such imputation but your self is become faulty in calumniating the ordinance of Christ viz the baptisme of infants accounting it an Antichristian error which I wish you well to consider of and not to adde sinne vnto sinne both in pleading for error and in disgracing the truth and the professors thereof Further you say it will not helpe me that these two truthes have bene condemned for heresie by the Churches in all ages for if the Apostles affoard contrary to the succeeding ages that which is most auncient is the truth I graunt if you can prove that the Apostles age affoards contrary to the succeeding ages for the iustifieng of these your opinions that then you have good warrant of your syde for calling them truthes but if the Churches which have coÌ„demned your positions for error have agreed herein with the holy scriptures then I say the brand of heresie lies iustly vpon them And whereas you alledge that many truthes wherevnto we are come have bene condemned for heretical in as many ages as those truthes which you defend I answer that not many truthes if any which we hold to my remembrance have bene condemned in the ancient Churches for heresies And suppose those Churches did fayle in some things as every Church is subject to erre yet followes it not that therfore they erred in condemning your opinions for haeresie some things I think you wil graunt are heresies which those ancient Churches succeeding the Apostles age did condemne as those of Arius Eutiches Macedonius and the rest and then is not their iudgement so lightly to be passed over that no reconing is to be made of what they have done agreable to the scriptures As for your errors we reject them not onely because the ancient Churches have so censured them but finding them contrary to the word of God therfore we condemne them 3. Whereas I did feare your broaching of these and your former opinions would be offensive and to the hindering of the truth this you passe over in presuming of the goodnes of your cause saying if any be hindred froÌ„ the truth it wil be their sinne but if you feare you say that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground I say it is that which is appointed to perdition and to perdition let it go Indeed if any be hindered from the truth by the publishing of the truth it is their sinne Mat. 11. 6. but if you which haue stood for the truth shall now by publishing of error cause the truth to be the more blasphemed give offence to weak professors that is your sinne and wil be too heavie to be answered at the judgement day if you repent not And as for our Church which you blasphemously call Antichristian know you that I do not feare the fall of it for it is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2 20. which hath a sure promise that the gates of hel shall not prevayle against it Mat. 16. 18. And therefore your Anathema cannot hurt vs but shall rebound back agayn whence it came 4. You say though I haue professed to forsake myne errors vpon their discovery and as I have practised for which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never profeessed my readines to be perverted from the truth which you call heresie and therfore if you did vndertake to write vpon this ground you might well haue spared your paines and saved your self from so grevous a sinne by pleading for Antichristian corruptions c. The ground of my perswasion concerning your willingnes to yeeld vnto the truth did arise partly from that perswasion which I had of your sanâ—tification and partly from the speaches of the messengers before named â—ho did affirme vnto me that if I could manifest by the word of God â—hat it was error which you hold you would acknowledge it And still â—ou say if you be in error it is * Passages page 71. ignorantly And therefore desirous of â—our good I did vndertake according to my small abilitie to manifest â—he truth vnto you by such reasons as I could at that present gather for the confirmation of the same which seing you make so small account of and answer me that I might have spared my paynes and saved my self from sin I am sory in that respect that I did write yet in regard of witnessing the â—ruth and performing a duty towards a brother fallen into error I repeÌ„t â—e not neither yet of committing any grevous sinne thereby as you charge me withall seing I plead for that which is of Christs and not for Antichristian corruptions And as for your errors so often graced by you with the title of truthes which you say you never professed to be perverted froÌ„ I mervayle not greatly therat for heresie is a work of the flesh Gal. 5. 20. that is easily and quickly imbraced but not so left and herein differs froÌ„ the truth to the receiving whereof we are hardly drawen as both you and I had experience but error drincketh as a pleasant potion Rev. 18. 3. without resistance and bewitcheth many that they should not obey the truth described and plainly manifest in their sight Gal. 3. 1. the poison whereof I am sory hath so infected your soule that you seeme to be changed into the nature thereof and to be as confident therein as in any truth of the gospel and though you account my praying to be for an overthrow of the Lords truth which is in deed for the conversion of you and that deceived company with you from your errors yet will I pray stil that God may open your eyes if you belong to him to see your grevous fall glorifie the truth of God which in this your writing so greatly you have disgraced Now I will come to answer the Positions with the reasons thereof and first concerning the former which is this 1. That infants are not to be baptised Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adheâ—nts was one of the first that denied the baptisme of infants 〈◊〉 after him Pelagius the heretique against whome Augustine others of the ancient fathers have opposed and condemned for heresie and that according to the scriptures which by Gods grace we shall together with them also further manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vntertake and then answer the reasons to the contrary Mr Smyth Now in the next place you make a speciall preface to the first point affirming thaâ— baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius c. Rich Clifton I sayd that Auxentius the Arrian was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of infants and then Pelagius whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned for heresie and you answer thus that one heretike condemned
to teach us that live under the Gospel And if they be in force to teach then are we to learne and to be taught by them As for Christ his faythfulnes in teaching us his new Testament which you think is diminished if we labour to prove any of the ordinances thereof from the Scriptures of the old Testament know you that we hold Christ * Heb. 3. 2. to be faythful to him that hath appointed even as Moses in al his howse And yet no disparagement to him or the new Testament but rather an honour to prove the parts and observances thereof from Moses and the Prophets For he that bad us Search the scriptures did also himself to the two disciples that went to Emaus “ Luk. 24. â—â— beginne at Moses and at all the Prophets and interpreted unto them in al the Scriptures the things which were written of him Which practise of Christ as it doth teach us that we may learn Christ and the new Testament out of Moses and the Scriptures of the old Testament so doth it manifest his faythfulnes that taught and fulfilled al that was prophesied of him not imposing upon his church any new doctrine not heard of before Baptisme under the Gospell is proved out of the old Testaments the Iewes did not think it strange to be at the coming of the Messiah Ioh. 1. 25. And Mr. Smyth sayth that the Iewes baptismes were into the Messias to come in type Ergo our baptisme being the thing typed must needs have warrant from the old Testament and then it is no disgrace to goe to school to Moses to learn it And first I would know why we may not as wel with the Papists fetch one high Repl. Priest from Moses succession in the Ministerie from Moses succession in the Church from Moses as a succession in baptisme from Moses and in effect you fetch a succession of the Church from Rome for in fetching a succession of Baptismâ— from Rome which is the forme of the church yea and in fetching a succession of the matter of the church which is the seed of the Parents baptised you of necessitie make the church of Rome a true Church First for the Priesthood of Moses the Ceremonies and such like ordinances Answ of the church under the old Testament they are †Heb. 7. 12. c. cha â— ch 9. â— cha 10. Col. 2. 16. 17. removed by the coming of Iesus Christ and therefore there cannot be any succession thereof under the Gospel save in Christ but of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and sealed to him and his seed before the law was given is no abrogation thereof There is an everlasting continuance which you call a succession not onely in the Church of the old Testament but also under the Gospell as the Apostles do * Gal. 3. 8 9. Act. 2. 3 witnes as also “ Mat. 28. 19. a continuance of the sealing of the same And therefore we must plead such a succession both of the covenant and sealing thereof from our father Abraham seing it is the †Gal. 3. 8. 14. 17. 28. 4. 28. same wherein we of the Gentiles are comprehended And this difference between this Covenant and the law and ordinances of the old Testament if it please you to take notice of will answer your question about succession Yet I would not have you mistake me for although I hold in this sense a continual succession of the people of God partakers of this covenant of salvation I affirme not that there hath been alway and at al tymes known established churches keeping soundly all the ordinances of Christ and making visible profession thereof In the Apostacie of Israel the Lord had his seven thowsand that never bowed their knee to Baal to whom this covenant belonged and so had he in “ Rev. 18. 4 antichristianisme Again we fetch not a succession of Baptisme from Moses otherwise then the Apostles have taught us Col. 2. 10. 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21. The sealing of the covenant was commanded to Abraham and never repealed save onely the outward signe changed as before is sayd And as we fetch no otherwise succession from Moses or the old Testament then hath been sayd No more do we succession of the Ministerie or of any other ordinance of Christ but in like manner and upon like warrant 2. Concerning fetching of succession of our church froÌ„ Rome because of our Baptisme I answer 1. that Baptisme as also the Scriptures were given to the Church of Rome when she was a true church and she retayning them in her Apostasie we receive them as Christe word and baptisme though continued through her corrupt Ministerie and estate 2. If according to your terming succession of Baptisme be graunted being an ordinance of God yet will it not followe that therefore we must reteyn the whoredomes of the church of Rome which we are coÌ„manded to separate from Rev. 18. 4 because we retein baptisme but rather thus as we have baptisme froÌ„ Christ so are we to have the coÌ„stitution of our church what is polluted in eyther by Antichrist to reject 3. Our retayning of baptisme administred in the Apostate churches doth no more prove that we fetch succession of our church from Rome then the Israelites that were circumcised in the church of Ieroboam returning to Ierusalem did fetch the succession of their church froÌ„ the Apostate church of Israel If it be objected that this people now separated from that Apostacy were matter of that false church and so we fetch a succession of the matter of our church from a false church I answer that al such of Gods people that stand members of those Antichristian assemblies must be considered two wayes 1. in respect of us and their outward standing so are they members of those Assemblies 2. in respect of the Lord and their election so are they no members thereof but the matter of Gods invisible church in tyme becoming visible As on the contrarie in a visible church al the people thereof in our account are held true members yet †hypocrites 1 Ioh. 2. 19. in the Lords account are no members or matter thereof And as the Apostle sayth of Antichrists if they had been of us they should have continued with us so I say of Gods people in Babilon if they had been of that Antichristian church they should have continued with them but by their coÌ„ing out it appeares that they are not of them and therefore we cannot be sayd to have the matter of our church by succession froÌ„ Antichristianisme but by the gracious work of God in his people of al ages and to use your word of Succession as it were by a secret and hidden succession even from the Apostles tymes And thus it wil not follow as you say that we make the church of Rome a true church If Infants of the church of Rome have true tytle
