baptised which if it had been necessarie the Lord no doubt would have coÌ„manded when he bad his people to goe out of Babylon But seing he sayth not a word of the renuing thereof we are to content our selves and to practise as the Holy Ghost †2 Chr. â— 5. 13. else where doth teach us by the example of the Israelites in an other like case Now if you can shew us eyther commandement or example or any good reason in all the new Testament to rebaptise them which have been baptised in Apostate churches we will receive it and practise it if not why do you plead for it without warrant do rebaptise your selves also affirme so confidently that all things be so manifest in the APOSTLES writings that upon every occasion that falles out in our tymes we have direction for it Lastly it is not wee that adde to this new Testament as you charge us or that bring in a new CHRIST a nevv Church a nevv Covenant a nevv Gospell and a nevv Baptisme but you your selves are guilty of this sinne for you by
his use unto such as Acts. 8. 37. 2. â—1 44. Cor. 10. 3 repenting turne to the true church of Christ because baptisme is an ordinance of the new Testament appointed by the Lord himself And though the beleeving Iewes were in Christ members of his mysticall body and their circumcision a seal of the righteousnes of their fayth yet was their fayth in †Christ to come and circumcision did seal up unto them Christ to come And therefore al this being but by fayth in the Messiah to come it was necessarie that they should also receive him now being come and be baptised into his name if they would continue members in his body And so this may answer you why Iohn Christ and his disciples did not admit the Iewes as members of the church of the Gospell with out confession of fayth in CHRIST now come and Baptisme in his name And yet we may receive into our Church them that have been baptised in the Apostate Churches without iterating of baptisme upon the confession of their fayth and repentance Neyther is this to offer indignitie to the LORDS ordinances in the old TESTAMENT as you do seeme to charge us for wee honour them in their place and right use as the Lord then appointed them and your self I suppose wil not say that you offer indignitie to those ordinances of the Lord although you acknowledg that baptisme received in Popery is not be to repeated being administred to such as are of yeares upon their owne profession of fayth Agayne c. I deny that ever the English nation or any one of our predecessors were of Re. the fayth of Christ shew it if you can but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came and put vpon vs her false baptism And therefore though the Romanes might plead this yet England cannot plead it and so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing and our case simply Paeganisme If al this were graunted that you say yet is the state of England in as Ans good case as Rome seing she by your own confession hath Rome for her mother †Ezech 44. and as the mother so is her Daughter If England partake with Rome in her Apostacy and whoredomes she must nedes be a member of her But I pray you Sir wil you admit of that baptisme in Rome without new baptising of such as shal come from thence if you do you overthrow your owne position viz That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme And if you doe not why put you this dissimilitude betwene England and Rome which serves not to the question in hand But you desyre me to shew if I can that the Englishe nation or any one of our predecessors were of the fayth of Christ it may be I cannot shew that any of them were Anabaptists before you which you falsly call the fayth of Christ but I can shew to them that wil heare that our English nation receaved the fayth before Rome fel into this Apostacy First Gildas affirmeth * Act. Monuâ— Book 2. p. 95. Gildas liâ— de vict Aurelij Ambrosâ— that Britayne receaved the Gospel in the tyme of Tiberius the Emperour vnder whome Christ suffered And then was not Rome “ Rom 1. apostate And further he sayth That Ioseph of Aremathea after the dispersion of the Iewes was sent of Philippe the Apostle from France to Britayne about the yeare of our Lord 63. And remayned in Britayne all his time who with his fellowes layed the first foundation of Christian faith among the Britayne people 2 †Tertul. con Indeos Tertullian testifyeth how the Gospell was dispersed abroad by the sound of the Apostles there reconeth up the Medes Persians Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia Iury Cappadocia Pontus Asia Phrygia Egypt Pamphilia with many more at length commeth to the coast of the Morianes and all the borders of Spaine with divers nations of France And there amongest 〈◊〉 other reciteth all the parts of Britayne and reporteth the same to be subiect to Christ And also reckoneth vp the places of Sarmatia of the Danes the Gerrmanes Schythians with many other Provinces and Isles in all which places sayth he reigneth the name of Christ which now beginneth to be common 3. †Origine sayth that Britayne did consent to Christian religion 4. * Nicephorus saith That Symon Origin â— 4. in â—…ch â—icep li. â— â—â—0 Zelotes did spread the gospel of Christ to the west Ocean and brought the same into the Isles of Britayne 5. In the time of the Abbot of Cluniake the Scots did celebrate their Easter not after the Romane maner but after the Greeks as he testifieth to Barnard Which argueth that they had received the faith and not from Rome 6. Also it appeareth by a letter of Elutherius Bishop of Rome written to Lucius King of Britayne anno 169. that Lucius had received the faith of Christ in his Land before he sent to Elutherius for the Romane lawes for so do the words of the letter purport which are these Ye have receiued of late through Gods mercie in the Realme of Britayne the law and faith of Christ you have with you within the Realme both the partes of the scriptures out of them by Gods grace take ye a law and by that law through Gods sufferance rule your kingdome of Britayne c. And thus was fulfilled in Britayne as wel as in Isa 42. 