meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not Neyther 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 continueth his proper tyme. c. I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting tyme as in these places Psal 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal 145. 13. Esa 45. 17. and so in divers other places Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting vid videlicet to be God to Abraham and his seed after him and therfore gnolam must needs be understood for ever unles you wil say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tymâ— for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words I am the God of thy father the God of Abraham c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant And though gnolam do sometymes signifie a tyme that hath an end as it doth in the type â—t it noteth tyme everlasting in the truth of those types and therefore â—s Canaan called an everlasting possession Gen. 17. 8. But be it granted say you that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. â— the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ what then â— it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful whether Iewes or Genâ— beleeving actually as Abraham the father did therfore it is made with the faithâ—â—an c. and with his children begotten of his bodie c. I denie it utterly Yes it †Act. 2. 3â— wil and must follow els are not the faithful partakers of Abraâ—ms covenant for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed and the beleeâ—ers onely to themselves then is it not the same neither in the giving nor â—â—iving thereof as before is proved And if you graunt Abrahams inâ—â—s as Isaac c. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant â—ade with him in Christ for to deny it by any colour of scripture you â—an not then must the same account be made of al other infants of beleeâ—ers seing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed â—â— the same fayth that Abraham did to him and his Because the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz. Christ or the 〈…〉 al beleevers The words of the Apostle are these * Gal. 3. 1â— but to thy seed as of one which is Christ Some understand by seed the church Christ mistically as 1 Cor. 12. 12. gaâ—hered of Iewes and Gentiles which grow together in one body in Christ of the seed of Abraham as ver 18. According to which exposition both â—ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise â—ade unto them that are partakers of salvation yea infants els are * Eph. 5. 2â— 26. they â—ot sanctified by Christs death But if by seed be understood the redeeming â—eed which is C. it is he in whoÌ„ both the elder people infants ar blessed But you to prove that by one onely actuall beleevers is to be minded â—edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted that Paul intendes not to shew â—hat none are in Christ save onely actual beleevers for that were to conâ—mne al infants but he speaking to the church and such of them as were â—apable of instruction and having exhorted them not to faynt because of â—is troubles prayeth the Lord that they may be strengthned with his spirit that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith that is bring forth the fruits of the spirit testifiing their fayth and so continue constant Now it is to be observed that RoÌ„ 8. 9. 11 â— Joh. 3. 24. Christ dwelleth in al his by his spirit and thereby joyneth them unto him and so in infants els are they †Rom. 8. 9. not Christs this should you have minded as wel as the other and haue knowen that actuall beleeving and the practise of other Christian duties is the work of the spirit as the act of reasoning is of the soule in the elder sort required of them and not of infants as oft inough hath bene shewed But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle you thus obiect 1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one seed the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten which is an other seed c. then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many and that is directly against the Apastle Gal. 3. 16. I answer that the covenant is made with the faithful and their seed as of one kind God of his free grace estating the beleevers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life both of them becomming * spiritual or Rom. 7. 4. â—ct 2. 39. â—zech 16. â— 21. â—sal 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. â—phe 2. 14 â— holy seed and sonnes of God by vertue thereof and not two contrarie seedes as you would pretend and therefore the Apostle is not contrarie to that we affirme for as he sayth the seed is one so say we whether Christ our Saviour be thereby understood or the Churches united into †one or all beleevers who together with their children are after a spiritual maner the sonnes of God Therefore that one seed is of persons actually beleeving c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actually infants do not beleeve actually Ergo c. Your conclusion ariseth from false premisses which are answered before to the former Proposition of this argument I answer that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeve but in no place of the scripture is added of them onely that actually beleeve which you do insinuate therefore there lyeth deceipt in your proposition God promised his blessing to Abrahams seed which coÌ„prehends his infants “ to blesse the house of Israel not only the elder sort That promise of blessing the families GeÌ„ 12. 3. 28. Ps 115. â—2 14. Act. 31. 25. Esa 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth childreÌ„ for they ar of the family Againe Abrahams covenant was onely to Abrahams one seed that is to all beleevers Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo c. This Argument is the same in effect with the former the maior in your understanding is false the faithful and their children in respect of the covenant are but of one seed Children though they cannot actually beleeve yet are they accounted of the beleevers and partakers of the promise with their parents Again They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham Infants cannot do the works of Abraham Ergo c. The Proposition is false in your understanding Paul saith if any would not â—â—k he should not eate 2 Thes
Lactantius whom you also cyte are generall of yong old whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number but proves not your desire his words you set downe thus Candiduâ— egreditur nitidis exerâ—itus undis atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort Concerning Lodovicus Vives vpon August de Civit. Dei cap. 27. if â—dovicus â—ves floâ—â— anno â—4â— â—â—d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his â—â— as did â—â— Erasm he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him seing he is but a late writer I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth certainly froÌ„ that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name Lastly you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes to say That in Pauls time it was not received that infants should be baptised Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth and therefore being of so late time what is his witnes against so many fathers testifying the contrarie Thus in alledging of him and the rest you shew the weaknes of your cause that have not one auncient father directly to vvitnes with you but are driven to call them to vvitnes that in this thing vvere of contrary judgment to your selfe REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the coÌ„trarye the first of them is this 1. Reason Because there is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their faith were baptised Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. Answer 1. This reasoÌ„ being brought into form wil bewray the weaknes therof for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a speciall comandement or example in the practise of Iohn or Christs Disciples for the baptising of infants yet it may not withstaÌ„ding be lawfull to baptise them namely if by sound coÌ„sequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warraÌ„t froÌ„ the exaÌ„ple of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by Argument necessarily drawen from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expresâ—ly mentioned and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament though wee can not shew any playne precept or example yet may upon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead that the son is Homousius that is of the same substance with the father now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture And many such like 2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence because they are within the covenaÌ„t and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested I wil thirdly answer vnto it 3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants Commandement I say Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents the same lawe of sealing the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be changed except the lawemaker do repeal it or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof which must be shewed or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia her household Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers 33. both which seming to be great housholds it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist meÌ„tioÌ„ them not But the exceptioÌ„ is that only such as did coÌ„fesse their sins confesse their fayth were baptised CoÌ„cerning Iohn he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the waye of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confesse their sins he baptised but did Iohn refuse their children if they broughâ— them to him but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them no more say I is there that they were offered unto him There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised and yet it were too bold a part and no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptised All things that Iohn did nor that Christ did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof And therefore to gather an Argument from hence because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn therefore they ought not to be baptised is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country now in iourney homeward therefore not like that he should have his children with him specially in such a tedious iourney not knowing of this accident M. Smyth Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants to the first argument you say if it be brought into forme it wil bewray the weaknes of it wel I wil bring it into forme c. That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example Ergo. c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus That which hath precept and example must be practised Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ
God thus disposing that the infants of the faithful might be capable thereof sealed up for the Lords as wel as their pareÌ„ts And it is to be noted that the desiring or offering to receiv baptisme is an action differing from the thing desired so not a part of the same As for your mutual consent of both persons contracting together it must be understood of God with the faythfull their seed for such was the contract or covenant making with Abraham which continues stil in force to al beleevers their seed this precedeth baptisme is no part of the external forme thereof Gen. 17. 1 7. c. Act. 2 39. And for that forme of baptising in poperie with credis credo c. which others speak for the Infant declaring as you say that there must needs be a mutual coÌ„tract c. You know very wel how it is coÌ„tinued upoÌ„ a blynd custome imitation because such as were to be received into the church in the primitive tymes and to be baptised being of yeares did make confession of their fayth answered to such interrogatories as were demanded of them concerning the same This the papists apply to infants the questions being answered by the godfathers who ar sayd to be brought in by Higinus before whose time the parents presented their children to be baptised This corrupt custome apish imitation your self hath condemned Yet now having cast off baptisme it self you scrape in the filthye Dungehill of Poperie to advantage your selfe against the truth whose practise you know condemnes your opinion of not baptising of infants If Yf therefore you wil crave their testimony for your forme of baptisme why dispise you theire witnes of baptising of infants which is the matter And thus much for answer to your description of baptisme Now concerning the outward ceremony of baptisme the Scripture Mat. 3. 11. 16. â—ar 1. 10 Act. 8. 38 Mat 28. â— â— Jo. 1. 7 Act. 2. 38 â— 3. 19. Gal. 3. 27 Rom 6. 3 â— Col. 2. 12 â— 3. 5. 6. thus teacheth that the element in this sacrament is * water onely the forme of administring thereof Christ commaunded thus †baptise them into the name of the father and of the sonne of the holy ghost This is that which the Lord hath instituted whereby he would signify and seale unto his people “ the remission of their sinnes * and the ingraffing into Christ †the mortification of the old man and renuing of the spirit This is the substance of this ceremony and is found to be stil retayned in the Apostate Churches And therefore although it hath bene polluted by the hands of Apostates as the vessels of the Temple were by the Babylonians and by adding of humane inventions yet is it in substance that which Christ ordeyned in his Church neither the element nor forme of administration changed and therefore not to be iterated Your third answer 3. I answer that if the Antichristians had baptised persons confessing their sinnes their faith into the name of the sonne of God and the Trinitie it had been true baptisme though in the hands of the Antichristians c. First you confesse then that the apostasie of Antichrist is not so great but that in the papal Churches there may be true baptisme not to be iterated That they baptised with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy ghost can not be denyed all that you except against is the administring of it to infants so this second question is answered in the former for if the infants are to be baptised then stands their baptisme good without repeating which they have in Apostate Churches Lastly where I sayd that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament made not a nullitie thereof instancing the circumcision of the Israelites by Apostats and of Zippora her circumcising of her sonne you answere saying 1 What say you to Cyprian and al that counsel of learned Bishops who concluded that baptisme of Heretiks was a nullitie and decreed rebaptising This I answer that if Cyprian and those learned Bishops did erre what is that to this purpose for those examples that I have alledged are such as are recorded by the holy ghost to be done not by such as had lawful calling and yet stood without recircumcising But suppose Cyprian those Bishops fouÌ„d that some were baptised by Hereticks and not in the name of the Trinitie for seing some denyed the Deitie of Christ some his humanitie others held other errors about the Trinitie It is not like that they would observe the true forme of baptisme but some strange forme of their owne devise as some report how truly I know not that you baptise your selves into the fayth of the new Testament And so decreed not rebaptising but baptising of them that were not before baptised with Christs baptisme Indeed it is recorded by some that the Novatians Arrians Aetians Donatists did as you do rebaptise those that fell to their errors which had been baptised before into the name of the Trinitie Lastly if Cyprian those Bishops did erre about this poynt of rebaptising as in some others they did I am no patron of their errors 2 I say that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church and Antichrists Ans baptisme was in a false and that is a dissimilitude That Israel in her Apostasie was not a true church I have shewed before how you in this disagree with your self here I wil set down your own Re. words in your book of Paralels c. against M. Barnard pag. 14. thus you write A church falsely constituted as in the old Testament was the apostate church of the 10. Tribes and in the new Testament is the Church of Antichrist is such a communion of men where to God hath not given the covenant the holy things the promises Christ for King Priest and Prophet c. Also in pag. 26. of the same book you answering such as plead that they have the Word Sacraments conversion in the English Assemblies have these words I say it is but as a thief hath the true manns purse and as the false church of Ieroboam had and as the Samaritanes Edomites c. had circumcision the sacrifices by usurpation Here you have testified to the world that Ieroboams church was a false church falsly constituted c. And now seeing a disadvantage thereby to your new erroneous opinion you doubt not to cal it a true church This inconstancie befitts not him that wil be a leader of others 3. I know nothing to the contrarie but Zippora might circumcise her sonne her An. husband commanding her For where is it sayd in the old Testament that a woman shal not circumcises for Moses did circumcise though Zippora was the hand of Moses in that action c. When you deal against us about baptising of infants you wil have coÌ„mandement
sinnes c. it should not have been repeated So that to be members of a false church shal not hinder the efficacy of baptisme Againe if Antichrist intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace ex opere operato to infants and therefore setteth upp his owne idoll as you say what say you to his baptising of the Indians which are of yeares For he intendeth the same thing And yet his so baptising of the elder sort c. you wil not have repeated So by your own opinion to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace ex operâ— operato is no good reason to prove the â—â—erating of childrens baptisme for then should it do so in the elder people confessing their sinnes c. As for the promise made by others for the partie baptised I place as a devise of man amongst the accidental corruptions of this sacrament CoÌ„cerning persons coÌ„fessing their sins fayth whoÌ„ you make the onely subject of baptisme I hav aÌ„swered before And here tel you that the scripture meÌ„tioneth †1 Cor. â— Act. 16. persoÌ„s that were baptised yet sayth not a word that they coÌ„fessed their faith syns And you caÌ„ never prove that al in the familie of Stephanas Lidiah c. did confesse their sinnes and fayth but to al that you say here answer is given before IIII. Argument THose holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people through the hands of prophane persons are not to be rejected for the authors sake Ezra 1 11 But the scriptures and baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people Therfore 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 AsseÌ„blies of Antichrist I answer though it may be sayd to be false in regard of some humane devises used in the administration thereof yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter forme and author thereof which causeth it to have a true being Mr Smyth I answer directly that if it could be proved that baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist Answ is appointed by Christ and that water is the true matter of baptisme and the true forme is washing into the Trinitie I would yeeld unto you but this you have not proved c. but to deal something more fully c. â— water is not the matter of baptisme but onely the instrument c. R. Clyfton First I have proved that baptisme which is administred in the Antichristian Rep. churches is not to be iterated but that Christ appointed baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist I do not affirm onely this I say that Christ ordeyned this sacrament for his church which becoming Apostate yet reteyning the same is notwithstanding baptisme because it is of God And so I affirme that Christ is the Author of baptisme which the Antichristians pollute by their administration thereof as God was the author of that circumcision observed in the apostate church of Israel And therefore as circumcision received of the Israelites in their Apostasie stood as the seal of Gods covenant to so many as repented So baptisme received in Babylon confirmeth the promise to al Gods people departing thence and returning to walk in the wayes of the Lord. But concerning the matter and forme of baptisme you charge me to have sayd in my answer to your second Argument That water is the matter and the forme washing with water into the Trinitie In calling water the matter if so it had pleased you you might have understood my meaning viz. that I understood thereby the outward signe or element whereof in Poperie was no change They used the same which Christ ordeyned And in calling it the matter I did not intend the subject or partie baptised which I know must be also one that beleeveth or the seed of such but considering what Christ ordeyned to be observed in this Ceremonie I found these water and the baptising therewith into the name of the father c. The former I called the matter or element wherewith the partie is baptised meaning that material outward signe that Christ ordeyned in this sacrament as in the other he hath done the like For it was not in my thought to intend that if the water be administred with this forme of words that it is baptisme without a fit subject to be baptised Nay I hold it an error in the Papists which baptise their bells and wil have bread consecrated as they speak to be a sacrament though it be never received but layed up in a box Concerning the subject of baptisme or matter as you terme it I wil not contend but in that you denye the Infants of beleevers to be fit matter of baptisme the contrarie I affirme and have proved before 2. I say that washing into the name of the father of the sonne of the Holy Ghost