which the Apostle also speaketh Rom. 11. chap. and how he conveigheth the same to the seed of beleevers then it may be sayd that God loveth the children for the fathers fake with whom the Lord had made his covenant so to love them Not for that the children shal be partakers of that covenant because of their parents fayth or because of Gods covenant made with their parents and their carnal infants but because God elected them in Christ to life invisibly c. The children of beleevers are partakers of Gods covenant because the Lord of his free gift and mercie giving it vnto their parents includeth their seed with them as before I haue proved And thus we are to respect the external dispensation thereof and of this is our question and not of the particular election and reprobation of this or that person For so all are not †Israel which are of Israel And many â—â—â— 9. 6. Mat. 20. â— 16. 25 11. â—k 13. 24. â—â— Mat. â— chap. 1. 2. 19. Act. 3. 25 to vs are visibly within the covenant which are not elected * to salvation Hypocrites will ly lurking in a visible Church which shall not be discerned until the last day yet the holy things of God are administred unto them and they of vs are to be reputed members because visibly they appeare to vs so to be And should we not then thus reckon of the children of the faithful the promise being made indefinitely to “ them and to their seed Neyther is it the carnal lyne that is beloved of God for his mercie sake but the spiritual line c. I answer God for his mercie sake loveth the line of the faithful because of his promise as I haue sayd to chose out therof eveÌ„ out of their carnal line so to call it such as he wil save by Iesus Christ And al this line of the faithful so loÌ„g as they continue in the Church to vs is holy spirituall though in Gods electioÌ„ none be holy to him but those that he hath chosen which two things you confounding make all this doctrine obscure unto your hearers But what is this to prove that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant for the carnal line descending from a beleeving auncestor Re. I do not say that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant unto vs considered according to their outward standing but this I say that Ans in an apostate Church there be though to us unknowen until they come out thence of Gods people that are descended of beleeving auncestors and are beloved and come under the covenant because God wil be found faithful in his promise †Ex. 20. shew mercy to thousands of them that love him Or if it were graunted how doth it follow that the baptism visibly receved in the Re. Antichristian false Church is true baptism sealing vp the covenant to them that the Lord converted in the false Church I answer that while they remayne in that estate they can not make this comfortable vse thereof vnto themselves but when such as be converted Ans in that false Church do separate from the same and turne to the Lord having right to the covenant they have right also to the seale and to all the holy things of God in that they are the people of God And so as the word converteth so baptism sealeth because the efficacy thereof is of God which can no more be hindered by the wickednes of man then the word could be hindered from converting them that belonged to the Lord. Lastly whereas you fetch the Title to the covenant and to baptism for infants in Re. the false Church from some ancestor beleeving 40. generations happily before according to that Exod. 20. 6. I answer three things 1. You must prove that some of our Predecessors had that actual faith and were members of true Churches and this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptisme thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant and baptisme by his carnal line 2. You must by the same reason receave by baptism if you can come by them all the infants of the Thessalonians Galatians Collossians Philippians and Churches of Asia that did sometime beleeve 3. I deny that you expound that place Exod. 20. truely for the Lord directly doth require that they vpon whom he sheweth mercy should feare him and keep his commaundements c. To the first particular I answer in that our Predecessors were all in apostasie Ans yt argueth that they descended from beleevers Apostasie must be from the faith once publikly defended And where there is a publik face of an Apostate church there was formerly a publike face of a church professing the truth from which they are fallen And even their retayning of baptisme to this day is a confirmation thereof Againe this is witnessed by them that came out of Babylon that they are descended from beleevers whose seed the Lord now remembreth in his mercy to do good unto But we are not to stand upon particulars the general estate sheweth what was the precedent estate of Antichristians neyther are we to inquire any more into the particular condition of their Predecessors or parents that come out of Babylon then they of Ierusalem did inquire into the particular estates of the forefathers of those Israelites that left the Apostate church of Ieroboam to joyne unto them For receiving in without baptisme you are answered before To your second particular I answer that the estate of them must be considered whether these be in Apostasie as Rome is or be quite fallen from the fayth and be no churches at all but as infidels that beleeve not in Iesus Christ and his word if their estate were but apostasie and that they beleeved the Scriptures worshipped God and reteyned baptisme though all these in a corrupt manner then should we do alike unto them as we do to the papists But if they were become infidâ—ls and the candelstick removed from them so that no stepps of a church remaynes amongst them then are we to receive both parents beleeving and their children into the church by baptisme as the Apostles in the like case did Accordingly for receiving the infants of the Thessalonians c. if we can come by them we hold it thus if their parents returne to the Lord and his church or if some of the faythful undertake their education as their own children In the third particular you deny that I expound the place of Exod. 20. 6. truly My words are set down before pag. 213. And my meaning was this that concerning those that ar born in an apostate church the Lord remembreth his covenant made with their forefathers that beleeved doth cal of their seed whom it pleaseth him to the knowledge of his truth fayth in Christ not regarding their immediate idolatrous and apostate Eze. 18. â— 17. â— Chro. 30. â— 11.
30. Act. 16 25. Psal 95. 92 1. 66. 2. 89. 1. Lastly each one as he is able contributeth to the Treasurie whereby the Officers poor of the church are maynteyned according to these scriptures 1 Tim. 5 17. 18. 1 Cor. 9 7-14 Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 16. Luk. 2â— 1. 2 3. 4. Mat. 26 9. 10. 11. Act. 2 42. 45 46. 4 34. 35. 37. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. â— Cor. 8 4 1â— And this is that worship and service we publikely practise which Mr. S. calleth false worship how truly let the Reader now judge Fourthly coÌ„cerning the GovermeÌ„t of our church which also this adversarie taxeth first the Governours that we have are such as Christ hath appointed in his Church viz. Pastors Teachers Elders and such as M. S. †Principles pag. 18. Questions Answers pag. 8. affirmeth the Eldership to consist of the two former both teaching and ruling the Elders imployed in the governmeÌ„t onely elected of the church for the overseing governing guiding of the same by the rules of Christ whose offices and authoritie of Ruling are warranted by these scriptures 1 Tim. â— 5. 17. Rom. 12. 6. 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 5. with Rev. 2. 2. 14. 15. Act. 20. 28. Heb. 13 8. 24. Agayn as touching the Censures we proceed therin after Chriâ—â—s 〈…〉 private faults vsing private admonitions and for publike open reb 〈…〉 cording to these Scriptures Mat. 18. 15. 17. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 2. Cor. 2. 6. And when the offenders continue obstinate in their sinns after due admonition and conviction by the word of God the Church being gathered together the Pastor or Teacher or one of the Elders in the name by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ pronounceth the sentence of excoÌ„munication agaynst them all the brethren consenting according to these Scriptures Mat. 18. 17. 19. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. c. 1. Tim. 1. 20. And if the excomunicate do repent he is with the Churches consent received agayne into the coÌ„munion therof by some of the Governors according to these Scriptures 2. Cor. 2. â—7 11. Mat. 18. 18. 20. What Mr. Smyth can fault in this or in any other of our practises he may at his leasure discover the same if he be not already satisfied Now besides these false imputations it pleaseth Mr. Smyth to vtter agaynst this Church many vncharitable and reprochfull speeches wishing also As the Tirant wished concerning the people of Rome that all theire heades were joyned into one c. To passe by his tart and bitter speeches unbeseeming a professor of the Gospell concerning his wish I do certifie him thus much that if it were granted that the Separation had but one head his woodden sword of mans doctrine wil never be able to smyte it of Wel may he cary the Tyrants mynd but for his wish I trust he shall fynd a like effect therof as the Tyrant did of his who contrary to his expectation found the people of Rome not to have one head but many hands to smyte of his head So this wisher shall fynd that the Separation hath many hands to convince his abominable errors And whereas he desyreth the Separation that they wil not in craftines withdrawe from the combate as hetherto they have done in the matter of the Trâ—nslation Worship and Presbyterie c. He himselfe now knoweth that he hath answere to all these things and if any delay hath bene herein it was not any withdrawing through craftines as he falsely chargeth vs but we saw him so mutable and inconstant and his latter writings to overthrow his former that his owne workes would be a sufficient confutation thereof And now that there was so great occasion of answere and that he so insulted vpon the differring therof he hath his answere geven him For 〈…〉 his speeches of charging and challendging vs to the defence of â—rors I hope he wil stay his penne henceforth from such vanitie seing â—â—â—e not ashamed or yet neglect to vndertake the defence of that truth â— professe and to manifest that he is a defender of errors and not we as â—e scanderously reporteth of vs. Furthermore Mr Smyth requires of the Separation and of all men not â— impute vnto them The denying of the old Testament the Lords day the â—â—â—â—stracy and humanity of Christ Why this request should be made I know â—ot vnles they would beare the world in hand that they are not taynted â—ith these errors which other anabaptists doo hold Concerning the â—st of them Mr. Sm. affirmeth that the Lord made with his people vnder â—e old Testament a carnal