THE CHARACTER OF THE BEAST OR THE FALSE CONSTITVTION OF THE CHVRCH Discovered IN CERTAYNE PASSAGES BETWIXT Mr. R. CLIFTON Iohn Smyth concerning true Christian baptisme of New Creatures or New borne Babes in Christ nd false Baptisme of infants borne after the flesh Referred to two Propositions 1. That infants are not to bee Baptized 2. That Antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true Church by baptisme Revelat. 13.16 And he made all both small great rich poore free and bond to receave a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads Revelat. 14.9.10 If any man receave the mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God Revelat. 21.5 And he that sate vppon the Throne said behold make all things new Printed 160â— TO EVERY ONE THAT LOVETH THE Truth in sincerity Salutations It may be thought most straung that a man should oft tymes chandg his ReligioÌ„ it cannot be accounted a commendable quality in any man to make many alterations chandges in such weighty matters as are the cases of conscience but if constancy be commeÌ„dable in any thing it is most coÌ„mendable in the best things which is Religion it inconstancy be worthy reproof in matters of inferior estimation it is much more blameable in matters of SalvatioÌ„ In respect wherof the wisest most Religions men have been alwayes most constant in ther profession faith inconstant persons cannot escape the deserved imputatioÌ„ of folly or weaknes of judgment therein This must needs be true we confesse it if one condition be admitted that the Religon which a man chandgeth be the truth For otherwise to chandge a false Religion is commendable to retaine a false Religion is damnable For a man of a Turk to become a Iew of a Iew to become a Papist of a Papist to become a Protestant are al commendable chandges though they al of them befal one the same person in one yeere nay if it were in one month So that not to chandg Religion is evil simply therfor that we should fal from the profession of Puritanisme to Brownisme from Brownisme to true Christian baptisme is not simply evil or reprovable in it self except it be proved that we have fallen from true Religion If wee therfor being formerly deceaved in the way of Pedobaptistry now doe embrace the truth in the true Christian Apostolique baptisme Then let no maÌ„ impute this as a fault vnto vs This therfor is the question whither the baptisme of infants be lawful yea or nay whither persons baptized being infants must not renounce that false baptisme assume the true baptisme of Chr which is to be administred vppon persons confessing their faith their sinnes This being the controversy now betwixt vs the Seperation commonly called Brownists For the glory of God the manifesting of the truth to our own nation the destruction of the man of sinne wee have thought good to publish this present treatise wherin the whole cause is handled Let the indifferent reader judâ— of the whole give sentence without partiality I doubt not but he shal be constâ—ayned to give glory to God in acknowledging the error of baptising infants to have been a cheef point of Antichristianisme the very essence constitution of the false Church as is cleerly discovered in this treatise Now happily some man wil wish that the controversy had been with the Rabbyes of the Seperation not with Mr. Clifton whom thy caluÌ„niate to be a weake man vnable to deale in so great a controversy wel let the Reader take notice that although it be Mr. Cliftons pâ—n yet it is not only Mr. Cliftons cause defence but his allegations reasons are the best pâ—ea of the greatest Rabbyes themselves if they think that they can say better they may now speake for by publishing anâ—wer to their reasons we do challendg al the Seperation in special to the combat Be it knowne therfor to all the Seperation that we account them in respect of their constitution to bee as very an hâ—â—â—ot as either her Mother England or her grandmother Rome is out of whose loynes she came although once in our ignorance we have acknowledged her a true Chu yet now being better informed we revoke that our erroneous judgment protest against her aswel for her false constitution as for her false ministery worship government The true constitution of the Chu is of a new creature baptized into the Father the Sonne the holy Ghost The false constitution is of infants baptized we professe therfor that al those Churches that baptise infants are of the same false constitution al those Chu that baptize the new creature those that are made Disciples by teaching men conseâ—ing their faith their sinnes are of one true constitution therfor the Chu of the Seperation being of the same constitution with England Rome is a most vnnatural daughter to her mother England her grandmother Rome who being of the self fame genealogie generation that of the prophet being true of her as is the Mother so is the daughter she dare notwithstanding most impudently wipe her own mouth cal her mother grandmother adulteresses Hee in therfor we do acknowledg our error that we retayning the baptisme of England which gave vs our constitution did cal our mother England an harlot vppon a false ground made our Seperation from her For although it be necessary that we Seperate from England yet no man can Seperate from England as from a false Chu except he also do Seperate from the baptisme of England which giveth England her constitution whosoever doth retaine the baptisme of England doth with al retaine the constitution of England cannot without sinne cal England an harlot as we have done this we desire may be wel minded of al that Seperate froÌ„ England For if they retaine the baptisme of England viz the baptisme of infants as true baptisme they cannot Seperate from England as from a false Chu though they may Seperate for corruptions whosoever doth Seperate from England as from a false Church must needs Seperate from the baptisme of England as from false baptisme For the baptisme of England cannot be true to be retayned the Chu of England false to de rejected neither can the Chu of England possibly be false except the baptisme be false vnlesse a true constitution could be in a false Chu which is as impossible as for light to have felowship with darknes It is impossible that contraryes or contradictions should be both true so it is impossible that a false Chur. should have a true constitution or a true baptisme To say thus England hath a false constitution England hath a true baptisme is as much as to say thus England hath a true constitution England hath a true constitution which is
actually beleeving actually justified by the righteousnes of Fayth as Abraham the Father of al the Faithful was Roman 4.11 whence this Argument may bee framed Abraham is the Father of al them that actually beleeve Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo Abraham is not the Father of infants so infants are not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe Abrahams covenant was only to Abrahams one seed that is only to the beleevers Infants are not actuall beleevers Ergo Abrahams covenant is not to infants so infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Againe They that are the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Infants cannot do the workes of Abraham Ergo infants are not the children of Abraham so not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe I reason thus They that are not vnder the everlasting covenant made with Abraham shal not be baptized Infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Ergo infants are not to be baptized These many other such Arguments may be colected out of the answer to this fourth Argument of yours but these shal suffice Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 10.1.2 If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea as well as their parents what letteth the infants of beleeving parents vnder the gospel to bee likewise partakers of baptisma aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmes 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therefore good warrant must bee shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes Children had And if the former Baptisme of the Iewes was a Type of our Baptisme then must there bee an agreement betweene the Type the thing Typed which is not if our Children bee not baptized as well as theirs The depriving of our Children of the Sacrament is to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people of the New Testament that being denyed to their children which God gave to his people to their infants vnder the Law is to deny them in regard of their seed the like assurance comfort which the Israelites had of theirs And so to make our estate worse more vncomfortable then theirs was yet the Prophets prophecyed of the grace that should come to vs did inquire seach after the same 1 Pet. 1.10 Glad tydings were preached to Abraham his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3.8 And this before Christ came in the Flesh therefore much more he being come is joyful trydings brought vnto vs our infants so are we to beleve that the grace of God is not lessened either towards vs or our children but inlarged by his comming Iohn Smyth Your 5. argument is taken from 1. Cor. 10.1.2 framed thus If the infāts of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea aswel as their parents what letteth the infants of beleving parents vnder the gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes children had that baptisme being a type of our baptisme To this argument I make answer by framing the like argument If their infants did eate the same Spiritual meate drink which the parents did eate then why may not our infants being able to eate drinck eate drinck the Lords Supper The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from the priviledg those sacramēts were types of our Sacraments Againe I answer more properly thus That ther shal be a proportion betwixt the Type the truth that baptisme of the cloud sea our baptisme viz that as yong old carnal Israelites were baptized in the cloud sea so yong old Spiritual true Israelites shal be baptized by the baptisme of repētance as the carnal parents with their carnal children were baptized in type So Spiritual parents with their Spiritual children that is such as are regenerate by the word Spirit shall bee baptized with the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes which is baptisme in truth Further I say That our infants shal have a priviledg fair greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that typical baptisme For they by it were only baptized into Moses the Law That by it they might learne Moses in Moses the truth in Chr. as it were vnder a vele but our infants vnder the gospel shal have the dayly institution education of Faithful parents which is infinitely superior to that darke pedagogical baptisme al the baptismes ordinances of the old Testament Seing that with open face they may in the preaching of the gospel see Christ Iesus not vnder the vele of Moses Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud sea was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete that is the baptisme of the cloud did Type out our baptisme in the 3. parts therof viz. 1. The baptisme of the Spirit 2. The declaration of Faith repentance the antecedent of baptisme with water 3. The outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulars all these to bee conferred vppon infants proportionable to those infants that is New borne babes in Christ And whereas you further alledg that if your infants bee not baptized the Lords bounty is shortned to vs our infants our confort is diminished in respect of our infants which they had in respect of theirs the gospel is not preached to our infants as it was to theirs I answer that Gods bounty our confort in respect of our infants the preaching of the glad tydings of the gospel is as large ample every way to our infants as to theirs For Gods bounty of the actual exhibiting and fealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnall infants was never extant in the Old Testament Neither were the parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it vppon their infants circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached now to infants but what could the preaching of Christ profit infants either then in types or now in truth Neyther doe I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infant any thing at that instant but afterward hee was to learne that which the Schoolemr circumcision vppon his Flesh taught him viz the circumcision of the hart if you say that so infants baptized are to be instructed I answer that in the New Testament by baptisme wee manifest what wee have namely the inward baptisme whereas in the Old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have viz The inward circumcision of the hart mortification of the sinnefull Flesh. Mr. Rich. Clifton Mat. 28.19 If