Ans is not the forme of baptisme for to wash a Turke Jew Foole madman or Infant into the Trinitie is not true baptisme c. I answer first I know that formes can not consist without their subjects Re. therefore I say the forme of baptising is reteyned in Poperie applied to infants though corruptly in that standing Secondly I stand not to defend that to baptise an unfit subject is true baptisme but this that the baptisme of Apostates is not to be iterated when they repent and turne to God no no more then the circumcisio of the Israelites in the like cause 2 Chro. 3â— 6 -11 21. as before I have shewed 3. That infants are to be baptised I have already proved And to baptise a Iewe Turke Foole c. continuing in their infidelitie madnes c. we do not affirme it lawfull nor yet the baptisme of Apostats for all such abuse that holy ceremony being guilty thereof as they are of the body and bloud of Christ that receave it unworthely 1 Cor. 11. The true forme of baptisme consists in 3. things 1. washing with water 2. a new Ans creature 3. into the name of Christ or into the Trinitie This might also be graunted saving that by new creature you mind onely â—p such as are of yeares and so appere to vs new creatures by their profession excluding infants who also must be so accepted of vs inrespect of the covenant whereof they are partakers as wel as theire parents Also the children of the faithful may be estemed new creatures seing they are holy and are so to be accounted til they manyfest themselves otherwise which may be the case of old persons as of S. Magus c. And the Apostle in the place alledged speaketh of such as are of yeares and by the speach of a new creature implyeth a special vse and fruite of the thing signified by the outward signe and so is not a part of the external forme of baptisme †as by
vnto them and they had †passed into that received the seale thereof wherehy they testifyed themselves and were acknowledged to be Gods people and sheep of his pasture so are we become the people and Church of God not because â— Rom. 11. â—6 the gospel is preached vnto vs but because we have received the promise of God and entred covenant with him for our selves and also for our children for if the ‡ first fruicts be holy so is the whole lumpe and if the roote be holy so are the branches 4. The Apostle sayth that the branches vz. the Iewes were * Rom. 11. â—7 20. broken of froÌ„ the roote and fatnes of the olive through vnbeleefe meaning by the roote Abraham â—saac and Iacob their forefathers who for themselves and their seed 〈◊〉 received the covenant Now it must necessarily follow vpon the Apo 〈…〉 wordes that they were before of the olive or els could they not be 〈…〉 d to be broken of And this breaking of was not a ceasing to be their 〈…〉 turall seede for so continew they stil but they were broken of from the 〈…〉 enant of grace made to Abraham and his seed as it is apparant by this 〈◊〉 they were broken of through vnbeleef which hath relation to that coâ—enant and not to the covenant of works Yea and they are sayd to be * Rom. â— 19. 20. broken of from that wherevnto we are graffed by faith and into which they may also be †vers 23. graffed in agayne if they continew not in vnbelief Now we are graffed into no other covenant but that of grace And as for the Iewes they cannot againe be graffed into such a carnal covenant as you imagine seing by your owne doctrine it is disannulled And if they be to be graffed into an other covenant and not the same that they were in before how can it be called a graffing in agayne for this phrase importeth a covenant whereof they had bene formerly partakers But it wil be objected that they which are once in Christ and holy can not be broken of and therefore such of the Iewes as fell away cannot be sayd to be holy and of the spiritual covenant I Answer first it is trew that they that are graffed in Christ and personally holy “ Joh. 10. â— 27. 28. cannot be broken of secondly the Apostle speaking of holynes and saying if the root be holy so are the branches meaneth not of any personal holynes but of that right of the covenant whereby they became Gods people which he calleth holynes that descends from AbrahaÌ„ to all his seed as the sap or fatnes of the olive doth from the root ascend to all the branches And this holynes or right to the spiritual covenant had all the Iewes in regard whereof they were separate from all other nations and called a holy nation And in this respect are the children of those parents whereof the one of them beleeveth called holy 1. Cor 7. 14. not that personall holines descendeth from the parent to the childe for that cannot passe from one to an other but because through the fayth of the father beleeving that the promise of salvation is made to him and his seed the children have now tytle and right to the same covenant by the free and large promise of the grace of God and so many as are elected are saved though dying in theire infancy by the same covenant 5. The Apostle affirmeth Act. 15. 11. that both the fathers under the law as well as we that are under the gospel are under the same j 〈…〉 ing and sanctifying grace of Christ saying wee beleeve through the grace oâ— Lord Jesus Christ to be saved as they meaning their fathers vers 10. where 〈…〉 on I conclude that their fathers being under the same grace were undâ— the same covenant with us although this grace was not so fully revealed and fulfilled as it is now * to us for there is no partitipation of the graâ— Jo. 7. 39. of justification and regeneration but in this spiritual covenant therefore to them was given this spirituall covenaunt and they did receive it as well as we though amongst them some particular persons did by their personal vnbeleif cut themselves of from the grace of God as now some do with us which neyther then nor now can make the covenant given to our Exod. 20. Ps 89. 28 â— Gen. 3. 15 â— 4. 4. 26. â— 6. 5. â—eb 11. 4. c. Heb. 11. â— â— Heb. 11. â— 14. 15. â— forefathers to be †void to their posteritie 6. The spiritual covenant that was given to Abraham and his seed was before given to “ Adam and the fathers to the time of Abraham they received it by faith for there is but one covenant of salvation both before after Christ one maner of receiving it which is by faith Abraham to whom was promised the land of Canaan did notwithstanding look for a * citie having a foundation whose builder and maker is God And of these fathers before Abraham his time doth the Apostle witnesse that they all died in faith ‘ * saw the promises that is the things promised a farr off though they received them not as then fulfilled and beleeved and received thankefully and confessed that they were stangers and pilgrimes on the earth for they that say such things declare plainly that thoy seek a country that is an heavenly And in the first epistle to the Corinthes chap. 10. 1. c. the Apostle speaking of the fathers which were of Abrahams seed sayth I would not have you ignorant that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptized unto Moses did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spirituall drink for they drunk of the spiritual rock that followed the rock was Christ By which scriptures it appeares that the spiritual covenant was given unto them that they received it by faith Heb. 11. â— Mat. 17. â— 2 Cor. â— 19. Rev. 1 â— 8. 3. Heb. 13. 15 â— 1 Tim. 2. â— Heb. 13. â— Eph. 2. â— 7. If the fathers under the law had not bene within the covenant of grace all their worship offered unto God could not have been acceptable seing out of Christ * God is not pleased with any person or with any worship therfore is he sayd to be the Lamb slayn from the begining of the world the onely “ Mediator between God and man by whom we have accesse unto the Father and †through whom all our sacrifices and worship are pleasing unto God Lastly it must needs be that the Iewes had the covenant of grace seing the Apostle sayth †‘ that the GeÌ„tiles shal be coinheritors meaning with the Iewes â— of the same body and partakrrs of the promises in Christ by the Gospel for if the â—wes had not formerly bene a body inheritors of the promises in Christ â—ow could the Gentiles be
circumcision by which the Iewish children were received into the covenant that must type out baptisme by which say you the partie so qualified should be received into the new Testament actually or els shew a reason why this ceremonie of baptisme is added to the truth as you expound it and nothing added to the type to shadowe out baptisme this is not proportioable that there must be a ceremonie added to the truth in receving in of members into the Church now since the coÌ„ming of Christ and not any to the type in receiving in of members into the Church before his coming Lastly if you wil keep proportion you must compare together circumcision and baptisme both which do lead to the circumcision of the hart are the seales of one and the same covenant the one appointed for the old Church before Christ the other for the Church under the Gospel then wil your Argument fall out against your self And thus I have shewed both the weaknes of your answer of your reasons grounded therevpon Argument II. Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumcision belonged to faithful Abraham and his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to all beleevers and to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the second The consequent wil follow seing baptisme coÌ„meth in place of circumcision sealing up unto us and to our seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham and to his seed Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelites for of them onely were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males and females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coÌ„ming of Iesus Christ should be more restreyned then it was under the law who came to ratify and confirm it wholly as the Apostle sayth 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea and Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham and his infants and if Christ should give it unto us onely and not to our infants this were to lessen and infringe the covenant and not to confirm all but to take away part of that which God before had given Mr Smyth I answer that this argument is built vpon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant and seale and seed and there is manifest violence coÌ„mitted upon the scripture by perverting and wresting it to false consequents first therfore I deny the consequence and I give reasons of my denyall c. The former Argument is proved to stand upon a true ground and so â—all it be manifested that there is no mistaking eyther of the covenant seale or seed in this reason nor yet any violence offred to this scripture by wresting it to false consequences as you affirme The consequence you deny but desprove it not to your reasons I wil answer particularly which in number are three Your first reason because that circumcision did not appertaine to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant but of the externall temporary covenant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moses c. I have already proved the contrary both out of Gen 17. 