4 other lands the words of the Prophet who sayth “ he shall not fayle nor be discouraged speaking of Christ til he hath set iudgement in the earth and the Iles shall waite for his law And it is also further written of this King Lucius that he did not coÌ„pel the heathen but imbraced such as by the word were converted Which is to be observed concerning the constitution of the Churches then For it is sayd that he founded many Churches and gave great ritches and liberties to the same And because of this imbracing of the faith it caused those great troubles that fel out between the Britaynes which were Christians professing the faith and the infidels who brought in the Romanes which exercised much crueltie amongest the Christians In Dioclesians tyme the Churches of Britayne were greviously persecuted many sufferred for the faith of Christ as Albanus Iulius Aaron Amphibulus many more And thus if it please you to take notice from these writters you may see that this English nation were of such as professed the faith of Christ and and not of a Pagan race til Rome came and put vppon vs false baptisme as as you say neyther that our case is simply paganisme if these things be thus as is aforesayd Next whereas I sayd that repentance of such as were baptised in Apostate Churches was sufficient without rebaptization for their admittance into the church c. You answer That the Churches of Antichrist were false and Rep. the churche
some respects be called true baptisme as before I have noted in my first reason against rebaptising for 1. it hath Christ for the Author 2. it hath the true matter outward signe or element which is water 3. the true forme of administring the same which is baptising into the name of the Father and of the sone and of the holy Ghost all which is practised in the popish Church Neyther is any baptised into the name or fayth of Antichrist but into the fayth or profession of Christ And therefore our baptime is the baptisme of Christ and to us that repent true baptisme and so consequently not to be iterated M. Smyth I make Answer that seeing Infants are baptised which is the false matter of baptisme and seing in them there is not the question of a good conscience unto God 1 Pet. 3. 21. nor the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience Heb. 10. 22. which is the forme Seeing they cannot expresse credis credo abrenuncias abrenunci◠which is the forme of baptisme even the mutual contract betwixt God and the partie baptised expressed visiblie in confession therefore the baptisme is not Christs but antichrists c. R. Clyfton This is the summe of your reply to my answer that Baptisme administred in the Antichristian assemblies is of no use to the penitent and is not baptisme at all because both matter is false and the forme is wanting Of the matter whereof you speak which are Infants and of the lawfulnes of the baptising of Infants I referre you for answer to the former part of this writing Also for the matter forme of baptisme to that which hath been spoken thereof in this latter part Onely thus much concerning that which you here insert to the forme To be the question of a good conscience vnto God the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience to expresse Credis Credo abrenun 〈…〉 abrenunci◠I wil answer first that which the Apostle speaketh to such as were of yeares he applyeth to infants 2. In a good and true understanding we may and ought to think that children have their harts sprinkled from an evil conscience by the spirit of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ els how could we hope they should be saved seeing by nature they are the children of wrath Eph. 2. 3. but yet by grace the kingdome of heaven appertayns unto them Mat. 19. 14. 3. Although a good conscience be it which ministreth assurance of comfort to the baptised yet is not that the forme of this sacrament as now we speak of it First because hypocrytes in the church receive the outward signe as S. Magus did of whō it is sayd that he was baptised yet neyther Simon nor any hypocrite are sprinkled from an evil conscience 2. That which is required in the receiving of every sacrament and in al parts of the worship of God in the whole course of our life cannot be the proper forme of one particular sacrament But a * Deut. ◠16. 1 Cor. ◠28. 29. 3◠good conscience is required to be in the receivers of every sacrament c. 3. There is an outward baptisme wherof “ Mat. 3. ◠Tit. 3. 5. Iohn and the Ministers of the Gospel are the disposers and “ there is an inward baptisme which the Holy Ghost ministreth which is †Hebr. 1◠22. 23. the sprinkling of the hart from an evil conscience and is indeed the thing signified by the outward washing But we must confider of Baptisme as it is external and so to have an external forme matter Lastly for the meaning of * 1 Pet. 3. 2◠that place of Peter I take to be this That the Apostle in applying the former example to the tymes following the coming of Christ would teach that the peservation of Noah in the waters was a figure of our baptisme which is a type of our spiritual preservation from the floud of Gods wrath saying that baptisme that now is saveth us also by the resurrection of Iesus Christ And least any might attribute overmuch to the outward Ceremonie by way of correction he advertiseth us that salvation to speak properly stands in the forgivenes of our sinnes c. by the death of Christ and that baptisme saveth in that it testifieth and sealeth the same unto us And this remission of sinnes is partly signified in putting away the filth of the soule closely insinuated when he sayth not the putting away of the filth of the flesh And partly in declaring the effect thereof to wit the confident demanding which a good conscience maketh to God For when we are washed from our sinnes we may cherefully and with a good conscience freely call upon God Now this being as you see the effect of remission of our sinnes internal how shall it be the outward forme of Baptisme which is an outward ordinance of Christ To your credis and credo I have answered before Neyther is that which is spoken to them of yeares to be misapplyed to infants as I have shewed divers times heretofore Of Mr Smythes 3. Reason for Anabaptizing of Elder people The third Reason 3. Because as the false Church is reiected and the true erected the false Ministerie forsaken and the true received So false worship and by consequent baptisme must be renounced and the true baptisme assumed Answer First I grant that we ought to separate from all false or apostate Churches Apoc. 18. 