the Keper al that belonged vnto him vs 33. both which seming to be great Families it is not likely that they were without children though the Evang mention them not But the exception is that only such as did confesse their sinnes confesse their Faith were baptized I desire that to be proved that only such no others were to be baptized CoÌ„cerning Iohn indeed he was sent to cal the people to repeÌ„tance so to prepare the way of the L. Mat. 3.3 so many as did repent confesse their sinnes he baptized but did Iohn refuse their children if they brought them to him but it wil be said ther is no mentioÌ„ made that he did baptise theÌ„ no more say I is ther that they were offered vnto him Ther is no mention that the Disciples of Chr. were baptized yet it were to bold a part no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptized Not al things that Iohn did not yet that Chr. did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20.30 but the sume therof therfor to gather an argument froÌ„ hence bicause ther is no mention that children were baptized by Iohn therfor they ought not to be baptized is a larger conclusion then the premisse wil beare so the reason taken from the baptising of the Evnuch Philip baptized no childreÌ„ when he baptized the Evnuch is of no waight to prove that therfor childreÌ„ ought not to be baptized Was not the Evnuch a straÌ„ger far from his country now in jorney homeward therfor not likely that he should have children with him specially in such a tedious jorney not knowing of this accident Iohn Smvth. Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants In answer to the first argument you say that if it bee brought into forme it will bewray the weakenes of it Wel I will bring it into forme then let vs streng then it where it is weake as thus That which hath neither precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neither precept nor example Ergo baptisme of infants is not to be done Againe another part of my Argument may bee brought into forme thus That which hath precept example must be practized Baptising of persons confessing ther sinnes their Faith is commaunded was practised by Christ Iohn the Apostles Ergo those persons are the persons to be baptized My Argument therefore consisting of an affirmative which includeth a negative is as I take it a forcible Argument Let vs see your answer â—ceptions First you say that a consequence necessarily drawne from the Scripture is sufficient to prove the baptising of infants though ther were no special commaundement or example as Christ proveth the resurrection Mat. 22.31.32 out of Exod. 3.6 by necessary consequent as Paul in the Epistles to the Rom. Gal. proveth justification by Faith only without workes by necessary consequents wee beleeve many things that are not expressed in words as 3. persons in one Godhead that Christ is coessential or consubstantial to the Father this is your answer or exception wher to I reply thus Although a necessary consequence in al cases shal prevayle yet I say the Lord cannot leave 〈◊〉 in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainly Faythfully with vs For seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old the Gospel being with open face the Law being hid vnder the vele seing Christ is as Faithful yea much more faithful then al men therfor is called Amen the Faythful true witnesse so hath as faithfully prescribed al the ordinances of the new Testament as Moses did the ordinances of the old Testament seing Moses hath set downe distinctly most plainly the persons with their qualifications to bee circumcised the circumstance of the tyme when circumcision was to be administred either Christ hath as plainly fully set downe these particulars in the new Testament or els the new Testament is not so plaine as the old Christ is not as Faythful aâ— Moses For it had been easily said goe teach make Disciples baptise them if they have any infants baptise them without teaching them or thus baptise me of yeeres when they confesse their sinnes their faith but baptise al the infants of the faithful though they cannot confesse at al their sins saith or it had beeÌ„ easily said Iohn baptized them that confesse their sinnes ther yong children also but to say that Christ Iohn the Apostles leaveth direction for this maine mater only by darke obscure far fetcht probable conjectures consequents from the old Testament which was only typical is abolished in respect of the Types that 〈◊〉 hath not left evident vndeniable ground for it distinctly expresly in al the foresaid particulars is to say that Christ is not so plaine Faithful in his office propheâ—â—cal as Moses was who hath taught al these particulars so distinctly as nothing is more plaine therfor though I must needes yeeld that necessary consequents are true yet I deny that in this case the Lord hath left vs to consequents it is against his truth his Faythfulnes the evidence of the new Testament so to do More over seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp pâ—eached obscurely in the old Testament the types therof it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrectioÌ„ Paul out of the old TestameÌ„t prove justification by faith without work for the Iewes would not beleeve any thing contrary to the law or without warrant of the law the Gentils namely the Galatians especially being seduced by them of the circumcision Act. 15.1 must needes have their mouths stept by the law ther were no Scriptures but the old Testament the ordinances of the new Testament could not be so plainly drawne out of the old Testament without consequents but new the new Testament being written al the ordinances therof plainly taught by Christ his Apostles why shal wee bee sent to obscurityes conjectural consequents seing that wee may with open face look into the glory of Christ as it were into a glasse therein see al the beauty of the new Ierusalem as cleer as Christal Revel 21.11 2. Cor. 3.18 whereas you would fetch arguments from the old Testament to prove the baptisme of infants we having the cleer light of the new Testament you therin set vs to Schoole to the rudiments of the world put aside the light of the sunne at noone set vp a candle as the Papists do in their funerals for although it be meet that we attend vnto the Prophets as vnto a light shining in a dark place yet seing the day star is come the sunne of righteousnes is risen vppon vs let vs walk in this cleer light vse the
I say that you erre mistaking the Scriptures For Abrahams faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or paterne of justification circumcision in Abraham was not a seale of his justification or of the everlasting covenant God made with him in respect of Christ therby to establish him into Christ for he was in Christ sealed in Christ many yeres before by the seale of the Spirit but Abrahams justification in vncircumcision was a type of the justification of the Gentils who are vncircumcised Abrahams circumcision alter his justification sealed him vp to bee the Father of all the beleevers circumcised so circumcision had a triple vse in Abraham one generall two speciall particular the two speciall are these First circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to be a paterne to al the beleevers in vncircumcision that the beleeving gentils should be al justified by actual faith as he was Secondly circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to bee a paterne to al the beleevers in circumcision that the beleving Iewes should be al justified by actual faith as he was The general vse of Abrah circumcision was common with him to Ismael al the persons of his family al the carnal Israelites viz to seale him vp to the old Testament to the observation of the whole Law wherby Chr. in that vele of the old Testament was preached vnto the Iewes it being ther Schoolmr to teach them Christ Now for the place Rom. 4.11 which I am assured you wil ground your assertiō vppon I say it is both falsely translated expounded for tes en te acrobustia is vsually translated which Abrah had when he was vncircumcized this I say is a false translation For this is the true translation viz which is or was or shal be in the vncircumcision meaning that circumcision vppon Abrah the Father of al the beleving Gentils was a seale of justification to al the vncircumcision that beleeve the end of his circumcision is his Fatherhood of the Faithful the righteousnes of faith is not sealed vp to Abrah particular person but to the vncircumcised that beleve that which was sealed vp in special to Abrah was his Fatherhood or presidentship of justification So that circumcision in Abrah was to establish him the Father of the Faithful Gentils his circumcision doth teach the Gentils that if they wil partake Chr. they must by their actual faith apprehend Christs righteousnes as Abrah their Father did otherwise they cannot be justified so Pauls intent is plainly proved namely that al men must be justified by faith without the works of the law this do I confidently affirme to be the true translation exposition that the common acceptation translation of the place is the mother of this heresy of pedobapistry Againe al the persons of Abrah Family were not circumcised bicause of Abrah saith but the males al only the males were circumcised bicause of the special cōmaundement of God Gen. 17.10 the males being assumed as types for to teach thē figuratively the male Ch. circumcision of the hart by him the females were vncircumcised as they were also put out from being the matter of the burnt-offring for the males only were offered in burnt-offring to signifie that those that had not the male Chr. in them were not fit eyther to be members of the church of the new Testament or to be sacrificed vnto the L. Mal. 1.14 but if Ch. the male were in thē whither male or female in Chr. it was nothing they were accepted Gal. 3.28 Further you say that as it was with Abrah his family in circumcision so was it with Lydia the Gaylor their familyes in baptisme that is not so I shew the difference in divers particular 1. They of Abrahams Family were circuncised vppon particular precept in obedience of the Commaundement Genes 17.23 you cannot prove that the infants of Lydias the Gaylors family were baptized vpon particular precept but only you say it indevour to justifie it by the example of Abra. family but if Abra. family be an example then you must bring a particular precept as he had for baptising infants 2. They that were males only were circumcised but you wil have both males females baptized this is another difference 3. They that were circumcised of Abrah Family were al the males being of yeres though they were never so lewd wicked persons So were not al the persons of Lydias the Gaylors family but only the beleevers being of yeeres according to your opinion 4. As Faith did not intitle the female to circumcision as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision in Abrahams Family So faith did intitle the female to baptisme in the Family of the Gaylor Lydia infidelity in the male did exclude him from baptisme you see therfor that the proportion is not alike betwixt baptisme circumcision The second particular in your Answer to this Arg. is that the same order is kept in Chr. comission Mat. 18.19 in bringing the gentils into Gods covenant as was kept with Abtah he al his Family were brought in by circūcision after the gospel preached to him Genes 17 1-8 so Lydia the Gaylor were brought into the covenant with all ther Family were baptized after the Gospell preached to them I answer that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abrah the other of Lydia the Gaylor according to the commission of Chr. Mat. 28.19 First Abrah al his family by the Lords commaundement came vnder the covenant of the Old Testament actually the males only were circumcised but Chr. doth not commaund all persons of a Family in the New Testament to be baptized but only such as are made Disciples al them though they bee weomen as Lydia was Secondly The gospel was only preached to Abrah owne person by the L. but in the Gaylors case Paul preached the gospel to al that were in his howse Act. 16.32 so Chr. commaundeth to make them Disciples by preaching So were not Abrah Family who being first circumcised afterward were taught the Law being a School 〈◊〉 to teach Christ Thirdly the gospel was not preached to Abrah therby to prepare him to circumcision as if therby it should follow that circumcision was a seale of the Gospel or New Testament for it is not so as I have already manifested but Chr. in the new Testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every creature that is to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme 〈◊〉 so Paul did to the Gaylors Family this is another difference The third particular in your answer to this argument is ◠if infants be excluded from baptisme for want of