covenant denying that everlasting covenant in Christ to be geven vnto them or circumcision to be the seale thereof He â—so denyeth the seede of the faythfull to be within the covenant of grace â—yther before or since Christs comming contrary to Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. â—9 And therefore I cannot see but that the denying both of the old and â—ew Testament in this respect may justly be imputed unto him as in this â—reatise following it will appeare For their denying of the Lords day as yet we have litle to say notwithâ—anding it is reported that some of their company makes question therof But concerning the Magistracy Mr. Smyth bewrayeth his vnsoundnes â— these words But of Magistrates converted to the faith and admitted into the Church by baptism there may questions be made which to answere we cannot if we â—â—â—ld when such things fall out the Lord we doubt not will direct vs into the truth concerrning that matter Here let the Reader observe how they plead ignorance in the matter of the Christian Magistrate if so they thought of his Authoritie that he being of the Church was to beare the sword and them of the Church to obey him as having civill power over them and whome he might commaund in defence of Religion of his country to take vp armes then needed not he thus to speake For by his words they geve vs to conjecture that they think more may be yeelded to an heathen Ruler then to a Christian Magistrate If they be cleare in this pointe they may so explane their myndes Also in this pleading ignorance of the Magistracy they seeme to tax the new Testament not to be so playne as Mr Smyth affirmeth where he sayth All the ordinances of the new Testament are plainely taught by C 〈…〉 his disciples Character pag. 34. Now if all things be taught in the new Testament why then can he not answere those many questions that may be made about the Christian Magistrate or why looks he for new direction wel this I perceave that eyther he must deny the authority of the Christian Magistrate or be driven to confesse that the writings of the Apostles are not playne enough to discribe his office and Authoritie without the Scriptures of the old Testament from which if it be lawfull to reason concerning this matter of the Magistracy
blessed And though you say I cannot from hence conclude Baptisme yet from hence I do conclude that Christ performed that action to Infants that his disciples did afterward unto such as were baptised viz. laying on of hands and prayer likewise I can conclude that Christ admitted of Infants to come to him and that he prayed for them And “ he prayes not for the world â—oh 17. 9. Mâ—r. 10. And that also he pronounceth that †of such is the kingdome of God And therfore whether Baptisme can be denyed to such let the godly reader judge I avouch constantly against you that eyther they were not the children of the Iewes or they were not the Infants of beleeving Iewes or if their parents beleeved yet it followeth not thaâ— those Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised for Christ doth not say of these but of such is the kingdome of God Although you do so constantly avouch against me yet it is but your stout denyal without any reason or probabilitie to the contrary That these Infants which were brought to Christ were of the Iewes I have shewed my reasons before But not beleeving say you I answer how dare you deny them to be professors of the hart we are no judge stood they not members of the visible church and are they not so long to be accounted for beleevers nay they came to hear Christ and by presenting their children unto him and desiring him to pray testifyed their fayth in him and †1 Cor. 1â— 7. charitie binds us to esteem of such in the better part If their parents beleeved yet it followeth not that therefore these Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised c. It doth follow that these infants were of the kingdome of God in that Christ prayed for them Mar. 10. 16. conferred with Mar. 19. 13. but he * Joh. 17 â— prayed not for them that are not of his kingdome Yea Christ sayth not of these say you but of such And do you not think in your conscience that Christ in these words of such included those infants would he include others like to them exdude them As coÌ„cerning that place of Mat. 18. 3. 6. which you alledge to crosse my interpretatioÌ„ of these words it gaynes you nothing for the disciples coming to Christ and asking who is the greatest in the kingdome of heaven he teaching them humblenes called a little child not a man of years and set him in the midest of them saying except ye be converted become as little children ye shal not enter into the kingdome of heaven using the same word in this place for little children Mat. 18. 3. that is in Mark 10. 15. In Mat. 18. 6. for little ones is used another word that wil as wel agree to men of yeares so they be humble as to children And in verse the third Christ doth not deny children to be of the kingdome of God but teacheth his disciples by a simile to be humble mynded as little children or els they could not enter into the kingdome of God †Esa 66. 3â— Jam. 4. 6. 10. 1 Pet. â— 5. 6. who regards the lowly and giveth grace to such And this doth rather confirm my exposition in teaching none can enter into the kingdome but such as shal be like to infants Besides how can you prove that by the kingdome of God Christ understandeth the visible Church of the new Testament First for answer to this question I wil send you to Mr. Smyth in his * printed A. 1609. Paralels Censures and Observations pag. 22. who sayth That the true visible Church is CHRISTS sheepfold his kingdome c. Also pag. 15. of the same book The true Church in the scripture is called the howse of God the Temple of God the howsehould of faith and the kingdome of heaven of Christ and of God And in 17. pag. of the same book these are your words they that are not of a constituted Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome and pag. 16. you say that the visible Church is the onely kingdome of Christ that therefore they who are not members of Christs true visible Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome the like is affirmed in pag. 18. 19. considering therefore what you have written I marvel you demaund this question for by your owne words you insinuate that the kingdome of Christ or of God is the onely visible Church in that you say they are not of Christs kingdome that are not members of a true constituted Church and then must it needs follow that by kingdome of God in this place is understood the visible Church Rev. 18. 4 Luk. 19. â— 12. Act. 3. Mat. 5. â— Gen. 17. â— Psal 73. â— Psal 147 â— Rom. 9. Esa 28. â—6 51. 3 â— chap. 54 â—s 132. 13 â— 17. Ps 128. 1 â— Ps 1-3 â— 112. 1. 2 119. 1 â— 92. 13 4. 4. 5. â—at 5. 1 â— Eph. 5. 25 of the new Testament seing you say it is the onely kingdome of Christ. but I do not consent unto you herein for there be many of the kingdome of God that are no members of a true coÌ„stituted visible Church as * God 's people in Babylon and those seven thousand in Israel that never bowed their knee to Baall The kingdome of God extends more largely though invisibly then to the visible Church 2. To your question I answer that the visible †Church of the new Testament is the kingdome of God and so to understand it in this place of Maâ—k 10. 14. 15. is nothing repugnant to the circumstance and scope thereof although the kingdome of glorie is also intended both which are but one yet diversly considered And he that hath right to the one part hath right also to the other and therefore Christ saying of such is the kindome of God he meaneth his whol kingdome of grace and glorie Or how can you prove that Christ blessed none but members of the visible Church First I never did affirme that Christ blesseth none but the members of the visible Church and therefore you have no reason to require the proof thereof at my hands 2. If your question be of Gods general blessings then I answer that the Lord causeth “ the sunne to shine upon the iust and uniust and the rayne to fall vpon the good and evil all nations and people are partakers of many temporall blessings But if you speak of spirituall blessings and of those that are purchased by Christs death then I say * such blessings apperteyne to the Church and to the †true members thereof whether visible or invisible because “ Christ is given onely to his Church 〈◊〉 * 1 Cor. â— 2 Cor. 1. â— 21. 22. whom all the promises of God are yea and in him Amen Or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham apperteyneth onely to the members of the visible Church c. And I
Apostles put infants back and why Christ did not command them to be baptised c. Why would you know that which is not written that the Apostles did not well in putting them back Christ his rebuking of them doth manifest What may be coniectured hath bene noted before And as foâ— Christ his not commanding them to be baptised I answer Christ performed that which they required of him the text doth not mention that they came to desire baptisme and therefore there was no cause that he should command them to be baptised Next you labour to weaken such proves as I brought from the scriptures to confirme my Argument withall saying You see by that which hath bene answered that both your maior and minor ar weak and the scriptures alledged by you do not confirme them for the place 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours that is theirs that actually beleeve and are baptized c. My major and minor are so weak that you can disprove neyther of theÌ„ As touching your answer to this scripture 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply it Cor. 3. 21 â—2 onely to them that actually beleeve which the text sayth not the Apostles meaning in this place is that all such helpes as the Lord Iesus hath appointed for the benefit of his people are theirs whether they be men of yeares or infants for he speakes to the whol Church inclusively whereof the children are members †as hath bene proved But you say I must prove Mat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 â— that infants have the use of all I have answered that they are to have the use of so many of Gods ordinances as they in regard of their yeares and knowledge are able to partake of But not satisfyed herewith you demand further saying Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of salvation c. I answer that all the members of the Church are capable and partakers Eph. 5. 25 â—6 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12. of all the meanes of their * salvation which is Iesus Christ yea children †els can they not be saved But as concerning the outward ordinances of the Church as the ministerie of the word Sacraments and such like though they be necessarie in their due place yet the use of them is not at all tymes and of all persons required the Israelites borne in the wildernes were not circumcised by the space of fortye yeares neyther was the Passeover commanded to infantes to offer sacrifice or the like though †Dâ—â— 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. â— Mar. 10. these were necessarily required of them that were growne to yeares so that tyme and age doth priveledge some from the practise of those things which otherwise they are bound to observe The next Scripture is Rom. 9. 4. wherein you except against the Kom 9. word appertayneth and say It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning â—f the Apostle For your excepting against the word appertayneth saying it is â— into the text you seeme to contend before you be provoked I onely quoâ—ed that place of Rom. 9. 