7. 9. where it is added as a signe vnto that everlasting covenant and also out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith Furthermore circumcision did signify the †Deut. â— 16. Ier. â— Act. 7. 5â— inward circumcision of the hart which was not required of them in respect of the promise of CanaaÌ„ the same being required vnder the Gospel nor yet of the law for it admitts of no repentance but as a condition of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and his seede in Christ also the proselites Ismael were circumcised that had no promise of Canaan nor right to one foot of inheritance in it for * Ios 14. â— 16. 17. 18 19. 21. c Canaan was devided by lot to the 12. Tribes and in every tribe to the several families and therefore their circumcision did eyther seale vnto them the spirituall covenant or none at all as before is observed Againe if by the male circumcised Christ was typed as you have affirmed before in your fift reason in your answere to my former Argument then circumcision was a signe of the spiritual covenant For Christ is that which was promised And if the infant circumcised was a type of him it must nedes followe that circumcision was asigne of that covenant whereof the child circumcised was the subject but the infant in becomming a type of Christ became in this respect a subiect of the spiritual covenant and therfore his circumcision a seale thereof for the type and truth must have relation to the same thing or covenant Lastly Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises unto the fathers Rom. 15. 8. Also I deny that circumcision was first given as a seale of obedience to the law of Moses seing the law was not given when circumcision was ordeyned but * Gal. 3. 1â— 430. yeares after the thing to be sealed is to go before the seale or els it is preposterous and the seale without fruit Neyther was it given to be a seale of a carnall promise in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace God togither with it promised unto him and his seed the Land of Canaan but he never appointed circumcision to be the seale thereof els when Israel possessed that land circumcision should have ceassed as all Sacraments shall do when the promises whereof they be seales shal be fully accomplished and circumcision should have bene of no force to them that had no right to Canaan which yet were circumcised Your second reason because the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the new Testament c. I answer they do thus occupy the place of Abraham that as he did so Act. 2. 39 do * they receive the covenant to them and their children who through the free promise of God received by the faith of the parents have entrance into the covenant together with them and in this regard parents are so may be called “ fathers of their children being the meanes whereby they Act. 2. 39 come to this prerogative And this is not to supply that particular of Abrahams fatherhood which was extraordinarie Your third reason is because the infants of the faithful doe not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh c. First how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham I have shewed here deny that the children of Abraham according to the flesh onely as you mean were types of the infants of the faithfull seing the children of the Proselytes were the children of
confirme Their * Deu. 2â— 10 13. “ Gal. 3. â— coâ—enant was to be the Lords people is the same that we are entred into els could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise through fayth if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed Also Peter affirmes it to be the same Act. 2. 39. If then the Lord required of Israel true holynes and made no other coâ—enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people but that everlasting covenant and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Testament true holynes of the members and communion in the covenant and Gospel then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this but even the same with the church under the new Test I speak of the substance of this covenant and not of the outward administration thereof which was divers wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption Heb. 10 â— In the former Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle sheweth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect because they were yearly renued proveth also that Christs sacrifice is one and perpetual here it must be minded that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their coÌ„stitution no spiritual promise but onely carnal typical things Heb. 9 â—â— 23. In that other scripture Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed between the legal sacrifices and purifyings the purging of synne by the blood of Iesus Christ between the old Testament and the new c and so shewing how the truth answereth unto the type concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sinnes of many by the sacrifice of himself And this is that which the Apostle intendeth and not to shevv that the constitution of the old church vvas the tipe of the constitution of the nevv 3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected â— produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Testâ—â— Iustification and fayth and sanctification and repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament Heb 9. 9. Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo c. Deut. 29. â— Ier. 13. â— â— Luk. 1. â— 74. 1 pet â—â— 9. 10. â— 2. 12. â— 22. Gen. 17. 7 â—om 4. 11 â—a 26. â— Heb. 4. 2 â— 11. 30. â— Cor. 10. 3 â— Ezech. 18 â— 32. Ioel. â— 3. â—b 9. 9. â—â— 2. 15 The assumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before for the members of that church might have and had fayth repentance justification sanctification seeing the †Lord was their God in that standing he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ therfore it must follow that they were partakers of fayth justification c. in that their coÌ„munion Again as the covenant was geven to Abraham so was “ it to his seed but to Abraham it was geven †for justification therefore to his seed I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test Also I have proved * before that God required of the Israelites “ fayth and repentance and that they did repent beleev so consequently justification sanctification were effected accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof and required in the constitutioÌ„ Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument yet this I will further add that the Apostle having described the partes of the Tabernacle c. in ver 9. sheweth the use of those things to be a figure for the present preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ in whom they beleeved the same to be fulfilled And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh were such as by Moses were given to that church long after the constitution thereof In that other scripture Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reasons not about the constitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether justification was required therein but having to deal against the false teachers that taught the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law affirmeth the contrary in these two verses saying we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law but by the fayth of Jesus Ch. c. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by fayth without works doth not deny the church before the coÌ„ming of Christ to be justified by fayth but teacheth that both that church and this under the Gospel were saved not by works but by the free promise of God in Christ received by fayth And thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire 4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members presupposed not â—â—th and repentance to the members and so not real or true holynes But the old Test â—e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the â—hurch of the old Test Heb 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. c. First concerning the major The old Testament though it brought not perfection yet did it require fayth in Christ to come 2. Touching your â—inor first I require what you mean by the old Testament whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator if the former then is your minor false for those books conteyn as wel Gospel as law the promise made unto the fathers in Christ to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance aswell before Christs incarnation as since But iâ— you â—ind it †Rom. â— Heb. 10. of the law onely administration of Moses it is true that perfection and life came not by the law nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law but withal you must know that the Iewes were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ as * pa. 23. ◠“ Gen. 3. â— 12. 3. â— 17. 7. 21. Esa 1. â— 7. 14. â— 9. 6 GeÌ„ â— 10. Numâ— 24. 17. Gâ— 3. 8. 14 before is proved 3 For the church of the old Testament it could bring or publish life to the members thereof seing it had the promises “ of the Gospel and so presupposed fayth repentance true holynes as you speak To the scriptures first to Heb. 7. 19. I answer that the law indeed maketh nothing perfect nor could give lyfe but I have told you againe and