into the new Testament that had all these perogatives in your judgment much more wil they have vs to constitute Antichr converted into the true Church by baptisme neither can you say without great indignity to the L. ordinances in the old Test that they were inferior to the baptisme of Antichrist Againe you wil needes have this to be a great priviledg to the antichr to be the carnal seed of them that hath somtyme been members of the Church of Chr. in the new Testament therfor you say that in ther parents or auncestors they had title to baptisme I deny that ever the English nation of any one of our predecessors were of the Faith of Chr. shew it if you can but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came put vppon vs her false baptisme therfor although the Roma might plead this yet England cannot plead it so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing our case is simply Paganish Further you say that the repentance of Apostate Churches is sufficient for their admittance into the true Church without rebaptization as repentance was for Israel without recircumcision I deny it for the Churches of Antichr are false the Church of the Israelites was not false The Churches of Antichr were false bicause they consisted of the carnal seed baptized which was not that one seed vnto which the promise was made that is the Faithful The Church of the Israelites was true bicause it did consist of the carnal seed carnally circumcised which was the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament For otherwise if Israel had been false bicause of their Apostacy Idolatry then Iudah was as false who had in wickednes justified Samaria Sodom Ezech. 16.51 but indeed they were neither of them false so long as they circumcised the males of 8. dayes old but the Churches of Antichr growing false by baptising the carnal seed which was not the true seed of Abrahams faith therefore are to bee baptized when they come to the truth cannot have Israels Apostacy for the president wherefore an Edomite or Israelite comming to bee a proselite of the Iewes Church that had omitted circumcision is a true President of the Antichristian Apostacy For as they omitting the circumcision of the males though of the Posterity of Abraham yet being Proselites were entered into the Iewes Church by circumcision So is it in the Apostacy of Antichrist with the Proselytes of Antichristianisme for so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the Faith admitted into the true Church the Israelites were not so Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have receaved vs into the Church vppon repentance without baptisme I answer if such an example had been left vs wee would then have rested satisfied but seing the Apo. have left no such example nor precept therfor you are yet in your Apostacy having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are stil vnseperated do stil retaine the mark of the beast are subject to the woe that the aungel threatneth to persons so marked Mr. Rich. Clifton Now let vs come to the second reason which is this 2. Bicause true baptisme is but one but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme so not that one baptisme of Chr. but al the members of Chr. must have true Baptisme Answere 2. Ther is but one Faith one baptisme Eph. 4 4. therefore is it sufficient to bee once baptized as it was to bee once circumcised Secondly That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt doe also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme what then must it follow that now such as are baptized must bee rebaptized els cannot bee members of a visible Church I deny it doe further answere 1. That the baptisme which wee receaved in the Apostate Church is no more Antichrists then the word that wee receaved therein For Antichrist did never ordaine a new kynd of baptisme but did onely pollute with his inventions the Holy ordinance of Chr therefore if this baptisme that wee have receaved be called the baptisme of Antichr that is to affirme an vntruth seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Chr. who commaunded his Apo. to baptize al nations with water in the name of the Father of the Sonne of the Holy Ghost the same baptisme for substance is stil retayned in the Apostate churches none other Secondly this baptisme may also in some respect bee called true baptisme as before I have noted in my fift reason against rebaptization For 1. it hath Chr. 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 of the Sonne of the Holy Ghost al which is practised in the Popish Church neither is any baptized into the name or faith of Antich but vnto the faith possession of Christ therfor our baptisme is the baptisme of Chr. to vs that repent true baptisme so consequently not to be reiterated Iohn Smyth In the next place you make answer to my second arg which may be framed thus Al the members of Chr. must have that one true baptisme of Chr. taught in the new Testament The baptisme of antich is not that one true baptisme taught by Chr. in the new Testament Ergo The members of Christ must not have the baptisme of Antichrist but must take the true baptisme of Christ when they come into the true Church The summe of your answer is That the baptisme we receaved in the false Chur. is not Antichr but Christs I make answer that seing infants are baptized which is the false matter of baptisme seing in them ther is not the question of a good conscience vnto God 1. Pet. 3.21 Nor the hast sprinckled from an evil conscience Heb. 10 22. which is the forme Seing they cannot expresse credis Credo Abrenuntias Abrenuncio which is the forme of baptisme even the mutual contract betwixt God the party baptized expressed visibly in confession therfor the baptisme is not Chr. but Antichrists not from heaven but of man al that you object in this particular is already sufficiently taken away in answer to your 4. reason whither I translated that which is heer answered by you vppon occasion ther intertayned Mr. Rich. Clifton The third reason Bicause as the false Church is rejected the true erected the false ministery forsaken the true received so false worship by consequence baptisme must be renounced the true baptisme assumed Answere First I graunt that we ought to Seperate from al false or apostate Chur. Apo. 18.4 to adjoyne our selves to a true Chu reformed according to the paterne of the Apostles 2. also every false ministery is to
that which is appointed to perdition to perdition let it goe I wil never vse meanes to support it Finally although I have professed my readines publiquely privately to forsake my errors vppon their discovery as I have already practised for the which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never professed my readines to bee perverted from the truth which you cal heresy therfore if you did vndertake to write vppon this ground you might wel have spared your paynes saved your self from so greevous a sinne as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth by blessing your labours in opugning at this breefly shal suffice for your preface general Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. That infants are not to bee Baptised Answere Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of Infants next after him Pelagius the heretike against whom Augustine others of the auncient Fathers have opposed condemned for heresy that according to the Scriptures which by Gods grace we shal together with them also fâ—rther manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vndertake then answere the reasons to the contrary Gen. 17.20 God made his covenant to Abraham to his seed from whence I reason thus 2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to bee sealed to him to al 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. Therefor that is commaunded to be fealed to vs c to our seede yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrahams 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 to your children to al that are a farre of as many as the Lord our God shal cal In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant promisse that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive were baptised into And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17.4 also Gal. 3.13.4 Christ is said to redemne vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ies Chr. that wee might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8.9 Now then if wee bee partakers of the same covenant for otherwise Abrahams covenant should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.7 seing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a tyme Rom. 11 15.17.20 it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs to our infants els is it not the same that by the commaundement of God For the abolishing of circumcision the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospel doth not abrogate or disanulle the commaundement of sealing the covenant 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 belongs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seal thereof to them to their seede as that did to Abraham to his seede The outward ceremonie onely changed Iohn Smyth Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point affirming that baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius whom Augustine others refuted condemned for heresy that by Scripture I say that one heretique condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answere I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Ciprian Origen Nazianzen Ambrose many others were almost as grosse heretiques if he be an heretique that holdeth an heresy as Auxentius Pelagius you your selves account theÌ„ all Antichristians therfor the auncient practise of pedobaptistry in auncient antichristian Churches is no more to be respected then the auncient practise of the Prelacy read prayer in the fame but these are but Florishes let vs heare your arguments from the Scripture proving 1. That infants are to be baptised Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10 is framed thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him to al his seed yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel do receave is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfor it is commaunded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea eveÌ„ to our infaÌ„ts for so was it to Abrahams To this argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments for a covenant testament is al one in the originals though the English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham his carnal seed of that covenant was circumcision a seale another covenant made with AbrahaÌ„ his Spiritual seed of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seale for the carnall covenant had a carnal seale vppon the carnal seed the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seale vppon the Spiritual seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnal seale could not seale vp the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed for to say so is to leap over the hedg to make a disproportion betwixt the type the truth These things being thus distinguished let theÌ„ bee remembred applyed orderly the argument wil appeare of no value for the major is thus to be vnderstood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with AbrahaÌ„ his carnal seed was to be sealed vp to his infants with a carnal seale viz circumcision if it be not so vnderstood it is false Now the minor if it be assumed out of the major as it must be els it is a Sophisme is very false flatly contradictory to the Scripture for we vnder the gospel do not receave that carnal covenant which was made to Abraham his carnal seed whereof circumcision was the carnal seale but that carnal covenant seale together with the subject of that seale viz a male of 8. dayes old is taken away by Christs crosse in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant the Spiritual seale viz the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seale the Spiritual infant viz a new borne babe in Christ in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed signified by that carnal infant That al these particulars are so I prove vnto you plainly by these places of Scripture 1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham Gal.