4. and did not set downe the wordes And therefore to strive about a word added in the translation is to strive against your owne shadow I defend no words added whereby the text is misconstrued But although no verbe be expressed in the original yet gramatical coÌ„struction requires some verbe to be vnderstood as this verbe is or appertainâ—th or some such like and if is be vnderstood it is the same in sense with appertayneth But you say Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnall Israelites were actually within the covenent of grace c. Paul intends to set downe the dignitie and prerogative of the people which he had chosen to him selfe to be his inheritance and to shew that Gods word is true although Israel be cast of he performeth his promise to so many of them as he had chosen in his secrete counsel And this is all that the Apostle intendeth To your carnal covenant and to the offer of the spiritual I have answered before Lastly whereas I did affirme that infants vnder the Gospel were as capable of baptisme as children vnder the lawe you answer That baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Testament as Circumcision was the seale of the old Testament and that infantes of the old Testament were capable absolutely seing that to be circumcised there was nothing requyred but a foreskin apt to be cut of but to baptisme in the new Testament there is required actual fayth repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47. That †pag. 37. Baptisme is the seale of the new Testament is proved before also that circumcisioÌ„ was * pag. 12. a seale of the same spiritual covenaÌ„t to the Israelites and that our infants are as capable of baptisme as the Iewes were of circumcision your reasons alledged to the contrary are of no force for the difference you put between the two sacraments of circumcision and baptisme is but a florish for as the profession of actual fayth and repentance is â—zra 6. 21. â—ter 8. 17. required of all them that are of yeares to baptisme so †was it of the proselytes to circumcision And if you would compare Infants with Infants and men of yeares with such like then shall you see that there is no more required of our infantes that are to be baptised then of the children of the Iewes and proselites nor lesse looked for of men of yeares vnder the old Testament then now vnder the new As for the scriptures that you alledg they witnes what is required of the elder sort to be received into the visible Church and not of infants Out of this your answer you collect 5 arguments against Paedobaptistry the first is this They that are not members of the visible Church have no title to the holy things of God and therefore are vncapable of them and so of baptisme Infantes of the faythful are not actually members of the visible Church for these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of these infantes were beleeving Iewes or if they were beleevers their infantes were already baptized with their parents according to your doctrine and so Christ cannot intend baptisme to appertayne to them but the rest of the ordinances Ergo c. I deny the minor the reason proves it not do affirm that the infants of the faythful are meÌ„bers of the same Church with their pareÌ„ts have right to the holy things therof as may thus be shewed first AbrahaÌ„s house was a visible Church of God the infantes of Abraham and of his servantes are Gen. 17. â—2 sayd to “ be born in his house wherevpon I conclude that they were part of Abrahams family for in
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
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
without this washing with water into the name of the Father c. it cannot be baptisme And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptised may be called an accident as al such formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced yet to baptisme it selfe I meane to the external ceremony it is no accident or adiunct but is of the very essence and being thereof and without which it cannot be baptisme And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident I do not conceive otherwise then as before I have observed in respect of the party baptised els might the ceremony of baptisme be for substance without this washing with water into the name of the Trinitie But whether it be of the essence of baptisme or an accident look with what warrant you do repeate it For suppose I should graunt as much as you desire that this forme of washing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptisme yet the Lord having coÌ„maunded that accident to be but once vsed without repeating how can you iustifie the iterating of such accidentall truthes as you call them for if it were of God in that baptisme administred in Popery as you confesse then can you not repeat it Therefore your iterating of it argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord And so you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptisme as you pretend to do UI. Argument AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sathan and all his instruments shal never be cut of So he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the law Gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the faithful And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were partakers in the Apostate Church and devising a new do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking vpon them to baptise themselves without al warrant from the word for I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptise him selfe without special coÌ„maundement froÌ„ God as Abraham had for circumcision Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptisme Mark 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be sayd the tymes be extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby we may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the world to informe vs in every thing that we ought to do Mr Smyth I answere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus Ans If the gates of Hel shal never prevayl against the Church then there hath alwayes bene aâ—rue Church and antichrist could never make the Church false and so you of the sepâ—ration have sinned most shamefully in callinge the Church of antichrist false verum â—rimum Ergo secundum Rich. Clyfton First I deny that your Argument is of like nature neither wil your false Re. relating of my words give you this advantage for it is one thing to say that God hath preserved the seales of his covenant and an other to say that these seales cannot be abolished through the malice of Sathan I know the outward seales and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Sathan if the Lord would have permitted it For as Antichrist Sathans instrument hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to abolish them out of the church As the worship Ministerie Government Censures c. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptisme and if God had not otherwise disposed could have foysted in a new forme of baptisme in the roome of it 2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16 18. that there should alwayes continue a true visible church upon the earth which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt for the Scripture †2 Thes 3. 7. Reâ— 13. 11 â— 18. 4. speaketh to the contrarie But the promise of Christ to his church is this that the gates of Hell shal not prevaile against it that is against his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Christ this promise the Lord performeth to everie true visible Church so long as they cleave unto him continue faythful and to his invisible for ever even in the very dayes of Apostasie Sathan did not prevaile against the elect of God The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in al the tyme of Antichrist as even Reâ—nerius the Popes Inquisitor acknowledgeth whose Testimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true understanding yet doth it not follow that that church from which we did separate was that true church or yet that this true church was alwayes visible But I come to your second answer which is more properly as you say solvendo That the covenant is sayd to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existance Answ in the world in an established church but in respect of the stabilitie of it in regard of Sathans inalice c. This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not for Rep. I did not intend in saying the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Sathan that there was alwayes a true visible church walking in all the commandements of God but this I mynded and do say that the covenaÌ„t of God could never be cut off through the malice of Sathan but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes yea through the great Apostasie of Antichrist You say There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme and so no true baptisme Ans This consequent will not follow for though the church of Antichrist was no true church yet everie thing therein was not so for the Scriptures though by them abused even in that Church were the true word of God â—ep and so baptisme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned though corruptly administred I deny that the covenant Church or baptisme was visible alwayes An. â—epl Baptisme which was appointed to be a seal of Gods covenant hath ever since the first institution of it been visible that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasie And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen wher is no apparance of Christianitie for in them remaynes some kind of visibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or lesse accordingly as they are more or lesse corrupted For if all visibilitie should cease they should cease to be called Apostate and indeed become no churches And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footsteps of that image of God wherein he was first created so in
hath thus pronounced upon such transgressors †Mat. 1. 5â— In vayn do they worship me teaching doctrines mens precepts the Psalmist sayth “ Psal 11â— 21. cursed are they that do erre froÌ„ thy coÌ„maudemeÌ„ts the which iudgemeÌ„t of God you may behold in your selves if God so open your eyes who of one company are now at least divided into 3. ech one refusing communion with other stil increasing in nevv errors But for the baptising of a mans selfe you say There is as good warrant as for a man churching him self for two men singly are Ans no Church joyntly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church vpon themselves So two men may put baptisme vpon themselves This phrase of Churching a mans selfe is not the phrase of the holy Scripture Repl. it is the Lord that †Mat. 2â— 19. Act. 1 46. 47. Eâ— 4. 11. 12. calleth men out of the world gathereth theÌ„ together by his word and buildeth them vp to be his Church as Christ sayth * Ioh. 10. other sheepe I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall heare my voice And they whose harts the Lord openeth do willingly obey his voice and beleeving †Act. 2. 42. walk together in his wayes as before I have observed To passe by your strange phrases the scripture thus speaketh that the Eunuch Cornelius and others received baptisme administred unto theÌ„ by the Ministers of Chr. but that they or any other did ever put baptisme that is as I understand you administer it upon theÌ„selves I never read thereof in the scriptures unlesse we should think that Iohn B. did it who if it were so had his calling extraordinarie from heaven As two persons unchurched have power to assume the church ech of them for himself Ans with others in communion so each of theÌ„ unbaptised have power to assume baptisme for himself with others in coÌ„munion These things would do wel if they were proved Concerning 2. persons or moe coÌ„ing into coÌ„munioÌ„ together I have before set down what I think And now for assuming of baptisme if you mean therby receiving of it being lawfully administred theÌ„ I grant that they which are unbaptised †may â—cts 10. 8. 12. â— ought to receive baptisme in the coÌ„munion of the Saincts But that 2. persons or moe may take and baptise theÌ„selves or one another in your coÌ„munion I abhorre as an humane invention As for the exaÌ„ples of Abr. and Iohn B. administring the Sacrament upon theÌ„selves if so it were yet serve â—en 17 â— 13. â— 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. â— 25. 