4. and to adioyne our selves to a true Church reformed according to the patterne of the Apostles 2. Also every false Ministerie is to be forsaken Mat. 7. 15. 2 Iohn 10. Gal. 1. 8. and the true Ministers of God to be received Ier. 3. 14. 15. as did the faithfull in Israel that forsooke the false Preists set vp by Ieroboam and returned to the Preists of the Lord to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. 3. It is our dutie likewise to renounce all false worship 2 Cor. 6. 14-17 Esa 30. 22. and to worship the Lord as he taught vs in his word And thus farre do I approve of this reason but the consequence I must deny viz. that because false worship is to be renounced therefore baptisme also For 1. we are to consider in that baptisme received in apostate Churches two things first that which is of God therein secondly that which is of man that which is of God is the substance of baptisme as before is observed viz. the same matter and forme which the Lord instituted and likewise the same end which is the profession of the faith of Christ and this is not false worship and so consequently not to be renounced Againe that which in the administration of baptisme is devised by man are those vnwarrantable ceremonies of crossing annoynting and such like these are to be renounced as vayne worship Mat. 15. 9. Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men and not with their pollutions to be renounced For if pollution might warrant
the want of those true causes essential Repl. the true essential causes of the church of the old Testament was the posteritie of Abraham or proselyte circumcised the want of those things onely made a false church c. If this be the true definition of the church under the old Testament Ans then what would let that the Ismaelites and Edomites being circumcised were not true churches they were of the posteritie of Abraham as all do know That Israel was an Apostate church is before proved and by you confessed As to your essential causes of this church your carnal covenant which is the ground of your definitioÌ„ you may receive answer before pag. 12. c. And this more 1. That the Israelites and proselytes were a true church so long as they walked in the wayes of God but apostating the Lord did cal them an harlot Hos 2 2. 2. If these be the essential causes of that church as you have set down then the want thereof makes them not a false church as you say but no Church Lastly you bring us in a double respect or consideration of members of the church Repl. of Antichrist c. I answere divers things 1. I do not deny but that men may be considered two wayes visibly as members of Antichrist body invisibly as pertayning to the Lords election and that is the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but I deny that hence it followeth that when they came from their invisible being in Christ to a visible being in the true visible Church they shal enter in any waye but by the dore which is baptism First you graunt a duble consideration may be had of members of Antichrists Church but not altogether in the same sence as I did propound it The members of an apostate Ch. though in respect of their outward standing they have no right to the holy things of God yet as touching the election of God divers of them may belong vnto him whom he knoweth for his people and calleth them out of Babylon when and as it pleaseth him even as that speach doth shew vnto vs which sayth come out of her my people c. Rev. 18. 4. God for his promise sake made to Abraham Isaac and Iacob did extend his love to their seed and posteritie to save so many of them as he had * elected And when Israel fel into apostasie did remember Rom. 11. â—-5 this his promise and called thence such as he had chosen to witnes his truth and gave them to separate from their false wayes and to returne to Ierusalem Also the Lord having graffed the Gentiles in and †made them partakers of the roote and fatnes of the Olive tree vouchsafeth Rom. 11. 7. his grace to them and their posteritie But their apostasie he hateth as he did that of the Israelites And yet notwithstanding he hath his people Rom. 11. 8. in Babylon whom he calleth out to confesse his name for the covenant is given to the beleeving Gentiles as it was formerly to the Israelites and is no more extinguished in the apostasie of Antichrist then in the apostasie of Israel And as for the meaning of Rom. 11. 28. I take to be this that wheras 〈◊〉 11. 28 question might be made of the saving of the Iewes they being now enemies c. Paul granteth that they are enemies in one respect to wit of the Gospel which now they received not yet that in an other respect they are beloved of God to wit for his election and promise made to the fathers so as through the grace of his covenant by which he had chosen that people to himself Israel shal be called and ingraffed agayne and saved from their sinnes c. But that promise was to their fathers and their seed and this ingraffing agayne of the Iewes shal be into that estate from which now they are fallen and which before time their fathers were partakers off As concerning baptisme I do not read that it is called the doore of * Roâ— 3-4 3. 