it was sett upon the male it did type out Christ that promised seed through whom our corruption is purged as before is observed And if circumcision be such a type as you here afferme how can you exclude children under the new Test they are Christs and in the covenant †Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7. capable of the spirit or nevv berth therefore to be sealed If it be obiected that before the law there was no seal appointed I say hereby it appeareth that to be under the covenant was not the cause of â—ytle to the seal but the expresse commandement of God c. But to be under the covenant after the seal was thereunto annexed is sufficient cause of tytle to the seal except you vvil disjoyn those things that God hath coupled together In the next place you ansvver to the Assumption of my Argument vvher first you desire of me to expound unto you vvhat is this holynes vvhich the Apostle mentioneth 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I say under the covenant then you demand vvhat it is to be under the covenant and so you proceed from question to question as if you could not find out a direct ansvvere vvithout such interrogatories To your first demaund I ansvvered before shewed that this holynes in 1 Cor. 7. 14 is in respect of the covenant that children of the believing fathers are called holy by the Apost Then what it is to be under the covenant happely you wil say to be iustified by the imputatioÌ„ of the righteousnes of C. righteousnes Although thus to answer be true yet is it not al that vve are to ansvver to this demande For to be under the covenant is to be considered 2. maÌ„ner of vvayes 1. according to the L. solemne dispensatioÌ„ of his covenant vvith his people their admittance thereinto after vvhich manner it vvas made vvith Abraham and his seed And thus the covenant vvas established to * Gen 17. 21. Act. 39. Deuâ— 15. them that vvere unborne at the tyme of the promise making being then in the loynes of Abraham Secondly men are sayd to be under the covenant after a more special and hidden manner And so al the elect whether known by the confession of their fayth or lying hidden 〈◊〉 â—om 4. 4. â—at 8. 12. â—zo 14. 6. Rom. 11. â—-2â— Esa 29. 13 Luk. 13. â—-27 â—at 8. 12. in the confused assemblies of the world are within the cov of salvatioÌ„ but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within who is without some wee may judge to be within in respect of their outward standing which in the Lords sight are without and some without whom the Lord accepteth but after that external and solemn making and receiving of the covenant of life we are to repute †al that makes profession of their fayth with their seed to be under the covenant and * branches of the olive tree until they fal away And of these that are thus under the covenant there be many “ hypocrites which are not partakers of salvation in Christ Then I demand which of these three viz. to be holy to be under the covenant to have Christs righteousnes imputed is first in nature happely you wil say first they are under the covenant secondly iustified 3. sanctified or holy I perceive you would draw us by your supposed answer from that generall holynes apperteyning to the whole church of God by reason of the covenant of salvation made with them to the sincere holynes of perticular persons which is not found to be in al that are visible members of the ch Heb. 4. 1. â— Rom. 11. â—0 For this we say that a people that are entred covenant with God are in regard thereof holy because they are separate from the world unto God and so are to be esteemed of us as they to whome is promised Christ with al his blessings whereof they are partakers if by †unbeleef they hinder not themselves of that holynes of the olive whereinto they were planted in this sense are we to understand that place of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. Then I proceed and demand when do Infants come under the covenant when they are conceyved or when they are born or when the parents are converted being born already It wil be answered that Infants begotten of faythful parents come under the covenant in their conception and such as are borne come under the covenant when their parentes are regenerate Hereby it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children by generation by filial relation Thus I answer as formerly I have done that the covenant belonges to the parents and their seed through the free grace gift of God the Lord binding himself by promise to be God to the faythful and to their children which though they be borne according to the course of nature are in the covenant yet is their so being within it not by vertue of their carnal berth simply considered but by vertue of Gods promise Indeed this we say to be borne of beleeving parents is a declaration of the childrens being in Gods covenant that they come under the covenant when their “ Act. â— 14. 15. 33â— parents do * first beleev whether they be borne already or to be borne I mean such parents as were before strangers to the covenant Hereunto adde if it be true that some say that children under the goverment of the faythful also are under the covenant that the covenant is conveighed also by pupilship â— adoption so of servants under beleeving masters c. God making his covenant with beleevers includeth their families as in Gen. 17. 7. with verse 9 13. where the Lord establishing his covenant with Abraham included his whole houshould borne in his howse or bought with money for he commanded al to be circumcised So Zacheus manifesting his fayth and repentance Christ sayd †Luk. 1â— 8. 9. this day is salvation come unto this howse see also Act. 16. 30 31 33. and Ier. 31. 1. And thus do we affirme hereof according to the scriptures You say Why may not at the infants borne under one king if his subiects be al his servants â—d vassals be by that relation brought under the covenant and so be accounted iustifyed and sanctified God hath established his covenant to the beleevers and their seed not to a king and his subjects and therefore this relation wil not stand with the condition of the covenant The relation of a King and a subiect is as neer as the relation of a master and a servant or an adopted child The relation of a king and subjects be it never so near maketh not tâ— the purpose seing we are to mynd with whom God maketh his covenant who tyeth not himself to civil relations but freely accepteth the beleever and his family and further then this relation the scripture doth not warrant us to apply Gods covenant And then I demaund say you seeing the
But the first is true Mat. 28. 19. Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13. 48. 16. 14. 15. 32. 33. It wil be objected against the Major that it followes not that the infants are any more bound to receive baptisme then they are bound whilest they are infants to receive the word but the word they cannot receive Ergo. I answer that the coÌ„mandement is general to al nations and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circumcise him self and al his familie yea the infants he should grevously have rebelled against God so whosoever of the Gentiles shal not beleev and be baptised both himself and his seed shal have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ seeing he cutts himself and his seed from the covenant of God Genes 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant which notwithstanding they are bound unto as they shall come to yeares of discretion yet are they capable of the seal as before is shewed and therefore by vertue of this generall commandement Mat. 28 19. are to be baptised M. Smyth The errors of this Argument I wil discover in order first I deny that baptisme is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ Thirdly Baptisme therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision c. Fourthly I deny that although Abraham had a speciall commandement did circumcise his male infants therefore Christians upon this generall commandement Mat. 28. 19. shal baptise their infants Fiftly I say rather the contrarie is hence proved c. R. Clyfton This is a ready course in answering if it might be admitted of to denye one thing after another without shewing any reason to the contrary As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors of three of them I have spoken before more particularly the fourth is now to be answered unto concerning the baptising of infants upon the general commandement of Christ Mat. 28. 19. which you deny to have warrant from that scripture I prove it thus If there was a commandement given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children then is this Mat. 28. 10. a comandement and faithfully described in the institution of baptisme as the person condition and tyme of circumcision But for paedobaptisme there is no expresse description of the person condition or tyme of their baptisme c. I answer to the consequent of the Major that our Saviour hath †reveled â— 17. 6. â—14 26. â— â— â— to his church the whole will of his father which is conteyned in the Scriptures not onely in the writings of the Apostles but also of the prophets which hee hath for that end commanded us to search Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter to take heed unto 2 Pet. 1. 19. and Paul commends to be profitable to teach to convince to correct and to instruct in righteousnes c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods wil must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles that the prophets be excluded but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expresly then the writings of the Apostles But to come to the point I answer that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner which before had been written and were stil to continue as example the sealing of the covenant the persons yong and old that were to be signed and such like what needs a new repetition hereof when the Lord purposed not to disaÌ„nul them so much as was to be altered concerning the outward signe Christ omitted not to declare And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaithfulnes if he in expresse words had not commanded infants to be baptised seing under the old Testament they had the signe of the covenant Again the Apostles writings do plainly ynough declare unto us that infants are to be baptised as both from that commandement of Christ Mat 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles in baptising of families and by other reasons hath been shewed And concerning the tyme of baptising I see no reason why you should cavil about it more then about the tyme of administring the Lords Supper which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day nor tyme of the day for the administring thereof as Moses did of the passeover And the scriptures which you cite do shew that bap is to be administred when men enter into Gods covenant and children entring in at the same tyme with their parents are to be baptised at the same tyme with them as Ismael and al Abrahams howse were circumcised * the same day with Abraham Deu. 17. â— And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major which â—so serveth to answer your minor But touching those scriptures which you alledge for proof of your Minor thus I answer in general to them all that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel to beleeve that Iesus was the Christ who were never baptised before And this rule I confesse to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptisme that they make confession of their fayth sinnes as they did but they serve not to teach vs to deale so towards their infants or the infants of beleevers that are borne within the covenant For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it is not the same as concerning the administration of baptisme no more then it was in the Iewish Church towching circumcision for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their owne profession and the other to be within it by their being borne of beleeving parents if you had instanced an example of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament of pareÌ„ts that were members thereof whose baptising was differd until he was able to make confessioÌ„ of faith then had you sayd more to the purpose though in such an example there might haue bene neglect as was in Moses in circumcising his sonne Argument VII Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly the Apostles practise is our instructioÌ„ but they baptised not onely the maister of the familie which beleeved but all his household Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now also the like is to be done and so consequently the infants are to be baptised for they are a part of the family see Gen. 45. 18. where Ioseph bad his brethren take their father and their househoulds and come to him Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is sayd they caried their children and wives in charets noting hereby