27. â— 13. 15 nothing to your purpose for AbrabaÌ„ had a * special coÌ„mandement to circumcise so had Iohn for his “ baptisme warrant froÌ„ God But wil it follow because these 2. administred the SacrameÌ„t upon themselves therfore who list may consecrate his hands to that office What is this â—ls that you plead for but to overthrow that order that Christ hath â—et down in his Church to make every one a Minister of the Lords Sacraments CoÌ„cerning the Proselytes that they did every one circuÌ„cise theÌ„selves is not proved by that of Exo. 12 48. for it is sayd there when a stranger shal dwel with thee wil observ the passeover of the Lord every male shal be circuÌ„cised unto him This scripture saith not that every one did circumcise himself but that every male should be circumcised Neyther if the Lord had sayd as the Translation is let him circumcise al the males that belong unto him had this proved that al the Proselytes had done it themselves for it is sayd of Iosua that the Lord bad him make sharp knives †return circuÌ„cise the sons of Israel the second tyme. And 〈◊〉 5. 2. yet wil any think that Iosuah did himself circumcise every uncircumcised male in Israel or rather that the Lord commanded him to see that it were done And so that coÌ„mandement given to Proselytes was that they should cause al their males to be circumcised or els they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Passeover But graunt that this was a special precept to the stranger to circumcise himself and his familie the Lord laying this upon him he had good warrant so to do but seing the Lord hath commanded the administration of baptisme to the Apostles and Ministers of the word now it is to presume above that which is written for any man to take upon himself to administer baptisme to himself or to others Neyther is this to follow the example of the Proselytes if they had done as you alleadge for then the Master onely and none els circumcised and he circumcised but his familie But this new opinion inableth any man be he Master or servant to baptise himself and also to baptise others that are not of his familie Note wel how this example serves to your purpose Howbeit for circumcision I take it that it was administred by the Levites after that they were called of office because †Num. 8. 14. 18. they were appointed in the roome of the first borne of Israel for the service of the Lord. And as I have heard the Levites amongst the Iewes do circumcise at this day But one thing more I would aske you whether by two assuming baptisme in communion you mean that two consenting together may the one baptise the other at one and the same instant or that one shal baptise the other first and then he that is baptised baptise him that was his baptiser and what rule or warrant you have so to do and do not with obscure termes seek to set a colour upon your errors to deceive the ignorant As concerning the administration of the Lords Supper to a mans self in communion with others prayer prophesying praysing of God uttered for a mans self as wel as for others of every unclean person washing himself at the door of the Tabernacle going to sacrifice of every master of a familie administring the passeover to himself all his familie the Priest dayly sacrificing for himself others All these proves not your desyre For as touching the administration of the Lords supper it appertaines to the Ministers of Christ to do it not to every man And by vertue of their office they do administer and as they are members of the church they participate of those holy things with the rest of the brethren And this is Gods ordinance your case of baptising one another is not alike for there he administreth the Sacrament that hath no calling and he that is unbaptised himself presumeth to set the seal upon himself or upon an other Also in the Lords Supper al are agents according to their estate and nature of the action but in the receiving of baptisme we are onely patients As for praying prophesying and praysing of God uttered for
men to caâ—â— away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought agayne to Ierusalem nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord. 2. I answer that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes And therefore we may no more renounce it and to assume a new then they that returned to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision be recircumcised It is obiected of some that this comparison holdes not for Israel was a true Church and therefore their circumcision was true But an apostate Church hath nothing tâ—ue neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing and it is not true baptisme to such This obiection in part I have answered before and now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church but a false seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie 1. King 12. 30 -33 and 18. 19 -21 and so became an Harlot Hosea 2. 2. Secondly in the Apostate Church there be some things true in the substance as the word and Baptisme though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises 3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of â—â—ch a Church 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves and their seed And though in regard of the former estate they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly yet even to such members considered a part from such standing and as they are the seed of their forefathers so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes Rom. 11. 28. this appeareth in that he sayth come out of her my people Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed but that to them belonges the covenant yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea Bondage hinders not Gods grace But some may reply that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors Exod. 20. if we respect herein Gods mercie even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers Neyther do the members of an apostate Church cast of all profession of faith for they beleeve the scriptures and in Christ c. though withall they professe divers errors and worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church had forefathers that beleeved I answer it can not be denyed seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons as the Lord hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better And further intreat that the truth which I contend for may not by my weak defence beare any reproch but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written and both he and they that so practise may seriously coÌ„sider of that which is done and glorifie God by repentance March 14. 1608. Rich Clifton Mr. Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last Argument which may be framed into this forme As the false Ministerie worship are reiected the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed So the false worship and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something for the further clearing of the point 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised 2. He never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptised 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist R. Clyfton Concerning the causes of baptisme they have been formerly spoken of Answ To these particulars thus I answer brieflly to the first that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing To the 2. touching Pagans that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes fayth I am farre from approving 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful as you cal it I have before proved that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them and have removed al your objections to the contrarie The matter of baptisme is false 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should â—ep be baptised without his own confession c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22. This is true of such as are of yeares and now at the first to be received â—s into the church but not of their infants or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth Towching the places of 1 Pet 3. 21. Heb 10 22 I have answered unto in the former section Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them for Christ wil not contract â—ep in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age Gal. 4. 14. It is strange how you apply scriptures would any that is a Scholer or â—ns made conscience of the truth ever have applyed this place of the Galathians to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful The similitude that the Apostle useth comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors might teach you that the Lord did contract with that church how els could it ever have been
reason is from the testimonie of Tertullian Eusebius The words of Tertullian as Mr Sm. himself hath englished them are these Therfore to deferre not to hasten baptisme is more profitable for the condition disposition age of every person but especially as concerning yong children for what 〈…〉 there to bring sureties into danger for the baptising of Infants if there be no 〈…〉 of hastening the baptising of infants Seing the Sureties are disabled often 〈…〉 to performe theire promise both by reason of mortalitie and of the evil dispositiâ— sâ—â—e children when they come to yeares for whom they promised in baptisme c. â— First concerning Tertullian it is to be noted that thus he writeth â—n he was fallen into the opinions of the Cataphriges or Montanists â—â— so held divers errors as Augustine and others have observed out of â— workes And therefore being thus departed from the fayth Let â—e Reader judge if this man be a competent witnesse in this case Yet â—th not this man affirme that infants were not baptised in his tyme but â—ther the contrary in that he makes mention of Sureties for infants sayâ—g what necessitie is there to bring Sureties into danger for the baptising of infants â—hich words do plainly argue that the Church then used to baptise inâ—ts 2. Agayne that which he affirmeth was his owne private judgment â—d his Reasons are of no weight as the bringing of sureties into daunger and â—â— the suerties are disabled oftentymes to performe theire promise c. such sureties â—ot being appointed of God 3. P. Mart. Clas 4. ca. 8. affirmeth that â—â—tullian denyed Baptism to yong men and yong widowes and his owne â—rdes here related do seeme to intimate some such like thing in saying 〈…〉 ferre and not to hasten baptism is more profitable for the condition disposition and â—â— of every person And this he meaneth of others then yong children For â—er he speaketh of yong children saying especially concerning yong children â— 4. Crispen State of the Church pag. 47. 48. witnesseth that Tertullian brought â— extreeme vnction after baptism the Sygne of the Crosse offering for the dead and â—er the like dreames of the Montanists Now if Tertullians judgment be â—and agaynst infants baptism why not also for extream vnction the sygne â—f the Crosse and the like his errors seing all these are fruits proceeding â—om the same tree But thus this adversary careth not who the witnesse is so he wil speake in favour of his heresy let him be Montanist Papist or what othersoever But let it be further observed that about Tertullians tyme and after some deferred theire baptisme vntil they thought they should dye and so were not baptised vntil they fell into some great sicknes as Theodosius others And this seemeth to be Tertullians error as if baptisme was for washing awaye of sinnes past and not to come Concerning that which Eusebius reporteth of Athanasius his bap 〈…〉 of children in sport I have answered pag. 109. and set downe reasons â— prove that those children were not children of the church but of some oâ— the heathen which were instructed in the fayth of Christ by the church but were not received into the communion of the same These are the two Auncients that M. Smyth produceth against us whereof neither of theâ— affirmeth that the church did not baptise infants in those tymes Now to these two I wil oppose other two Auncients amongst many others that do testifie that infants in their tymes and before were baptised viz. Origin who sayth that the church received from the Apostles to give baptisme to infants lib. 5. ad Rom. And Augustine de Bap. contra Donatist lib. 4. cap. 23. who speaking of the Baptisme of Infants sayth that which the whole church holdeth neyther is ordeyned by councels but alwayes hath been holden we are to beleeve to be delivered by Apostolical authoritie The next corruption that the Separation is charged withal is to have a false ministerie Now the Ministers that we have are of Pastors Teachers called thereunto by election of the Church according to these Scriptures Eph. 4 9. 