27. the Church the scripture hath these phrases Baptised into Christ baptised into his death and such like Notwithstanding in some sense it may be called the doore because it sealed vnto vs Christ who is the doore and for that it is the first-ordinance that eyther such as came to the Church or that are borne in the Church are made partakers of Whereas you intimate that a man being invisibly elect and having Title to the Re. covenant may therevpon 1. visibly enter into the false Church by false baptism and then vpon his repentance come to the true Church and enter thereinto not by baptism but that the dore of Antichrist shall open him the way into the Church of Christ Ans c. I answere 1. do not your selfe intimate thus much concerning such as being of yeares and makes themselves profession are baptised into Antichrists Apostacy 2. My spech was of such of Gods people as are borne †Carraâ— pag. 52. in Babylon which your selfe calles * members of a false Church 3. Baptism that is retayned in the Apostate Church of Antichrist is not false in that sense as you so call it but is the ordinance of Christ there poluted as formerly I have shewed 4. Gods people comming out of Babylon do no more enter into the true Church without baptisme then those his people that separated from the apostasie of Israel came to Ierusalem without circumcision otherwise I do not intimate or speak Whereas I say you intimate so much you teach contrary to Christ who sayth we Re. must go in by the dore c. and that we must first be taught and made disciples and then be baptised c. The doore is * Joh. 10. â— Christ by whome if any man enter in he shal be saved An. And to be baptised first after instructed is not coÌ„trary to Christs coÌ„mandemeÌ„t The words of Christ you wrest froÌ„ the true meaning therof to thrust infants out of the covenant and from baptisme and so your self is guilty of teaching contrary to Christ as formerly I have proved and you might aswel deny Baptisme to women by that Scripture Mat. 28. 19. as to infants for Christ sayth Baptise them vsing the masculine gender and not the feminine Secondly I say that no man is under the covenant or under baptisme for the parents sake and that is not the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise of God made to Abraham Isaac and Jaoob in respect of Chrict This place of Rom. 11. 28. I have before expounded Pag. 218. And that any is beloved for their parents sake otherwise then in respect of gods free promise made vnto them and their seed I meane not Yet if we consider the Lords dispensation of his covenant according to his grace of chosing a people to himself of
Lactantius whom you also cyte are generall of yong old whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number but proves not your desire his words you set downe thus Candiduâ— egreditur nitidis exerâ—itus undis atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort Concerning Lodovicus Vives vpon August de Civit. Dei cap. 27. if â—dovicus â—ves floâ—â— anno â—4â— â—â—d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his â—â— as did â—â— Erasm he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him seing he is but a late writer I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth certainly froÌ„ that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name Lastly you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes to say That in Pauls time it was not received that infants should be baptised Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth and therefore being of so late time what is his witnes against so many fathers testifying the contrarie Thus in alledging of him and the rest you shew the weaknes of your cause that have not one auncient father directly to vvitnes with you but are driven to call them to vvitnes that in this thing vvere of contrary judgment to your selfe REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the coÌ„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 reasoÌ„ 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 withstaÌ„ding be lawfull to baptise them namely if by sound coÌ„sequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warraÌ„t froÌ„ the exaÌ„ple 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 expresâ—ly mentioned and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament though wee can not shew any playne precept or example yet may upon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead that the son is Homousius that is of the same substance with the father now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture And many such like 2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence because they are within the covenaÌ„t and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested I wil thirdly answer vnto it 3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants Commandement I say Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents the same lawe of sealing the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be changed except the lawemaker do repeal it or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof which must be shewed or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia her household Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers 33. both which seming to be great housholds it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist meÌ„tioÌ„ them not But the exceptioÌ„ is that only such as did coÌ„fesse their sins confesse their fayth were baptised CoÌ„cerning 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 broughâ— them to him but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them no more say I is there that they were offered unto him There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised and yet it were too bold a part and no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptised All things that Iohn did nor that Christ did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof And therefore to gather an Argument from hence because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn therefore they ought not to be baptised is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country now in iourney homeward therefore not like that he should have his children with him specially in such a tedious iourney not knowing of this accident M. Smyth Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants to the first argument you say if it be brought into forme it wil bewray the weaknes of it wel I wil bring it into forme c. That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example Ergo. c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus That which hath precept and example must be practised Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