coÌ„maÌ„dement of sealing of the covenant expired therfore infants are stil to be sealed with baptisme which succedeth circuÌ„cision In the last place you require prose that onely persons that confessed their sinns their faith were baptised I prove it thus They onely were to be baptised that Christ coÌ„manded to be baptised persons made disciples by teaching were onely commanded to be baptised by Christ Mat. 28. 29. Ergo c. I deny your Assumption the affirmative is not to baptise them onely that are made disciples by teaching but also their seed as formerly hath been proved and you feighne a false negative to that affirmative in Mat. 28. 19. 2. Againe considering that in every affirmative there is included a negative therefore wheresoever example is that persons confessing their sinns and their fayth were baptised there is signified that those that did not confesse their sinues c. were not baptised This is graunted of such as were of yeares and to be added to the Church so now to be practised towards any of the Turks or such like that should come to the faith But this is false that because persons confessing their faith were baptised therfore the infants of the faithful not able to make confession of their faith shall not be baptised Willing confessing must be opposed to actuall refusing if the argument according to the mind of the holy Ghost stand good For we must know that the bodie is one c. and the seed one and not two for in the new Testament they know God from the least to the greatest Heb. 8. 11. and they are al taught of God Mat 11. 11. and this I take to be a playne proofe of the point which you desire This serves rather to prove that children are to be baptised because they are of the same body of Christ To affirme infants to be baptised is not to hold two seedes of contrary natures as you charge us for as the father so are his children partakers of the covenaunt and both are a holy seed children of God in respect thereof though the father professe his faith the childe cannot in respect of age the father can reason so cannot his infant yet both of them are of the same nature reasonable creatures And be it that some of the children whose parents professe the faith are not elected so may it be also that the father that confesseth his faith is not elected but this belongs not to us we are to hold them as children of the covenant as the word teacheth â— 8. 11. Concerning Heb. 8. 11. all shall know me c. it must be vnderstood of all that are capable of knowledge God promised a more singular grace of illumination under the gospel of those thinges which the Church had more obsurely before Christs comming so doth he promise remission of sinnes wherof childreÌ„ are partakers shal be of this heavenly knowledge also as by yeres they shal be able to learne the want whereof doth no more hinder them from being partakers of Gods promise in Christ then the want of knowledge hinders an infant to be heire to his fathers inheritance But if this be an argument of force against the baptising of infants because the Lord sayth I wil put my lawes in their harts then wil this be as forceable against them that are of yeres that they need not be taught because the same Lord sayth they shall not teach every man his neighbour c. and so teaching shal be overthrowen also The true sense is to be sought after â— not thus to pervert scriptures aÌ„s you do to your own destruction Touching that of Ioh. 6. 45. they shal be al taught of God it must be understood Ioh. â— of al as they are capable of instruction the promise is made to the church Esa 54. 13. and so to children as also that in Hebr. 8 11. and shal be fulfilled to every one as they shal be able to understand Next upon my speeches affirming that of Iohn it is not said that he refused to baptise infants you say that Iohn his preaching was such as peremptorilie excluded infants for it was the baptisme of repentance c. Iohns preaching of repentance is the preaching of the Gospell which excludes not children your reason is not good for baptisme of repentance respects the tyme to come and not onely sinns past and byndeth the baptised to continual mortification And both Iohn Christ preached to the Iewes which * Act. 2. â— 3. 25 were of the covenant and therefore called them to repentance and taught them to beleeve that Christ was come whom they looked for For being not regenerate c. yet they could not enter into the kingdome of God Joh. 3. 5. Christ in Iohn 3. 5. speaketh of true members in his sight we are to hold the professors with their seed to be regenerate because they are of the covenant until the contrary appear by their deeds And here it would be considered vnto whom Christ and Iohn spake unto the Jewes c. and yet he sayd repent and beleeve Now if the Jewes had been truly regenerate in their communion Iohn needed not to have required such conditions of them but in few words might have sayd come you faythful and al your infants and be baptised 1. Iohn spake to them that were of yeares and had sinned therefore repentance was necessarily required not so of Infants that have not committed actual sinne 2. The preaching of the Gospel belongs to the regenerate I mean the preaching of repentance and fayth seeing we are but regenerate in part and “ dayly sinne The primitive churches I hope Mat. 6 1â— you wâ—ll graunt were regenerate in their communion I use your termes yet to them was preached †Rev. 2. 5. 16. 21. and 3. 3. 20. repentance Ergo your reason fayles you 3. The members of al true churches whether under the old or new Testament are holy in regard of Gods covenant and so wee are to walke towards them but that every particular person is truly regenerate is not our faith because in visible Churches †Joh. 2. 19 there may be hypocrites man oft fayleth on his part * and breaketh of Notwithstanding †charitie bindes â—om 11. 20. 1 Cor. 13. vs to hope the best until the contrarie appeare Lastly where you say That the Iewes were not faythful in their coÌ„munioÌ„ because Iohn saith the Lord wil purge his store Christ sayth they are of your father the Divil 1. This may fall out to any true Church to have unfaythfull members that may pollute their coÌ„munion see the Churches of Asia Rev. 2. 4. 5 14. 15. 20. 21. 3. 1. 2. 16. of Galatia Gal. 3. 1. but what is this to the purpose that the Iewes became unfaithful but by the way remeÌ„ber that they ought to haue bene faithful which you deny to that Church did not Gods covenant stand stil
of the Israelites was not false The churches of Antichrist were false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised which was not that one seed unto the which the promise was made that is the faythful c. I have shewed before how wel you agree with your self concerning the Ans church of Israel which here you say was nor false and yet have published to the contrarie As for your grounds or reasons of the trunes of the Israelitish church and falsenes of Antichrists whatsoever you can plead for the one the like may be alledged for the other If Israel in her defection be accounted a true church then must Rome also in her Apostasie Certayn it is that both are to be esteemed Apostatical Churches and this is that which we testifie And towching Israel if the carnall circumcision alone of the Israelites had ben the sufficient coÌ„stitution of that church to keep it free from being Apostate they continuing it why should the Lord bidde tel her †Hos 2. â— that she was not his wife nor he her husband Or did the * 2 Chro. 13. 14. Priests and Levites wel to leave their suburbes and possessions to leave that church to goe to Iuda and Ierusalem but hereof before 2. For the matter of the Antichristian churches which you say was false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised I answer that they were not therefore false or Apostatical because infants were baptised whose baptisme is proved lawful already but for that they brake covenant with God forsoke their first love as now you do and followed strange lovers “ Rev. 17. 2-6 16. â— 18. 2. 3. 9 24. shed the bloud of the Saincts were a cage of every unclean and hatefull bird c. and these are the sinnes which they are charged with but never is it imputed to them for sinne their baptising of Infants Wherefore an Edomite or Ismaelite coming to be a proselyte of the Iewes Church Rep. that had omitted circumcision is a true president of the Antichristian Apostasie c. This is against your self for if they were uncircumcised they ought to Answ be received into the Iewes Church by circuÌ„cision And so if any be unbaptised they ought now to be received into the ch by baptism But tel me if an Edomite or Ismalite having circuÌ„cisioÌ„ becoÌ„ing a proselyte was recircuÌ„cised Now if the Edomites Ismalites turning to the fayth eyther were uncircumcised or being before circumcised were not recircuÌ„cised what is this to the purpose to prove that Antichristians must be rebaptised You adde also so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church Why say you not rather the Proselytes were types of the Gentiles that under the Gospel are converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church As for their being types of Antichristians you know there is a great difference seeing the Proselytes were uncircumcised afore their convertion but the Antichrists are baptised already But if this be your thought that Proselytes their entrance into the Iewish Church were types of Antichristians converted and admitted into the true Church then I trust you wil that the thing typed be answerable to the type But you know when a Gentile or Edomite was coÌ„verted to the profession of the Iewes and became a proselyte he vvas received 〈◊〉 12. into the church of the old Testament vvith his familie and †al his males must be circumcised as vvel as himself Why admit you not that the Proselytes of Antichristianisme as you call them should enter into the church with their children according to the type propouÌ„ded by your self Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have received us into the Church without baptisme I answer if such an example had been left us we would then have rested satisfied but seeing the Apostles have left no such example or precept therefore you are stil in your Apostasie having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are still unseparated do still retayne the mark of the beast and are subiect to the woe that the Angel threatneth to persons so marked Example is left of such as vvere circumcised in the Apostasie of Israel were not circumcised againe when they came to the church of Iudah and â—s this is written for our learning RoÌ„ 15 4. That baptisme is but †one not to be iterated the scripture teacheth no precept nor example for rebaptising And therefore we may not forsake our baptisme howsoever you cal â—ph 4. 