11 12. Rom. 12 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12 28. Acts. 13 1 2. Revel 1 20. Nehem 8 1 8. Mat. 23 2. Mal 2 7. Act. 14. 23. And practise of the primitive churches And of this Ministerie of Pastors and Teachers M. Smyth himself approveth in his Principles pag. 18. and in his Questions and answers pag. 8. printed this last year 1609. he describing the officers of the Church devides them first into Bishops and Deacons then the Bishops into Pastors or Teachers or Elders and withal describeth the Pastor to be a bishop over one particular Church excelling in the word of wisdome The Teacher to be a Bishop over one particular church excelling in the word of knowledge The Governour to be a Bishop of one particular visible Church excelling in wise government Thus hath he written and yet we having no other Ministerie then he himself approveth chargeth us to have a false Ministerie not caring to crosse himself so he may utter his bitternes against the Church of Christ The 3. corruption this adversarie chargeth us withal is false worship of reading books This he sayth but proves it not I will breifly set downe our practise that the Reader may take notice how unjustly we are charged 1. For prayer giving of thanks that is publiquely performed by our Pastor or Teacher who invocate the name of God praise him for his benefits â—s the spirit directs their harts to conceive and giveth utterance â—ithout the use of any book during that action according to those â—ptures Rom. 8. 26. 27. Eph. 6 18 19. Col. 4 2. Act. 6 4. Num. 6 23. â—4 27. Nehem. 9 3 38. Ezra 9 5 15. 10. 1. Ioel. 2 17. 2. They read the holy scriptures translated into our owne language â—me two or three chapters or moe as tyme wil serve shewing briefly the â—eaning thereof Which is warranted by these Scriptures Neh. 8 3 8. â—eut 31 11. Act. 15 21. Col. 4 16. 1 Thes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 4 13. 3. The Pastor or Teacher taketh some Scripture which they ordinarily â—llow and after the reading thereof do expound and apply the same by doctrine exhortation c. to the further edification of the church according to these scriptures Luk. 4. 16. 21. Act. 8. 35. 13 15. and 26. 7. â— Tim. 4 13. 2 Tim. 4 2. And together with the preaching of the word the Sacraments are administred after the rules of Christ with prayer and thankesgiving according to these Scriptures Mat. 28 19. 1 Cor. 11 23. c. Act. 20 7. c. 4. Some of the Psalmes of David before and after the exercise of the â—ord the same being first read and opened by the Pastor or Teacher is â—ing of the whole church together to the praise of God and our own ediâ—â—cation according to these Scriptures Eph. 5 19. Col. 3 16. Mat 26
another contrarie to the scripture for the truth sake That Augustine was an heretick and condemned Auxentius for the truth contrary to the Scripture resteth for you to prove if you can I have already proved that the denying of Baptisme to Infants is an error you have not in all this your writing confuted the same as wil appeare in the answer And here let it be observed that you acknowledge AuxeÌ„tius Pelagius to be hereticks so these your errors to have bene first broched by men iustly condemned for heresie for you say one heretick condemned another Further concerning the fathers by me alleadged in the 6. page of my writing to shew the practise of Churches in baptising of Infants you passe them over with this answer saying I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Cyprian Origine Nazianzene Ambrose and many others were as grosse hereticks if he be an heretick that holdeth an heresie as Auxentius and Pelagius c. That these Fathers and others had their errors we do not deny but that they were hereticks and such as did obstinately defend their errors being convinced therof by the word of God is more I think then you can prove we do not say that the holding of every error makes an heretick but when he that holds an error and persisteth obstinately therin after admonition â— say that such a one is to be rejected Tit. 3. 10. And though you could â—ove those fathers as grosse heretiks as Auxentius Pelagius as I know â—u can not in that sense as the Scripture taketh this word Hâ—reticke yet â—is opinion of those Catabaptists is not therby iustifed for as an heretique â—ay hold some points hereticall so may he some truthes And you are to â—ove that those fathers did vnjustly condemn Auxentius and Pelagius â—r the denying of the baptisme of Infants or els you Answer not to the â—urpose As for our acknowledging of the Auncient fathers to be Antichristian â—t is more theâ— you have froÌ„ me or can shew that I have so affirmed in deed â—n there tymes the churches were in declyning and through ignorance and careles taking heede to the word Sathan beganne to prepare way for Antichrist but that we account them simply Antichristian as fallen into that deepe Apostacy we doe not they had some Ceremonies and other observances that we approve not of yet reteyned they many of gods ordinances wherof Paedobaptistry is one And where as yov say it is no more to be respected 〈◊〉 the Ancient Churches then the Prelacy and read prayer in the same we have learned by the word to put difference betwene the things of God reteyned in Churches declyning and the inventions of men though you cast out both together account vs AntichristiaÌ„ for the same next you proceed to examine my Arguments from the scripture alledged to prove that Infants are to be baptised 1. OF THE FIRST POSITION concerning the Baptising of infants Rich Clifton Argument I. Gen. 17. 10. God made his covenant to Abraham and to his seed from whence I reason thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him and to all his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfore that is commanded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrhams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2. 39 sayth the promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are a farre off as many as the Lord our God shall call In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive and were baptised into And therfore is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is sayd to redeme vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8. 9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant for otherwise ABRAHAMS covenaunt should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a tyme Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs and to our infants els it is not the same that by the coÌ„mandement of God For the abolishing of circuÌ„cisioÌ„ the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospell doth not abrogate or disannul the commaundement of sealing the covenaunt to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant beloÌ„gs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seale thereof to them to their seede as it did to Abraham to his seed The outward ceremony onely changed Mr Smyth To this Argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two coveâ—nts or testaments for a covenant testament is all one in the originals though â—he English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham and his carâ—al seed and of that covenaÌ„t was circuÌ„cisioÌ„ a seale another covenaÌ„t made with AbrahaÌ„ and his Spirituall seed and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seale for â—he carnall covenant had a carnal seale vpon the carnall seed the Spirituall covenant had a Spirituall seale vpon the Spirituall seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnall seale could not seale vp the Spirituall covenant to the Spirituall seed for to say so is to leap over the hedge and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth c. Rich Clifton Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham a carnall a spirituall the one with Abraham and his carnall seed the other with him and his spirituall seed I answer first that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation which is That God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was * Gen. 17. 10. 11. Râ— 4. 11. sealed with circumcision and it is the same covenant that is established by the †2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12. bloud of Christ vnto all the faithfull seed sealed vnder the Gospell * Mat. 19. by baptisme in stead of circumcision Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed the scripture knoweth none In this covenant is promised through Iesus Christ remission of sinnes iustification life everlasting with all saving graces to all that †Heb. 8. â— Ier. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11. beleeve And that this is so the
Apostle doth witnesse saying * Gal. 3. 17 and this I say that the covenant which was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ the law which was 430 yere after cannot disannull Where it is to be noted 1. that this covenant that was given to Abraham was but one 2. that it was in respect of Christ therefore was that spirituall covenant 3. that it was confirmed vnto him which is more then a bare offer Secondly I deny that God ever made any carnal covenant eyther with Abraham or with the Israelites seing he made but two testamentâ— all with his people and both of them spirituall the new Testament yoâ— graunt to be spirituall and that the old is so the Apostle doth witnesse câ—ling the law which is a part of the old Testament both †holy and spiritâ— Rom. 7. â— 14. all This law covenant or old Testament God gave to Israel and they diâ— * promise to keepe it and so were bound to the observation of a spirituaâ— Exod. 19. â— and not of a carnal covenant Besides this first Testament was not made with Abraham seing it can not be shewed that he or the fathers did vndertake the keeping thereof vnder penaltie of the curse as †Israel did Deut. 27. â—5-26 And as for the promise of Canaan which Abraham beleeved that his seed should inherite it was annexed vnto that covenant made with him in Christ as saith the Apostle that †Godlynes hath the promise of the life present and of â— Tim. 4. that which is to come And therefore can no more be called a carnall covenant or be said to be sealed with circumcision then the promise of the life present vnto vs may be called carnall or to be sealed with baptisme And that circumcision was not given as a seale to confirme vnto Abraham and his seed onely the land of Canaan as you affirme in your answere to my second argument Reason 1. but to seale vnto him and to his seed the covenant of salvatiô as may be gathered from that very place of Gen. 17. 8. 9. Where Moses having set downe the sume of the covenaunt that concernes Abraham and his seed ver 7. in vers 8. repeates that promise of Canaan before made vnto him Gen. 13. 15. and with all sayth I will be their God which is that spirituall covenaunt here againe purposely repeated because he would shewe that the commaundement of circumcision which followes in the next vers was given for a seale thereof ver 11. And that it is so to be vnderstood the spirit who knoweth the minde of the Lord so expoundeth it Rom. 4. 