2.11.12 that in as large ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelits for of them only were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coming of Ie. Chr. should be more restrayned â—hen it was vnder the law who came to ratify confirme that wholly as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham his infants if Christ should give it vnto vs onely not to our infants this were to lessen infringe the covenant not to conâ—â—â—â— all but to take away part of that which God before had given Iohn Smyth Your second argument followeth from Coll. 2.11.12 which is framed thus If circumcision belonged to Faythful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also aperteyne to all beleevers to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The reason of the consequent is double 1. for that baptisme cometh in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed Col. 2.11.12 2. For that the covenant must be as largely sealed vp to vs as to theÌ„ therfor to our females as wel as males infants as wel as persons of yeeres For the covenant in Christ is not lessened but of as larg extent now as then 2. Cor. 1.20 Seing in Christ all the promises of God are yea amen I answer that this argument is built vppon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant seale seed their is manifest violence committed vppon the Scripture by perverting wresting it to false consequents first therfor I deny the consequence I give reasons of my deniall 1. Bicause circumcision did not aperteyne to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant of life Salvation but of the external temporary covenant of the land of Canaan of obedience to the Law of Moses therfor though circumcision aperteyned to Abraham his carnal infants as a seale of the external covenant yet it doth not follow that baptisme belongs to the Faythful their carnal infants as a seale of the Spiritual covenant of the New Testament made in respect of Christ 2. Secondly bicause the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the New Testament bicause Abraham is the Father of all the Faythfull but no man though never so Holy hath that perrogative to bee the Father of the Faythfull Therefore Abraham receaveth the Faythfull into his bosome Luk. â—6 23 3. Thirdly bicause the infants of the faithful do not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham the Father of the Faithful but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the Fleshe therfor the disproportion being in al these particulars the consequence of the argument is weake insufficient But if you wil make true consequents you must reason froÌ„ the type to the truth proportionably not from the type to the type as this argument importeth neyther must you confound the covenants seales as you do but must make al things distinct proportionable the one to the other as thus Abraham the Father of the carnal infants Abraham the Father of the Faithful Carnal Abraham his carnal seed carnally circumcised So Faithful Abraham his Faithful Children Spiritually circumcised The carnal infants of the old Testament carnally circumcised The Spiritual infaÌ„ts of the new Testament that is men regenerate baptized Thus you se the disproportion of your argument the true proportion that you ought to have made if your argument had been good But let vs see the reasons of your consequence the Scriptures you do produce for the confirmation of them you say that baptisme cometh in the â—ome of circuÌ„cision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed I vtterly deny it I prove the contrary vnto you Seing that the circumcisioÌ„ of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh RoÌ„ 2.29 circumcision made without hands cometh in the place of circumcision made with hands Col. 2.11 compared with Eph. 2.11 circumcision the seale of the flesh hath the H. Spirit of promise which is the Spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Eph. 1.13.14 which seale of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance as circuÌ„cision of the flesh was an earnest of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the carnal Israelites I desire to be enformed in al the Scriptures where baptisme is called a seale for I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new Testament though I cannot deny that the baptisme of the holy ghost is the seale I say therfor that the seale of the Spirit must go befor the baptisme of water as al the ordinances of the new Testament are Spiritual yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament Spiritual yet visible thervppon men being visibly sealed with the Spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10.47 may challendg the baptisme with water as Peter there teacheth this visible seale of the new Testament is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confessioÌ„ baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale You see therfor that baptisme is not the seale of the new Testament that circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnal seed now the place of Col. 2.11.12 which you produce to prove that baptisme cometh in the rome of circumcision is not so to be construed but the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Chr. circumcisioÌ„ baptisme which is mortifying burying of sinne resurection from sinne the Apost doth not intend to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth for circumcision but hee teacheth the vertue of Ch. circumcision baptisme in the Faithful so that seing circumcision was a seale of the promises of the old Testament to the carnal seed that the Spirit is the seale of the promises of the new Testament to the faithful seed of AbrahaÌ„ therfor neither doth baptisme of water succeed circumcision neither doth baptisme with water seale vp any promises to the Faithfull but onely doth visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of viz of the Spirit of promise Againe in your second reason you would infinuate a restraynt in the new Testament 1. baptisme be not due to infants seing circumcision was due to infants in the Old Testament I answer many wayes 1. Seing that baptisme doth not succeede circumcision this alegation is nothing to the purpose 2. Seing baptisme is both to male female it is larger then circumcision which was only vppon the male 3. seing that baptisme is both to Iew Gentil therfor
more larg then circumcision but these things are almost nothing to the purpose Therfor I say more pertinently That the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is now as larg as ever it was For that was never made with Abraham al his carnal children but only with Abraham the Faythful so it continueth in the same tenor stil it is enlarged now since Christs comming only in respect of the cleerer more vniversal publication oâ— it for then the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ was shadowed out darkly in types now since Christ it is preached plainly then it was only to the Iewes now to al nations Mat. 28.19 besides I affirme that circumcision was never a seale of that covenant that God made with Abraham in respect of Christ for the Holy Spirit of promise is the seale of it but circumcision only was a seale of the external covenant the seale of the Spirit is as large as the seale of the Flesh For all the carnal Israelites were carnally sealed al the true beleevers are sealed by the Sâ—â—riâ—al the males were carnally sealed al that have the male Christ formed in them whither men or weomen are sealed by the Spirit For in Christ ther is neyther male nor female Gal. 3.28 al the carnal seed were carnally sealed whither yong or old so all the Spiritual seed are Spiritually sealed whither new borne babes in Christ or perfect men that are come to the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ so the covenant is not lessened taking things in their due proportion not perverting them whereas you say in Christ all the promises of God are yea amen 2. Cor. 1.20 therby insinuating that in the new Testament the covenant must be as large as in the old I confesse it to be as larg but this place is strayned to the proving thereof For the meaning of it is that vnto the Faythful all the Lords promises are verefied but his promise was never that al their carnal seed should have baptisme as a seale of life salvation but that al the beleevers should have the Spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seale From that which I have answered to your second argument I reason thus 1. If al the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it then they never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant But al the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actual possession of it Seing that Abrahams children according to his actual Fayth were only vnder it Rom. 4.11 Ergo al the carnal infants of Abraham never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant therfor not to baptisme 2. If baptisme doth not succeede circumcision then baptisme doth not pertaine to carnal infants though circumcision perteyned to carnal infants But baptisme doth not succeede circumcision bicause the seale of the Spirit is correspondent to the typical seale of the Flesh baptisme with water is only the manifestation of the seale Ergo baptisme doth not aperteyne to the carnal infants 3. If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham all his carnal infants then by your proportion baptisme doth not seale vp the everlasting covenant to the Faithful their carnal infants But circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham all his carnal infants Ergo by your proportion baptisme doth not seale vp the everlasting covenant to the Faithful their carnal infants 4. If beleeving parents do not stand in Abrahams rome to conveigh the covenaÌ„t to their infants then though they be baptized themselves yet their children shal not But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rome to conveigh the covenant to their infants For no man is the Father of the Faythfull as Abraham was he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnal infants Ergo though beleeving parents be baptized themselves yet ther infants shall not be baptized 5. If infants of the Faythful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham but only occupy the place of the carnal children then though the true children of Abraham 1. the actual beleevers be baptized yet the infants shal not which cannot actually beleeve But the infants of the Faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham seing the children of Abraham do the Workes of Abraham Ioh. 8.34 which infants cannot doe Ergo though actual beleevers be baptized yet infants shal not And thus much may suffice for answer of this second argument which you see is as weake as the first being built vppon the same sand Mr. Rich. Clifton Marc. 10.13.14 Mat. 19.13.14 3. They that are of the Kingdome of God have right title to all the Holy things therto belonging may perticipate of so many of them as they are capable to receave But the infants of beleeving parents are of the Kingdome of God Therfor the infants of beleeving parents have right title to al the holy things therto belonging may participate of so many of them c. And consequently of baptisme seing they are capable of that The major proposition I thinke wil not be denyed it is written 1. Cor. 3.21.22 Al things are yours c. Rom. 9.4 The assumption is Mat. 19 13-17 For of such is the Kingdome of God meaning that this Kingdome stood not only of such as being of yeeres that beleeved but also of their infants And this he declareth not only in this saing but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their comming vnto him by commaunding to suffer them to come by putting his hands vppon them 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 only to the children of the Kingdom even to the seed of Abraham Gal. 3.8.18 If it be objected that children are not capable of baptisme I answere they are as capable thereof as the infants of Israel were of circumcision being both pertakers of the same promises with them in al respects as capable of the outward seales of the covenant as they were And therefore the infants of beleevers are to bee baptized Iohn Smyth Your third argument followeth from Marc. 10.13.14 Mat. 19.13.14 They that are of the Kingdome of God have right title to al the holy things theâ—to belonging may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receave But the infants of beleeving parents are of the Kingdom of God Ergo the infants of beleeving parents have right title to al the holy things therto belonging may participate of so many of them c. consequeÌ„tly of baptisme seing they are capable of it The major you say is written 1. Cor 3.21.22 Rom. 9.4 The assumption is
nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptized or els hee forgatt his duty in not Teaching baptisme off infants vppon so just an occasion But Christ receaving infants praying for them blessing them doth neyther baptize them nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them neyther did forgett his duty in not teaching baptisme of infants occasioned Ergo Christs pleasure was and is that infants should not be baptized 5. They that are not actualy possessed of the promises or covenant are not actually to be invested with baptisme Infants are not actually possessed with the covenant Seing they performe not the condition viz confession of their sinnes their Fayth actually Ergo infants are not to be invested with baptisme This shal suffice for answer of your third argument Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 7.14 Iff the children of beleeving parents be holy then are they with in the covenant off Abraham and so consequently have ryght to the seale thereoff But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second Touching the former proposition I take it that none wil affirme holines in any that are not of the covenant for in that respect Israel was called a holy nation Exo. 19.6.1 Pet. 2.9 al others vncleane Act. 11.3 10.15 that were without Iff infants be within the covenant then can not the seal be denyed to such seing the Lo. hath joyned the promise seale together Gen. 17.10 which no man may or ought to Seperate Mat. 19.6 What can be objected against the assumption I see not seing the Apostle plainly affirmes but now are your children holy Vnlesse it may be said as of some I have heard that as the vnbeleeving wyfe is sanctified to the husband so are the children viz to the vse of their Father but this to affirme is a great abusing of the Scripture For the Apostle in that place answering an objection that the Faithful is defiled by the society of the vnfaithful proveth that the faithful husbād may with good conscience vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wife by an argument from the effects namely bicause their children which are borne of them are accounted holy or within the promise God having said to al the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed As for that other straunge exposition that the Children of a beleeving Father are no otherwise sanctified then the vnbeleeving wife is vnto her husband viz to their Fathers vse only that cannot stand with the meaning purpose of the Apost For so much may be said of an vnbeleeving servāt that he is for the vse of his master to do him service if children be no more holy then so then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father neither is the objection removed by this answer If it bee further pressed that the vnbeleving wife is said to be holy as wel as the children yet is she not within the covenant I answer that she indeed is not holy as be her children for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant therfor she is said to be sanctified in her husband the Apostle respecting their mariage which though it was contracted before either party beleeved yet stands firme not dissolved when either of them is called to the Faith so that the beleeving husband may lawfully vse her as his wife if she be content to dwel with him 1. Cor. 7.12 Now the children cannot be sanctified or Seperate to such vse to their Father as the wise is to her husband And therfor are the children called holy bicause they are the seed of a beleeving Father Iohn Smyth Your sourth argument is from 1. Cor. 7.14 thus If the Children of beleeving parents be holy then are they within the covenāt of Abraham so consequently have right to the seale therof But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second I answer First denying your majors consequent Seing that al the nation of the Iewes were holy yet not within the covenant of Abraham I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ that they were not al within that covenant is plaine Rom. 9.6 al they are not Israel which are of Israel vs. 7. neyther are they al Children bicause they are the seed of Abraham vs. 12. God revealed that the Elder should serve the yonger Act. 7.51 yee have alwayes resisted the holy ghost as your foreFathers have done so do you if it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secreat election not of mans knowledg I answer the vs. 12. is plaine of that which was revealed vnto the Church yet Esaw was holy circumcized when he was borne being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ for proof of this point that the whole Church of the Iewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it I vse these reasons 1. First The condition or obedience of the matter or members of the New Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members off the old Testament Faith repentance is the condition obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament Marc. 1.15 Ergo Faith repentance is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament The reason of the major is evident seing that as the ministery worship government of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the ministery worship government of the new Testament is so the constitution viz the matter Forme of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the constitution that is the matter forme of the new Testament is Seing therfor that the ministery worship government of the old Testament was carnal the constitutiō must also be carnal Therfor the matter forme must be carnal Therfor Faith repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament but only a carnal holines viz The circumcision of the foreskinne whereby the carnal forme that is the carnal covenant or commaundement was induced vpon them wherto they were tyed in obedience Heb. 7.16 Gal. 5.3 2. Secondly The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self True is nature reason The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. The constitution or the matter forme of the church of the new Testament is the truth c. Heb. 10.1 9.19.23 Ergo The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament that is the members covenant is not the truth that is the members are not truly holy but ceremonialy holy the covenant is not the everlasting covenant but the typical carnal covenant or commaundement
justification seing they cannot have actuall Fayth Therfor you cannot declare that they are actually vnder the covenant by actuall Faith holines so if they bee not actually vnder it but vnder the offer of it onely that is it which wee affirme which wil help you nothing to baptisme of infants Secondly I desire that you would prove vnto me by Scripture that in this place 1. Cor. 7.14 Holines signifieth true sanctification or to be actually vnder the covevenant having it really invested vppon them You endevour to declare it out of the text For you say Paul answereth an objection viz that the faithful are defiled with the Society of the vnfaithful proveth that the Faithful husband may vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wise with a good conscience by an argument drawne from the effects namely bicause their Children are holy vnder the covenant God having said to the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Wel let vs see the force of your reason your fourth argument was this If infants be holy then are they vnder the covenant Infants are holy Ergo infants are vnder the covenant Your proof that infants are holy is this If infants be vnder the covenant then infants are holy Infants are vnder the covenant Ergo infants are holy I ask you Sir in good sooth is this circular reasoning sound you say infants are Holy bicause they are vnder the covenant you say they are vnder the covenant bicause they are holy Let al men judg whither you have proved infants Holy or not Thirdly I answer that Holy doth not so signify as you expound neither is the argument taken from the effects but from the greater to the lesse after this manner If your children in your owne judgment be holy you do not put them away when you are converted to the faith but vse thē stil as your Children to al those vses wherto children are apointed the relation natural of Father sonne remayning though you beleve then much more the relation of mā wife remayneth you may vse your wives they being of a neerer natural bond then your children But the first is true by your owne confession by the light of nature Ergo the second is true by the light of nature much more And whereas you say that by this exposition an vnbeleving servant is in as good an estate as holy as children in respect of the covenant I confesse it to be so you that plead for pedobaptisme say so likewise seing that you wil have servants vnder the covenant by their Mrs. Faith but I would know whither the Apostle speaketh only of infants or of al Children generally if generally of al Children then all the Children of the Faithful are holy yea even those that are vnbeleevers then would I know how vnbeleeving children can be holy if not as the vnbeleving wife is holy that is to the vse of their parents in the relative dutyes of children parents If the Apostle speaketh only of infants then he speaketh not so generally as God speake to Abraham saying I wil be thy God the God of thy seed for in that speech you say al the seed is comprehended whither of yeeres or vnder yeeres yea servants pupils children by adoption c. So that expound it as you wil it cannot be vnderstood of holines in respect of the covenant as you pretend but you wil say they are to bee esteemed Holy vnder the covenant til they manifest the contrary I say that they must manifest that they are Holy before they can bee esteemed Holy that you cannot prove that assertion from the Scripture the people of the Iewes Abrahams carnall Children were Holy when they declared the contrary by their sinnes Exo. 19.6 compared with Exod. 32.9 33.3.5 so are the children of the Faithful holy though they be vnbeleevers as the wife is holy though an vnbeleever Finally you say God hath said to all the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed I deny it vtterly God said that only to Abtaham Genes 17.7 whither you expound it literally or Spiritually I avouch confidently against you al men that the meaning of it is not that God made his covenant with the faythfull man or the Faythful woman their infants begotten of their Bodyes but that literally the meaning is I will be God vnto thee Abraham