5. or esteem it seeing we know it is not to be repeated but upon our repentance it sealeth unto us the covenant of salvation is effectual for the confirming of our fayth As for Apostacy whether we stand therein or no let it be tryed by the word we know you an unequal judge that hath apostated from the fayth And for the marke of the beast and the woe that followes we know it is due to them to whom it belongs And if this marke were the baptising of infants as you say it is then the Angel should threaten the woe to such as keep the commandements of God and fayth of Iesus which is directly contrarie to the Angels speech intendement But it were good for you to take heed lest while you shoot of such thundering peeces against others they do indeed recoyle upon your selves Of M. Smyths second Reason for Anabaptisme of elder people R. Clyfton Now let us come to the 2. Reason which is this 2. Because true baptisme is but one but the Baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme and so not that one baptisme of Christ But al the members of Christ must have true baptisme Answer 1. There is but one fayth and one baptisme Eph. 4. 4. and therefore it is sufficient to be once baptised as it was to be once circumcised 2. That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt and do also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme and what then must it follow that now such as are baptised must be rebaptised els cannot be members of a visible church I deny it and do further answer 1. That the baptisme which we received in the Apostate church is no more Antichrists then the word that we received therein For Antichrist did never ordeyn a new kind of baptisme but did onely pollute with his inventions that holy ordinance of Christ And therfore if this baptisme that we have received be called the baptisme of Antichrist it is to affirme an untruth seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Christ who commanded his Apostles to baptise all nations with water in the name of the Father and of the Sonne of the H. Ghost Mat. 28. 19. And the same baptism for substaÌ„ce is stil reteyned in the Apostate churches and none other 2. This baptisme may in
some respects be called true baptisme as before I have noted in my first reason against rebaptising for 1. it hath Christ for the Author 2. it hath the true matter outward signe or element which is water 3. the true forme of administring the same which is baptising into the name of the Father and of the sone and of the holy Ghost all which is practised in the popish Church Neyther is any baptised into the name or fayth of Antichrist but into the fayth or profession of Christ And therefore our baptime is the baptisme of Christ and to us that repent true baptisme and so consequently not to be iterated M. Smyth I make Answer that seeing Infants are baptised which is the false matter of baptisme and seing in them there is not the question of a good conscience unto God 1 Pet. 3. 21. nor the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience Heb. 10. 22. which is the forme Seeing they cannot expresse credis credo abrenuncias abrenunci◠which is the forme of baptisme even the mutual contract betwixt God and the partie baptised expressed visiblie in confession therefore the baptisme is not Christs but antichrists c. R. Clyfton This is the summe of your reply to my answer that Baptisme administred in the Antichristian assemblies is of no use to the penitent and is not baptisme at all because both matter is false and the forme is wanting Of the matter whereof you speak which are Infants and of the lawfulnes of the baptising of Infants I referre you for answer to the former part of this writing Also for the matter forme of baptisme to that which hath been spoken thereof in this latter part Onely thus much concerning that which you here insert to the forme To be the question of a good conscience vnto God the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience to expresse Credis Credo abrenun 〈…〉 abrenunci◠I wil answer first that which the Apostle speaketh to such as were of yeares he applyeth to infants 2. In a good and true understanding we may and ought to think that children have their harts sprinkled from an evil conscience by the spirit of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ els how could we hope they should be saved seeing by nature they are the children of wrath Eph. 2. 3. but yet by grace the kingdome of heaven appertayns unto them Mat. 19. 14. 3. Although a good conscience be it which ministreth assurance of comfort to the baptised yet is not that the forme of this sacrament as now we speak of it First because hypocrytes in the church receive the outward signe as S. Magus did of whō it is sayd that he was baptised yet neyther Simon nor any hypocrite are sprinkled from an evil conscience 2. That which is required in the receiving of every sacrament and in al parts of the worship of God in the whole course of our life cannot be the proper forme of one particular sacrament But a * Deut. ◠16. 1 Cor. ◠28. 29. 3◠good conscience is required to be in the receivers of every sacrament c. 3. There is an outward baptisme wherof “ Mat. 3. ◠Tit. 3. 5. Iohn and the Ministers of the Gospel are the disposers and “ there is an inward baptisme which the Holy Ghost ministreth which is †Hebr. 1◠22. 23. the sprinkling of the hart from an evil conscience and is indeed the thing signified by the outward washing But we must confider of Baptisme as it is external and so to have an external forme matter Lastly for the meaning of * 1 Pet. 3. 2◠that place of Peter I take to be this That the Apostle in applying the former example to the tymes following the coming of Christ would teach that the peservation of Noah in the waters was a figure of our baptisme which is a type of our spiritual preservation from the floud of Gods wrath saying that baptisme that now is saveth us also by the resurrection of Iesus Christ And least any might attribute overmuch to the outward Ceremonie by way of correction he advertiseth us that salvation to speak properly stands in the forgivenes of our sinnes c. by the death of Christ and that baptisme saveth in that it testifieth and sealeth the same unto us And this remission of sinnes is partly signified in putting away the filth of the soule closely insinuated when he sayth not the putting away of the filth of the flesh And partly in declaring the effect thereof to wit the confident demanding which a good conscience maketh to God For when we are washed from our sinnes we may cherefully and with a good conscience freely call upon God Now this being as you see the effect of remission of our sinnes internal how shall it be the outward forme of Baptisme which is an outward ordinance of Christ To your credis and credo I have answered before Neyther is that which is spoken to them of yeares to be misapplyed to infants as I have shewed divers times heretofore Of Mr Smythes 3. Reason for Anabaptizing of Elder people The third Reason 3. Because as the false Church is reiected and the true erected the false Ministerie forsaken and the true received So false worship and by consequent baptisme must be renounced and the true baptisme assumed Answer First I grant that we ought to separate from all false or apostate Churches Apoc. 18. 4. and to adioyne our selves to a true Church reformed according to the patterne of the Apostles 2. Also every false Ministerie is to be forsaken Mat. 7. 15. 2 Iohn 10. Gal. 1. 8. and the true Ministers of God to be received Ier. 3. 14. 15. as did the faithfull in Israel that forsooke the false Preists set vp by Ieroboam and returned to the Preists of the Lord to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. 3. It is our dutie likewise to renounce all false worship 2 Cor. 6. 14-17 Esa 30. 22. and to worship the Lord as he taught vs in his word And thus farre do I approve of this reason but the consequence I must deny viz. that because false worship is to be renounced therefore baptisme also For 1. we are to consider in that baptisme received in apostate Churches two things first that which is of God therein secondly that which is of man that which is of God is the substance of baptisme as before is observed viz. the same matter and forme which the Lord instituted and likewise the same end which is the profession of the faith of Christ and this is not false worship and so consequently not to be renounced Againe that which in the administration of baptisme is devised by man are those vnwarrantable ceremonies of crossing annoynting and such like these are to be renounced as vayne worship Mat. 15. 9. Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men and not with their pollutions to be renounced For if pollution might warrant
men to caâ—â— away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought agayne to Ierusalem nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord. 2. I answer that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes And therefore we may no more renounce it and to assume a new then they that returned to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision be recircumcised It is obiected of some that this comparison holdes not for Israel was a true Church and therefore their circumcision was true But an apostate Church hath nothing tâ—ue neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing and it is not true baptisme to such This obiection in part I have answered before and now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church but a false seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie 1. King 12. 30 -33 and 18. 19 -21 and so became an Harlot Hosea 2. 2. Secondly in the Apostate Church there be some things true in the substance as the word and Baptisme though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises 3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of â—â—ch a Church 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves and their seed And though in regard of the former estate they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly yet even to such members considered a part from such standing and as they are the seed of their forefathers so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes Rom. 11. 28. this appeareth in that he sayth come out of her my people Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed but that to them belonges the covenant yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea Bondage hinders not Gods grace But some may reply that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors Exod. 20. if we respect herein Gods mercie even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers Neyther do the members of an apostate Church cast of all profession of faith for they beleeve the scriptures and in Christ c. though withall they professe divers errors and worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church had forefathers that beleeved I answer it can not be denyed seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons as the Lord hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better And further intreat that the truth which I contend for may not by my weak defence beare any reproch but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written and both he and they that so practise may seriously coÌ„sider of that which is done and glorifie God by repentance March 14. 