11. saying after he received the signe of circumcision the seale of the righteousnes of fayth c. by which place it is evident that circumcision was a signe of the spirituall covenant made with Abraham and not of an other different from this called by you a carnall covenant The covenaunt in Christ made to Abraham was confirmed vnto him Gal. 3. 17. and there is no mention of any other signe given vnto him but of circumcision ergo Againe if God gave circumcision to be a seale to Abraham and his carâ— seed as you affirme what had the Proselites to do with this signe â—y were they to be circumcised seing they were not of Abrahams carnal â—d this signe could not seale vnto them the land of Canaan who had â— promise thereof yet were they circumcised Exod. 12. 48 thereâ—e they were partakers of that covenant wherof circumcisioÌ„ was a signe â—t concerning Canaan it was promised onely to Abrahams seed after the â—sh and so you say then must it needs follow that the Proselites were â—artakers of the spirituall covenant and so received circumcision as a seal thereof And thus it is manifest that circumcision was no signe of any â—carnall covenant made to Abraham as you affirme Also that to Abraham was made but one covenant the very phrase of the holy Ghost intimates so much for in speaking thereof the scripture useth the * Gen. 17. 4. 7. Gal. 17. singular number neyther do we read of any moe testaments or covenants but two the old the new the former given vnto Israel in the wildernes a long time after that God had made his covenant with Abraham in the Messiah to come Further you say that circumcision being a carnall seale could not seale a spirituall covenant but the seale therof must be the spirit c. I require of you what you meane by a carnal seale if you mind that circumcision is carnall because of the cutting of the foreskinne I graunt that there was a cutting of the flesh or if you mean carnal because it was an external signe who wil deny it But what is this to the purpose for the flesh of Christ was lanched persed with nailes yet for all that it was a spirituall sacrifice and the sacraments of the new testament be outward and visible thinges yet are they signes of spirituall things and so circumcision though it was externall by incision of the flesh yet was it a visible signe of an invisible grace of that spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham Againe concerning your devised carnall covenant with circumcision which you say is a type of the spirituall covenant and spirit I answer that circumcision and Canaan typed out spirituall things promised but were not a carnal covenaunt to type out the spirituall which was already made with Abraham neither doth the scripture teach us that God did make a carnal covenant with him and his seed thereby to accept them to be his people for that could not be by any other covenant then onely by that in Christ there being no reconciâ—ation to God †2 Cor. 5. 19. but in him And although the spirrit be the * RoÌ„ 8. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 1. 22. 5 5. Gal. 4. 6 Ephe. 1. 14. earnest or pledge of Gods promises in our harts yet for the further strength◠〈◊〉 and confirming of our weak faith the Lord both before the Law to A 〈…〉 ham and so vnder the Law and likewise vnder the gospel hath to his 〈◊〉 venant annexed certayne outward signes as seales thereof And thus you having set downe your distinction of two covena 〈…〉 Wish that they may be remembred and orderly applyed and the argument say y 〈…〉 will appeare of no valew c. There can be no orderly applying of disorderly things your distin 〈…〉 on brings all out of order and therefore this double covenaunt being denied and not by you proved my argument stands firme in all the parts thereof And the maior vnderstood of that spirituall covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed the Minor is truly assumed out of the Maior and so is no sophisme Furthermore the crosse of Christ hath not abolished the covenant made vnto Abraham but coÌ„firmed it nor yet abrogated the sealing thereof save onely changed the outward signe that therby he might put some
the lawe ordeyned to like vse vnto the Iewes 〈…〉 m this placeis that there are two seeds Ismaell of Abra 〈…〉 carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah 〈…〉 seed 〈…〉 this type th 〈…〉 that Hagar Ismael did shadow 〈…〉 lawe with her children 〈…〉 bondage and Sarah â— Ierusalem and her children which 〈◊〉 and sonnes by promise â—nding hereby not onely Abrahams 〈◊〉 seed 〈…〉 e vnder bondage 〈◊〉 through the observation of the law looked for 〈…〉 tion But all o 〈…〉 s whatsoever that by pretending to observe the law â—â—pe thereby to be instified as by applying this doctrine to the Galathians â—ppeareth But you say Hagar and Ismael typed the carnall seed after the flesh â— All that the Apostle sayth is this that he that was borne of the servant 〈…〉 e after the 〈◊〉 meaning thereby that he was not bornâ— by promise 〈◊〉 mother that was free as Isaac was and so did typâ—â—â—t as afore 〈◊〉 the state and condition of them that seek iustification by the works of 〈…〉 what you affirme more then this you must prove 3. You say there are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall 〈…〉 〈◊〉 carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a 〈◊〉 spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed Ephe. 1. 13. First I deny that circumcision is the seale of any other covenant ◠〈◊〉 â— Gal. â— Gen. â— of that †one covenaunt made with Abraham 〈…〉 of Christ w 〈…〉 was confirmed vnto * him and to his seed therby a 〈…〉 spirit calleth circumcision a ‡ Gal. 4. seale of the righteousnes of faith And lastly because Isaac that was borne by * Gal. 4. promise was circumcised who was partaker of the covenaunt of grace and of the righteousnes which is by faith therefore circumcision was a signe and seale thereof But you will obiect that Isaac was of Abrahams carnall seed and in that respect received circumcision as a seale of the carnall covenant which he also had It is true that Isaac was borne to Abraham after the coÌ„mon course of nature and therefore had he thereby this prerogative to be circumcised which no other children had but Abrahams vntil they or their Parents were by faith partakers of the same covenaunt made with AbrahaÌ„ but it is not true that he received this signe of circumcision as the seale of a carnall covenaunt or of the promise of Canaan onely or that it was a seale vpon the carnal children of Abrahams onely seing 〈…〉 Exod. 12. the beleeving Gentiles as before was observed 〈…〉 and Ismael also was circumcised that had no righ 〈…〉 And â— all such as beleeve have received the gospel are sealed 〈…〉 rit of promise is true but as the spirit doth not onely 〈…〉 promise of God in the hatteâ— of 〈◊〉 but externally â—â— the 〈◊〉 cheth the same Heb. 8. 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. 15. so doth he both inwardly â— outwardly seale the sâ—me promise to them vnto whom it belongs Tâ— * spirit and circ 〈…〉 on are seales of the same covenaunt of grace righteousnes â— Gor. 1. â— 21. 22. â—he 1. 13. â—erd with â—om 4. 11. of faith And thus may you see that your distinction of two seales of two severall covenants a carnal and a spiritual is but a devise of your owne invention which wil fall to the ground when Poedobaptistry shall stand firm against 〈◊〉 strongest reasons though you hold it to have a sandy foundatiâ—◠〈…〉 next place you answer to the scriptures by me alleadged to prove 〈◊〉 of my argument and first to that of Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. you say 〈◊〉 proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenaunt made with 〈…〉 all seed and not a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with the faithful for 〈…〉 it is the seale thereof 〈◊〉 answered you before that circumcision was a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham and have proved the same by those places of Rom. 4. 11. and Gen. 17. 7-12 although you labour to infringe the the testimony of the Apostle saying that it is not the scope of the place but this viz. that circumcision had one specialitie in Abraham differring from all other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the father of all the faithful as concerning the matter of their iustification c. The words of the Apostle are so playne as you cannot shift them off for Paul proving that Abraham was iustified by faith and that faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnes when he was vncircumcised sayth after he received the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Ram. 4. 9. 10. 11. Doth not the Apostle plainely affirme that circumcision was a seale of the righteousnes of faith which â—â— Cor. 1. 30. Act. 13. 39. 2 Cor. 5. 21. righteousnes what is it else but the matter of Gods spirituall covenaunt made to Abraham for Christ the substance of this covenaunt is this righteousnes by which Abraham and all the faithfull ‡ are iustified And you confesse that by circumcision Abraham was sealed vp to be the father of the faithful 〈…〉 ning the matter of their iustification Now if it did seale to Abraham the â—uall covenaunt then is circumcision a seale of the covenannt of salvaâ— and not of a carnall covenaunt as you affirme And if circumcisiâ— a 〈◊〉 Abraham of this heavenly promise then is it so to all his 〈…〉 God put no difference in commaunding him and his seed to â—cumcised as to say to Abraham that this sacrament should seale vnâ—â—im the covenaunt of grace and to his seed a carnall covenaunt but â—d thus to Abraham †Gen. 17. 9. 10. thou also shalt keep my co 〈…〉 thou and thy seed afâ— thee in their generations But say you he was sealed vp toâ—â— the father of the faithâ—l that as he was iustified by faith so should they be and th◠〈…〉 ltie had circumcision in Abraham differing from all other That Abraham had this prerogative above others to be â—â—e father of the faithful is not denyed but to affirme that circumcision â—â—s not a seale of the spirituall covenant is false and you answer not the Apostle but shift it off with saying this specialtie had circumcision in Abrahan differing froÌ„â—ther which is no conscionable dealing seing you cannot but 〈◊〉 that Paul having affirmed that Abrahams faith was imputed to him 〈…〉 â—ousnes when he was vncircumcised doth prevent this obiection 〈…〉 Abraham was iustified being vncircumcised to what end was he then cir 〈…〉 cised to which the Apostle answers that his circumcision was not iâ— vayne but was given of God and by him received as a seale of the righâ—â—ousnes of his faith so setting downe the vse of circumcision not limitting the same as a specialty to Abrahams fatherhood but as the proper end or vse of the sacrament it self belonging to all others that were circumcised as well
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