thy seed according to the Flesh to give them the Land of Canaan so it is expounded Genes 17.8 Or Spiritually the meaning is I wil give vnto Abraham the Father of the Faithful al that are his Spiritual seed everlasting life which is the true Land of Canaan The latter which is the truth being signified by the former which is the type shew mee in all the Scriptures that God said to every Faithful man woman for you must prove it spoken of women aswel as men that he will be God vnto them their seed For I would fayne know why the covenant should passe vnto the infants of the Faithful it wil be said bicause of the Fathers Faith this is false doctryne For the Prophet teacheth that every man shal live by his owne faith that one mans faith cānot conveigh the covenāt of justificatiō to another neither can one mans sin cut of another from the covenant as this doctrine importeth but the soule that sinneth it shal dye Neither wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlasting covenant For berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance but a covenant that doth continue his proper tyme For gnolam signifieth any hidden tyme or any set tyme of any length as 50. yeeres the tyme of the jubile But let it be graunted that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ which yet I do not see proved what then shal it follow that bicause it was with Abraham the Faithfull whither Iewes or Gentils beleeving actually as Abraham the Father did Therfor it is made with the Faithful men who is the child of Abraham with his children begotten of his body which have not Abrahams actuall Faith so are not the children of Abraham I deny it vtterly For the Apostle saith the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz Christ or the actual beleevers For Christ dwelleth in the harts of men by Faith onely Gal. 3.16 Eph. 3.17 But if it bee made with the Faithful who beleeve actualy which is one seed whither Iew or Gentil the infants of the Faithful carnally begotten of their body which is another seed for they are not begotten of the immortall seed of regeneration then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many that is directly contrary the Apostles wordes Gall 3.16 Therefore the one seed is persons
Christ gave a commaundement for the publishing of his covenant administring of baptisme the seale therof to al nations then are the beleving GeÌ„tils their infants to receave the same But the first is true Mat. 28.19 Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13.48 16.14.15.32.33 It wil be objected against the Major that if followes not that the infants are any more bound to receave baptisme then they are bound why lest they are infants to receave the word but the word they cannot receave ergo I answere that the commaundements is general to al nations therfor as Abraham if he should not have obeyed to the Lord commaunding him to circumcise himselfe al his family yea the infants he should grevously have rebelled against God So whosoever of the Gentils shal not beleve be baptized both himselfe his seed shall have no part â—or portion in the inheritance of Christ Seing he cuts himselfe of his seed from the covenant of God Gen. 17.14 And though infants bee not capable of the preaching of the covenant which not withstanding they are bound vnto as they shall come to yeres of discretion yet are they capable of the seale as before is shewed therefore by vertue of this generall commaundement Mat. 28.19 are to bee Baptized Iohn Smyth Your 6. Argument from Mat. 28 1â— is framed thus If Christ gave a commaundement for the publishing of his covenant administring of baptisme the seale thereof to al nations then are the beleeving gentils then infants to receave the same But the first is true Mat. 28.19 Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13.48 16.14.15.32.33 The errors of this argument I wil discover in order First I deny that baptisme is the seale of the covenant of the new Testament Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seale of that everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ Thirdly baptisme therfor doth not succeed in the place of circumcision ther being only a chandg of the ceremony as you pretend the covenant being the same these thre particulars are already proved Fourthly I deny that though Abraham who had a special commaundement did circumcise his male infants therefore Christians vppon this general commaundement Mat. 28.19 shall baptise their infants Fifthly I say rather the contrary is hence proved bicause Christ commaundeth to baptise only those that are by teaching made Disciples for so the word matheteusate signifieth therfor infants are by expresse prohibition excluded it is as if Chr. should say I wil have you make them Disciples baptise them that are made Disciples by teaching no other so Christ expresly excludeth infants Lastly I deny that infants are capable of baptisme for they cannot confesse their faith their sinnes neither declare that they are baptized inwardly with the Spirit so cannot outwardly by the baptisme with water declare the same but are in every respect vnable therto vncapable thereof Hence therfor I reason against baptising infants 1. They only are to be baptized that are made Disciples by teaching Infants cannot be made Disciples by teaching Ergo Infants are not to be baptized Secondly I reason thus 2. Every precept affirmative contevneth a negative vnder it Make Disciples by teaching baptise them is an affirmative conteyning vnder it baptize not those that are not made Disciples by teaching Ergo those that are not by teaching made Disciples are by Christ forbidden to be baptized so infants are not to be baptized 3. Thirdly I reason thus They that are vncapable of baptisme are not to be baptized Infants are vncapable of baptisme Seing baptisme confisting of the inward baptisme of the Spirit expressed by confession in word washing with water in action infants are vncapable of the two former parts of baptisme Ergo infants are not to be baptized with water which is the latter 4. If the new Testament be as cleer perspicuous as the old Christ the Mediator of the new Testament as faithfull as Moses the Mediator of the old Testament then the persons to be baptized the conditioÌ„ of baptisme the tyme of baptisme are as cleerly faithfully described in the institutioÌ„ of baptisme as the person condition tyme of circumcision But for pedobaptisme ther is no expresse description of the person condition or â—yâ—e of their baptisme 〈◊〉 for true baptisme ther is most evidently faithfully set downe the persons condition tyme of administring it viz persons confesting their sinnes Mat. 3.6 wheras persons impenitent were put by Mat. 3 7-12 compared with Luk. 7. vs 29-30 Persons beleeving Act. 8.12.13 vs 36-38 persons that had receaved the holy Ghost expressed the same by prophecying Act. 10 46-4â— persons penitent Act. 2.38 persons that are by teaching made Disciples Mat. 28.19 Ioh. 4.1 persons borne againe Ioh. 3.3 Therfor such persons are to bee baptized who are thus particularly described wherein the new Testament is as cleer as the Old Christ the Mediator as Faythfull as Moses no other but these For if others bee then is not the New Testament so cleer as the Old nor Christ as Faithful as Moses which to say is to blaspheme Mr. Rich. Clifton Lastly the Apostles practise is our instruction but they baptized not onely the master of the family which beleeved but al his howsehold Act. 16.15.33 Therefore now also the like is to be done so consequently the infants are to be baptized for they are 2 part of the family that infants are of the family see Gen. 45.18 where Ioseph bad his brethren take their Father their howsehoolds come to him now in chap. 46.5.7 it is said they caried their Children wives in charets nothing hereby that children were of the howsehold els had they no commaundement to have caried them into Egypt see also vs 27. Exo. 1.21 it is said bicause the Midwyves feared God therefore he made them howses in 1. Tim. 5. â— the Apostle saith he that provideth not for his owne namely for them of his houshold he denyeth the faith c. Now I would aske if childreÌ„ be exempted from the howshold in any of these places or in any other where is mention made of a particular howshold Therefore this argument wil prove that children were baptized vnles it can bee shewed that they were specially exempted if the holy ghost have not exempted them who dare do it against a general commaundement of baptising al nations Iohn Smyth Your 7. argument is taken from Act. 16.15.33 framed thus The Apostles practise is our instruction But they baptized not only the Mr. of the Family which beleved but al his howshold Act. 16.15.33 Therfor now also the like is to be done so consequently infants are to be baptized for they are a part of the family I make answer to this argument confessing it wholy but yet denying the consequent of your conclusion For it doth not follow bicause
the Fathers to prove any thing wel then you confesse they prove nothing remember that let al men take notice that you produce testimonyes that you say prove nothing but why do you produce testimonyes of the Fathers Forsooth to shew the practise of auncient Churches but al those Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession what doth antiquity Antichristian or vniversality antichristian help you against the truth Therfor I say The truth needeth not the testimony of Antichrist old vniversal antichristian errors shal not prevayle against the truth I have shewed you that from the beginning it was not thus go baptisme of infants is a Novelty but let vs shew you some footsteps of the bringing in of baptising infants that out of the Fathers Henricus Pantaleon Chronolog fol. 16. saith Victor Apher in the yeer 193. ordeyned that at Easter baptisme should be indifferently administred to al hence then it followeth that before his tyme only such as were Catechised in the Faith were baptized For he would not decree that heathen should be baptized Eusebius Eccles Histor Lib. 7 Chap. 8. saith that Novatus rejected the Holy baptisme overthrew the Fayth confession which was accustomed before baptisme whereby it appeareth that Fayth confession were required before baptisme and therefore the rudiments thereof still remayne that in baptising of infants a confession of sinne and Fayth is required of the suretyes or parents The same Euseb Lib. 10. Chap. 15. reporteth the story of Athanasius baptising children in sport which baptisme was approved though done in sport by Alexander Bb of Alexandria after that he by examination had found that the children had questioned answered according to the manner of the Catechumeni in baptisme wherby it appeareth that then only persons by confession of their Faith sins were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria Hosius Petricoviensi confess de fide chap. 27. saith that these two are Aposticall traditioÌ„s which the Scripture teacheth not viz that ther are persons one God that Dionisius Origen doe testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostical tradition Now you know that their Aposticall traditions were antichristian inventions Polydor. Virg. Lib. 4. Chap. 4 de inventoribus reruÌ„ saith thus It was in vse with the auncients that persons of yeeres sere in a manner should be baptized clad with whyte garments Lactantius Candidus egreditâ—â— nitidis exercitus vndis Atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo And this was performed at Easter whitsontide except in necessity in the meane tyme til the Feasts of Easter whitsontyde came they were catechised this testimony is of good