1608. Rich Clifton Mr. Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last Argument which may be framed into this forme As the false Ministerie worship are reiected the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed So the false worship and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something for the further clearing of the point 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised 2. He never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptised 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist R. Clyfton Concerning the causes of baptisme they have been formerly spoken of Answ To these particulars thus I answer brieflly to the first that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing To the 2. touching Pagans that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes fayth I am farre from approving 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful as you cal it I have before proved that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them and have removed al your objections to the contrarie The matter of baptisme is false 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should â—ep be baptised without his own confession c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22. This is true of such as are of yeares and now at the first to be received â—s into the church but not of their infants or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth Towching the places of 1 Pet 3. 21. Heb 10 22 I have answered unto in the former section Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them for Christ wil not contract â—ep in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age Gal. 4. 14. It is strange how you apply scriptures would any that is a Scholer or â—ns made conscience of the truth ever have applyed this place of the Galathians to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful The similitude that the Apostle useth comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors might teach you that the Lord did contract with that church how els could it ever have been
parents whose sinne can not * hinder Gods promise as the Lord did remember to shew mercy to those of Israel that “ left that apostate church and returned to Ierusalem as now he doth unto us And this is all that I alleaged â—his scripture for But you in a kind of bitternes and detestation of our forefathers do here againe utterly deny that ever they beleeved How religion came into our land I have shewed before that there have been are beleevers in it I make no question And whether there have been visible churches in the Apostolical constitution I leave to be confidered by the histories forenamed and the great persequutions they suffered for the truth of Christ And seeing there have been so many Martirs put to death in our nation for the witnessing of Iesus Christ his Gospel mynd well what wronge you do to your native countrie in denying that any of them did visiblie beleeve And of the church of Rome it is undeniable that it was a true established church in the Apostles dayes But you wonder at mee that I should say that seeing we are Apostates that we had auncestors that sometime beleeved and your reason is because we are departed from the scriptures not from the fayth of our Auncestors who never a one of them beleeved in a true constituted Church There cannot be an Apostasie or falling away from that we nor our fathers ever had If we apostate from the fayth of the scriptures eyther we or our fathers †2 Thes 2. once beleeved that which we are departed from or els how is our standing apostasie But our fathers say you beleeved not in a true constituted church Indeed I think they did never beleev in such an heretical Church of Anabaptists as you account a true constituted Church that must have all the members received in by Anabaptisme their children excluded but this is certaine that the general face of a people staÌ„ding in apostasie doth argue that there was a face of a church before professing the fayth as in the examples of Israel and the church of Rome may be seen Thus through Gods providence and blessing I am come to an happie end of answering Râ—p your writing wherein I praise the Lord for his mercy I have received such assurance of the truth that all the earth shal never be able to wring it out of my hart and hands And therefore I desire you Sir and all the leaders of the Separatiâ—â— to weigh seriously even â—â—twixt the Lord and their owne harts upon their bedds this which is written c. I am sory to see how you deceive your own hart in a false perswasion to Ans justifie your errors and most blasphemously as it were to make God a Patron thereof by praising him for his mercy that you have received such assurance of the truth that al the earth shal not be able to wring it out of your hart Whereas you are fallen from faith separating your self from the communion of all true Churches and become a pleader for a practiser of old concondemned heresies into which you are given over of God for iust cause knowen to himself And whereas you desire me and the Leaders of the Seperation as you cal them seriously to consider of your writings such counsel for myne owne part could I wish to your self to examine your writings by the Scriptures from the meaning whereof you have erred pitifully and to pray unto the Lord that this evil may be forgiven you And to remember wel how quickly you fell into these errours not conferring with others or counselling with the word of God as you should have done but following your owne deceitful and deceiving haâ—â— being strongly deluded by Sathan who stil doth incourage you in this new walking that you are perswaded it is thâ— undoubtedst truth that ever was revealed vnto you But know you Sir that the works of the flesh are pleasant wherof †heresie is one And 〈◊〉 5. 20. that Satan wil strongly perswade therevnto when the Lord hath given men over to beleeve lies that would not receive the love of the truth And as you confesse that you may err in particulars as you do indeed so think also that you may erre in your mayne points of controversie which were unheard of in the Apostolical Churches of the first age As you haue begunne to recall your baptising of your selfe as we heare in some respect vid videlicet in that you baptised your selfe and others without lawful calling c. so proceed to renounce it altogether with all your Anabaptistical errours And let me say to you in perswading you to returne unto the truth as you say to me in moving me to error As you love the Lord and his truth and the people that depend vpon you imbrace it and apply not your self to shift it of Think it a great mercy of God to offer you any meanes to see your erronious walking I speak unto you out of my best affection towards you and that poor deceaved company for whose fall I have great sorrow of hart And because you adjure vs in the Lord to shew you your errour I have done for myne own part what it hath pleased God to inable me for the present and so have others also taken paynes if God would give you an hart to be satisfied with the truth On the back syde of my answer was written thus If you reply shew your strength that we may make an end of these uncomfortable oppositions c. Mr Smyth Sir there may be weight in my Reasons and you happely eyther cannot through preiudice or wil not through some sinister respect see the waight of them I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel but eyther shew me myne error or yeeld to the truth I would be glad to be an instrument of shewing you this truth also at least you by shewing vs our error shall discharge a good conscience if you do not answere among you all I proclame you all subtilly blynd and lead the blynde after you into the ditche R. Clyfton Sir what small waight is in your Reasons I have shewed in this writing And though you think I can not through prejudice or will not through some sinister respect see the waight of them myne owne conscience doth cleere me of both these imputations For the Lord that knoweth the secrets of the hart is witnesse that I have not of purpose to mainteyne any untruth wittingly stopped myne eares or shut vp mine eyes from any truth revealed vnto me for any sinister cause or prejudice of your person but if I did see any further truth I would the Lord assisting me receive it with all thankfulnes Neyther do I hang my faith vpon the persons of men but upon the word of God to be charmed by evil counsel evil you call that which condemneth your errors but if by any man I receive further instructioÌ„ or coÌ„firmatioÌ„ in the Lords truth you ought not nor shall not diswade me froÌ„ it call it charming or what you wil. I would to God you were no worse charmed by the counsel of Satan then I am by those whom you point at in these your speeches I doubt not but we should then walk together comfortably in the house of God I have shewed you your error as you desire And for this truth as you falsely call it that you would be glad to impart unto me I dare not herein make you glad but wish rather that you might be sory that wee might reioyce in your conversion 〈◊〉 any former truthes whereof you have bene an instrument of myne 〈…〉 ction which you insinuate in this word also I am thankful to God for â—â— But if you remeÌ„ber that truth that you informed me of was concerning the trunesse of this Church wherof I stand a member which you now hold to be Antichristian And therefore if I had not had better ground for my practise and builded my faith herein vpon the word your revolting would haue sent me back againe to my former estate For your proclayming of vs all subtilly blind if we answer you not In this you shew stil the loftines of your spirit as if men were bound to answer you in every thing you write Now you are answered both to this and to your other heretical book of Differences c. And if you further oppose against the truth I trust the Lord will arme his Servants to contend for the faith once given to the Saincts Our cause is Gods we feare not your forces Rich. Clyfton FINIS 1610 Faults escaped Pag. 20. line 27. the Christ put out the. Pag. 21. line 3. for him read them Pag. 80. line 3. for kithin read within Pag. 130. line 18. for females read males Pag. 139. line 19. read be saved Pag. 173. line 14 how if put out how Pag. 149. line 4. for Rich Clifton read Mr Smyth and after line 6. read Rich Clifton Pag. 181. line 7. put out In Israel Pag. 187. line 20. for many read may Other faults may easily be discerned