instruction Ludovicus Vives writing vppon the first book of August de Civitate dei chap. 27. saith that in auncient tymes no man was baptized but persons of yeeres who could vnderstand what the mystical water signified required baptisme ofter then once therfor now the infant to be baptized is demaunded three tymes if hee wil be baptized for whome the suertyes answer yea Erasmus Rotrodamus in his annotations vppon the fifth of the Roman saith that in Paulls tyme it was not receaved that infants should bee Baptized Thus have I thought good to shew you testimonyes of men so by setting maÌ„ against man to lead you vs al from mâ—n to the holy Scriptures which is the rock wherevppon we may safely build which as you have heard flatly forbiddeth the baptising of infants who cannot bee made Disciples by teaching Mat 28.19 Iohn 4.1 Mr. Rich. Clifton Now let vs come to considet of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first of them is this 2. Bicause there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any infants that were Baptized by Iohn or Christs Disciples onely they that did confesse theire sinnes confesse theire Faith were baptized Marc. 1.4.5 Act. 8.37 Answere First this reason being brought into forme wil be wray the weakenes of it For suppose that should be graunted that there were nether a special commaundement or example in the practise of Iohn or Châ—â— Disciples for the baptising of infants yet may it notwithstanding be lawful to baptize them namely if by some consequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22.31.32 wher reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by an argument necessarily drawen from Exo. 3â—6 where no such thing was expressely mentioned And thus he taught vsually refuted his adversaries as the History of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his Epist to the Romanes Gal. prove justification by Faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in al the old Testament in plaine termes affirming so much but by conclusions of necessary consequence from the Scriptures to this purpose might divers other instances be aledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the Old New Testament though we cannot shew any playne precept or example yet may we vppon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason him selfe cannot deny that both he we must beleve diverse things which wee gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that wee shall not find in expresse words As that there bee three persons in onâ— Godhead that the sonne is Homousios that is of the same substance with the Father Now such expresse words cannot bee shewed in the Scripture many such like 2. Secondly also if this argument be sufficient to barre children from the Sacrament of baptisme then is it as sufficient to kepe back women from the Lords Supper for there is no speciall precept nor yet example that VVomen should pertake of the Lords Supper but the Lawfullnes there of is onely proved by consequence bicause they are within the covenant are pertakers of the Sacrament of baptisme thus the weakenes of this reason being manifested I will thirdly answere vnto it 3. Thirdly that ther is both precept by Christ example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the Lawfullnes of baptising of infants Commaundement I say Mat. 28.19 Goe teach al natioÌ„s baptising them where is no exception of the children of faithful parents therfor ther being a Law once given that the covenant should be sealed to the infants aswel as to the beleeving parents the same Law of sealiug the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be chaÌ„ged except the Law maker do repeale it or have set downe some ground for the repeale therof which must be shewed or els this commaundement doth bâ—nd vs our infants to receave this seale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptized Lydia her howshold Act. 16.15
retained circumcision came vp yeerly to Ierusalem even til the dayes of Iosiah 2. Chron. 35.18 compared with 2. Chron. 34 6.7.3-33 So that hereby it is most manifest that no manner of sinne made the Church of the old Testament a false Church so long as they retayned circumcision in the Land of Canaan yea if they retayned circumcision though in BabyloÌ„ wherevppoÌ„ I am perswaded that if the Papucy or England or the Greek Churches did only baptise men confessing their Faith their sinnes into Chr the Sonne of God or into the Trinity though they retayned their false ministery worship Government other ther abhominations yet the baptisme was true not to be repeated as their circumcision was good notwithstanding al their abhominations horrible Idolatryes fearful Apostacy in Israel Mr. Rich. Clifton Babylon in Chaldea which was a type of Spiritual Babylon Apoc. 18.2 though they did abuse profan the vessels of the L. Dan. 5.3 yet did not that make a nullity of them that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lor. but were brought vp with them of the captivity that came vp from Babel to Ierusalem Ezra 1.11 Even so although Spiritual Babylon have profaned the Holy things of God as baptisme the rest yet remaine they stil Gods ordinances to al them that come out of her Apoc. 18.4 returne to the celestial Ierusalem as these vessels of the howse of the L. need not to be new cast bicause of Babels polluting them no more is baptisme to be reiterated to the people of God bicause it passed thorow the polluted hands of the Papists If it bee objected that they that administred baptisme in Babylon were Idolaters had no calling therto 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 that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nullity therof the circumcising of Moses Sonne by his mother Zippora Exod. 4.25 doth plainly teach For as the Lord makes effectual his word to his people though comming vnto them by the hands of a false ministery so doth he baptisme to al that bee his though administred by them that have not a Lawful calling thervnto The sin of the minister makes not a nullity either of the word or Sacraments els thould the efficacy of the word Sacraments depend vpon him that administreth theÌ„ which is not so for both have their effect from the Lord. If againe it be objected that baptisme was not administred in the Apostate Chur. of Antichrist to a fit subject I answer that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receave baptisme as the infants of Israell in the dayes of Ieroboam Ahab were to receave circumcision Seing the covenant of Abraham after the comming of Christ belonged as properly to the Gentils Gal. 3.14 as before it did to the Israelites Iohn Smyth Your second argument followeth which is this in effect As the Babilonians abuse of the vessels of the L. howse did not make a nullity of them but they were vsed after the captivity Ezra 1.11 so the Antichristian abuse of baptisme cannot disanul it but it may bee retayned when men come to the Fayth it needeth not to be reiterated no more then the vessels of the howse of the Lord be new cast I answer many things First this arg is an excellent arg for the retayning of idoll Temples the worship government ministery of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England if it be said they were never apointed by God so sayâ— that baptisme of theirs was never apointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist Secondly I answer that the vessels of the Lords howse were his owne ordinaÌ„ces therfor need not to be new cast but the baptisme of Antichr is not the L. owne ordinance who never ordeyned it for you must distinguish them thus The vessels of the L. howse were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the L. apointement but the baptisme of the L. is a compound or concrete ordinance or action limited in certaine essential particulars not being a substance but an accident in definition now if Antic had retained the essential parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated no more then the vessels of the L house need to be new cast after the abuse of the Babilonians but seing baptisme in popery Antichristianisme is not the L. ordinance in the definition of it but Antich invention Therefor though the vessels of the L. howse may be retayned yet baptisme may not That baptisme is Antichr invention in the definition of it I manifest thus The matter of baptisme the forme of baptisme is invented by Antich go it is an invention of antichrist in the definition The matter of antichristian baptisme is a carnal infant The forme is washing one into the covenant that cannot consent to the covenant or baptising without a contract sealing the covenaÌ„ts on both parts for the L. doth not seale to the infant and the infant cannot seale to the Lord As I have manifested already in the answer to the former argum of yours Therefore the baptisme of antichr is in the definition of it the meer devise of antichr For the Scripture describeth true baptisme which is the Lords owne ordinance thus The matter must bee one that confesseth his Fayth his sinnes one that is regenerate borne againe The forme must bee a voluntary delivering vp of the party baptized into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Spirit by washing with water Mat. 28.19 Mat. 3.6 Iohn â— 1 Act. 2.41 8.36.37 compared with Roman 6.17 Mat. 28. 20. 18.20 Gal. 3.27 Roman 6 2-6 VVherein ther must be a mutual consent of both persons contracting together that this is so the forme of baptisme retayned in popery yet teacheth plainly wher they say Credis Credo Abrenuntiâ—s abrenuntio which other persons speak for the infant that cannot speak therby declaring that ther must needs bee a mutual contract of both the parties contracting This ordinance of the L. therfor is abolished both in the matter forme an other straunge invention of man is in the rome therof substituted which is not the L. therfor a nullity as if the Babylonians should have framed a Temple altar arck or candlestick after their devise given them to the people of the Iewes they could not have retayned them vsed them to VVorship God withall So cannot true Christians retayne Antichristian baptisme which is devised in the definition of it Thirdly I answer that if the Antichristians had baptized persons confessing their sinnes their Faith into the name of the Sonne of God the Trinity it had then been true baptisme though in the hands of the Antichristians as the vessels of the L. howse in the
but stil you build vppon a false fondacion as you see assuming that which is the question viz That baptisme in popery is the Lords Thirdly I answer againe that if Antichrist had reteyned the L. true baptisme as I have described true I say in the definition viz That he had baptized persons confessing their sinnes faith into the Trinity or into Iesus Christ it should not have been repeated but seing he intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible character vpon them which is the mark of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth another promising answering for them Credo Abrenuntio which the party baptized should himself performe hence I conclude that he hath set vp his owne idol of abhomination cast the L. holy ordinance away having essentialy destroyed the primitive Apostolique baptisme go his baptisme is a nullity or rather a seale of perdition to them that retaine it The amplification which you bring to this Argument I omit as a thing not denyed but yeelded vnto that God can work by a false Ministery evil instruments bad meanes but hence it wil not follow that we may retaine the mark of the beast no more then we may retaine the ministery of Antichrist the Church of Antichrist the Government of Antichrist Mr. Rich. Clifton Those Holy things which God by his mercifull providence hath preserved for his people through the hands of profane persons are not to be rejected for the Authors sake Ezra 1.11 But the Scriptures baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake If it be objected against the minor it is not true baptisme but false that is administred in the assemblies of Antichr I answer though it may be said to be false in regard of some humane devises vsed in the administration thereof yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter forme Author therof which causeth it to have a true being Iohn Smyth Your fourth Argument followeth which is this These Holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people though the hands of profane persons are not to be rejected for the Authors sake Ezra 1.11 But the Scriptures baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake The minor you prove thus saying the baptisme though false in respect of humane devises vsed in the ministration therof yet is true in respect of the matter forme Author therof in your answer to my second Arg. you say the author of baptisme in the Kingdom of Antichr is Chr. the matter water the forme washing with water into the Trinity I answer directely that if it could bee proved that baptisme in the Kingdome of Antichrist is appointed by Christ that water is the true matter of baptisme the true forme is washing into the Trinity I would yeeld vnto you but this you have not proved I have already proved the contrary but yet to deale somthing more fully in this point which is the mayne pillar cheef corner Stone of the fondacion I say 1. VVater is not the matter of baptisme but onely the instrument of baptisme For as fire is the instrument of burning so is VVater of washing the matter of burning is the fewel that is burnt So the matter of washing is the party washed For as wee say accident is esse est inesse the subject is al the matter of an accident as the matter of the Church are the Disciples of Sayntes The matter of the Ministery are the Prophets so the matter of baptisme is the persons vppon whome baptisme is conferred on whome it is It is false therfor which you affirme that water is the matter of baptisme 2. I say that washing into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost is not the forme of Baptisme For to wash a Turk Iew Foole mad Man or infant into the Trinity is not â—â—ne baptisme but it were so if simply to baptize into the Trinity were the forme of baptisme Therefore to baptise the true matter into the true Fayth or into Christ or the New Testament or the Trinity or into the true body is the true forme of baptisme So that the true matter of baptisme is a new creature one regenerate a confessor As the true matter of circumcision was a male of eigt dayes old eyther lineally descending of Abraham or a Proselite So the true matter of baptisme is a person that is of the Fayth of Abraham one that hath the male Christ formed in him The true forme of baptisme coÌ„sisteth in three things 1. washing with water 2. a new Creature 3. into the Name of Chr. or into the Trinity for I think wee are not tyed to forme of words so if antichr hath washed any I say I wil never consent that they shal be rebaptized but hold that Anabaptistery true heresy But if an infant that is not the matter of baptisme or a wicked man mad man foole Turk or Iew or any Pagan bee washed with water into the Trinity I say ther is neyther true matter nor forme of baptisme Christ is not the author thereof therfor the baptisme of antichrist is not Christs but his owne so all infants baptized by antichrist are eyther vnbaptized or have the marke of the beast so are to renounce it to receave Christs marke of baptisme or els woe bee to them when they shall manifest a new creature Christ the male is formed in them they confesse with their mouth then be baptized into the Trinity this is not anabaptistery but the true primitive Apostolique Baptisme so Christ Iohn Christs Apostles were anabaptists with you Sir For they baptized men that had been washed before a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes Heb. 9.10 which baptismes were also into the Messias no doubt in those that saw the end off those Figures But if it bee blasphemy to say that Christ Iohn the Apostles were Anabaptists though they were of tymes some of them baptized into the Messiah in Type bicause they were onely once baptized truly indeed So shal it bee blasphemy in all them that call the true Christians anabaptists that baptize new Creatures once onely into Christ though baptized before by antichrist in their infancy when they knew not the right hand from the left or what a new creature or the New Testament or Christ or Baptisme or any thing els was hence therefore I conclude vndenyably that seing Popish baptisme hath a false matter a false forme therefore it is antichrists Idoll asmuch as a false Ministery a false Church is so the Lord is not the author of it therevppon though the Scriptures Gods word bee retayned by Gods providence in the word all the Holy things of
God through Popery yet in the Popish Churches ther is no true Church Ministery VVorship or Government nor true Baptisme but all false and Antichristian and so to bee rejected and the truth to bee assumed out of the Scriptures and so this argument off yours is answered Mr. Rich. Clifton If antichrist be not the author of baptisme but of some humane devises annexed vnto in the administration thereof then are wee not to plucke vp the wheaâ—e with the â—ares Mat. 13.29 And to cast away that which is Christs with Antichr but to Seperate from that which is mans invention stil to retayne that which is of God But to baptise with water into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holy Ghost Mat. 28.19 is from heaven not from Antichrist Ergo we ought not to cast it away but those traditions where with Antichrist hath polluted it as for exaÌ„ple King Iosias before him K. Ezechias when both the Land Temple were poluted 2. King 21.7 23.7 did not pul downe the Temple but appointed the Priests to clense it who did so brought out al the vncleanes that they had found in the howse of God 2. Chro. 29.16.17.18 34.8 For in reformacion of things difference must be put betwene those things wherof God is the Author such as are devised by man The former is to be purged from all profanation the things still to bee retayned the other to bee quyte abolished This rule in all reformation off Religion ought to bee followed Iohn Smyth The fifth Argument followeth which is this in effect We must not pluck vp the wheate with the tares Mat. 13.29 nor cast away that which is Christs when we cast away that which is Antichrists But to Baptize with VVater into the Name of the Trinity is Christs not Antichrists Ergo wee ought not to cast that away but only the traditions of Antichrist So did Iosiah Hezechiah 2. King 21.7 23.4 2. Chron. 29 16-18 34.8 not pul downe the Temple but clense it c. that wherof God is the Author must be kept the corruption or pollution put away that wherof man is the Author is quite to be abolished This is your reason I answer That as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple the Iewes built it againe So when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Temple the true Church then must we build it vp againe when Antichrist hath destroyed the true baptisme then must we reare it vp againe Wherfor seing as is shewed befor Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme of Chr. in the definition or in the matter forme therof hath reared a baptisme of his owne it must therfor be abolished as when we do renounce the false Church or Ministery wee do not renounce that which is true in the false Church or Ministery but onely the falsehood so in rejecting the false baptisme of Antichr we do not renounce that which is true in it as to wash with water into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost but onely the falsehood And yet as when wee retayne the truth in a false Church or Ministery wee reject the Falsehood in them both erect both a new true Church Ministery So when wee retayne the truth of a false baptisme wee reject the Falsehood erect a true new baptisme this is evident if you consider it wel Againe seing in the false baptisme church ministery the corruptions are essential the truth only accidental truth falsehood are so intermingled as we can not divide them asunder assuming the one leaving the other but we must needes in renouncing the essential corruptions reserve the accidental truths iterate or repeate the accidental truthes if we wil have the essential truth which Antichrist had abolished Therfor necessarily we must for having true baptisme repeate washing in to the name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost which are but accidentals for a Turck so washed is not baptized once onely wash a new borne babe in Christ into the truth which is true essentiall baptisme which Antichrist had abolished which wee onely restore nothing els so your argument is answered Mr. Rich. Clifton As God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham his seed Gen. 17.7 which through the malice of Sathan al his instruments shal never be cut of so hath he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the Law gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the Faithful And therfor the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were pertakers in the Apostate Church devising a new do bring in a new covenant a new gospel taking vppon them to baptize themselves without warrant from the word For I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptize himself without special commaundement from God as Abrah had for circumcision Gen. 17.9 or Iohn for baptisme Marc. 1.3 nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4.2 Mat. 3.6 Act. 8.38 9.18 10-48 If it be sayd the tymes bee extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby wee may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the word to informe vs in any thing that wee ought to doe Iohn Smyth Your 6. argument is thus much in effect That seing the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is everlasting Genes 17.7 cannot by the malice of Sathan bee cut of no more can the malice of Sathan abolish the seales of that covenant vnder the Law or gospel viz circumcision baptisme I answer by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16.18 framed thus If the gates of Hel 〈◊〉 never pervaile against the Church then ther hath alwayes been a true Church Antichrist could never make the church false so you of the Seperation have sinned most shamefully in calling the Church of Antichrist false Verum primum Ergo secundum If my argument be not good against you of the Seperation for erecting a new Church no more is yours good against vs for erecting new baptisme This is to answer as they say regerendo But I answer more properly solvendo thus That the covenant is said to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existence in the world in an established Church but in respect of the stability firmenes of it in regard of Sathans malice which should not so abolish it that it should never bee recovered againe For otherwise the Church went into the wildernes Revel 12.14 al natioÌ„s were made drunck with the cup of the fornication of the whore of Babylon Revel 18. â— ther was no true Church in the depth of Antichristianisme so no true baptisme for can any thing be true in a false Church but the Scriptures the truthes conteyned therein I deny therfor that the covenant Church