the faithful and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh yea some infants circumcised should be types as the carnal seed of Abraham and other infants circuÌ„cised as well as they to wit the children of the Proselytes should be no types for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self nor you with the truth Secondly I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful Paul sayth * that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat 1 Cor. 10. â— 5. drank the same spirituall drink c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended and after the enumeration of many particulars the Apostle sayth all these through faith obteyned good report Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful if infaÌ„ts of the faithful then were they types of theÌ„selves 3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham as Isaac Iacob c. were the true children of Abraham Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh * Rom. â— 16. 17. 19 20. 23. â— coÌ„ferd wâ— Gen. 17. â— 9. 13. Joâ— 44. sonnes of the promise of life so to be reputed as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of beleeâ—ers But say you If you wil make true consequents you must reason from the type to the truth and not from the type to the type neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do c. And I answer you neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed But as for my confounding of the covenants and seales that is your bare affirmation and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham for your carnal and spirituall infants is answered before Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed then you undertake to prove the contrary saying That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands commeth in place of circumcision made with hands Collos 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11. By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promised the †Deut. 1â— 16. 30. circumcision of the hart and the hart of their seed as before is shewed and they had the grace together with the outward signe therefore your reason is insufficient and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning Towching the place of the Romaines 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced Rom. 2â— the Iewes of syn vers 17. 24. they might object what doth our circumcision nothing profit us that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles yea sayth he if thou keep the law els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision vers 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law before circumcision transgressing the law vers 26 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites the inward and outward circumcision sheweth who is a true Iew not before men but before God viz he that is one within wherein is no guyle And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation which is not onely outward but of the hart this is the Apostles meaning and not to teach that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh c. as you affirm That other place Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the â—2 11. former for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel in this verse he denyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh which was specially urged seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge seal and witnes of our inward renuing or regeneration therefore having baptisme to confirme these graces vnto them need not the use of outward circumcision And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught â—â—e 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes by nature corrupt but also after an especiall manner strangers without God c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise which is the spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Ephe. 1. 13. 14. Although circumcision was set in the flesh yet was it not a seale of the flesh but of the * spirituall covenant and the holy spirit of promise succeedes RoÌ„ 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them that heavenly covenant of salvation as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly as in Abraham Isaac Iacob and the rest yea the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision for they being converted were after circumcised Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “ assured by the â—om 4. â— 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision you quote Ephes 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes because they were called by the same gospel which they imbraced by fayth and sealed up by the same spirit which is the earnest of our inheritance And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision Againe the spirit being invisible is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant Further you say I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new teâ—stament though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal I say therefore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament spiritual and yet visible and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water as Peter
whereby you seeme to understand confession you cannot but know that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words was the extraordinary geving of the spirit wherewith he and the rest were indued and not onely that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true beleever as by the text is plainly to be seen which sayth that they of the circumcision were astonied as many as came with Peter because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost For they heard them speak with tongues And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them even as upon us at the beginning Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them viz there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre and it sat vpon each of them and they were filled with the holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinarie for he came not so upon all that were baptised Act. 8. 36 37. 16. 14. 15. 33 seing * the multitude was astonished â—ct 2. 6. â— 12. wondred all and marveyled Therefore that comming of the spirit upoÌ„ Cornelius and his company was extraordinary for Peter sayth The holy Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them baptisme for he seing them partakers of the spirit sayth can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we This visible seale seale of the new Testament say you is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confession That confession is not the seale of the new Testament I have already proved And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old TestameÌ„t thus farre may be granted that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance and so is baptisme now to us a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pagans but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our baptisme Act. 19. â— Rom. 10 10. King 18 â— Exo. 19. â— Psa 107. â— 21. 31. Esa 29. 13. â—e DaÌ„ ch 9 Exo. 12. â—8 Act. â— 27. c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God and his truth not onely by circumcisision but also †with words to his praise And I make no question but the Proselytes before they were “ circuÌ„cised made confession of their faith Baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale I pray you Sir of what seale is baptisme the manifestation Confession you say is the visible seale of the new testament Doth it manifest our confession it needs not for that is visible If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace it is true but thereby we are assured of Gods promise and so is the visible seale thereof Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to coÌ„firme the consequence of my Argument the first whereof is Collos 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme coÌ„meth in the rome of circumcision this you deny so to be construed and say That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision c. That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcisioÌ„ was the seale I wil further manifest prove both out of this place of the Collossians and also by other reasons First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Gospel proveth that the Church stands no need therof seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvatioÌ„ he answereth that neyther needed they to be circumcised because they were spiritually circumcised And whereas the Collossions might have objected that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof which if we want our state is not so good as their was yea sayth Paul that it is for in stead of outward circumcision you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children under the Gospel the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed this is the meaning of the Apostle and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Now I vvil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant First the sacraments of the nevv Testament have the same end scope in respect of the thing signified with the sacraments under the law For as Paul attributed the same vertue efficacy and effect of our baptisme the Lords supper * 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers so doth he ascribe to the beleevers under the gospel the efficacy of the †Cor. â— Pascall lambe “ Col. 2. 1â— 12. and circumcision therfore in respect of the thing signed there is no difference the same Christ was the Lambe * Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world Also the same instrument and meanes of application the same †Rom. 4 16. c. faith end and effect one and the same righteousnes of faith the same “ Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham the same spirituall circumcision of the hart both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel so that in all these things there is no difference which plainely argues that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments 2 This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and baptisme together in their special vses and ends There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptisme viz to * be signes of the covenant â—o 4. 11. â— c. Gal â—6 Mar. â— 16. conâ—d with â—om 4. 11 Deut. 10. â— 30. 6 â—it 3. 5. â—er 4. 4. â—l 2. 11. â—uk 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 â— 6. 4. 6. â—om 2. 29. â—hil 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 â— Exo. 12. â— Act. 8. â— 16. â— 33. â—at 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 â—2 1 Cor. â—2 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ both of the sacraments of †regeneration “ requiring repentance and mortification both signifying that we are corrupt and by the ¶ blood of Christ to be clensed by both of them such as were * without were received into the communion of the Church And by both of them Gods people were †discerned from
that very place the holy Ghost distinguisheth between such as were borne in the house and bought with mony as between them that were by their birth of the family of those that being bought were received into his house Secondly the children of belevers be eyther members of the Church Ephe. 2. 12. and within the covenant or els without if without then are †they aliants from the comon welth of Israel strangers from the covenants of promise without Christ without hope and without God in this world for this the Apostle sets downe to be the state of them that are without but thus Christ did not esteme of infantes who sayd “ suffer litle children to come to me for of such is the kingdome “ Marc. 10 13. 14. of God nor Pau †1 Cor. 7. â—4 that sayd but now are they holy speaking of the children of belevers Concerning the pareÌ„ts of these childreÌ„ that were brought to Christ which you say cannot be proved belevers by these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. I have shewed before what I thought of them But if they â—re baptised say you Christ cannot intend baptisme vnto them Who labours to prove that Christ in blessing them did intend Baptisme vnto them This I sayd that such as are of the Kingdome of God and capable of the blessing of Christ are not to be denyed baptisme And that infantes are such I have proved from these scriptures Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. And therefore baptisme not to be denyed them 2. If the Apostles by putting back infantes presented to Christ declare playnely that infants were not to be brought to be baptised by Christ the infantes were not to be baptised by Christ nor coÌ„manded to be baptised by him But the first is true Ergo c. The assumption is denyed for if the children were not brought to be baptised how can the Apostles putting them back signifie that infants are not to be baptized the bringers of them did expresse their mind wherefore they brought them Agayne if the Apostles by putting the infants back did erre and by Christ are thereof rebuked what can you conclude from their example but this not to judge them vnworthy of Christ and of his ordinances whome he approveth receiveth The Scripture speakes not one word that they did put them back as judging them vnfit for baptisme 3. If the persons presenting Infants to be blessed and prayed for do not desire baptisme for them then they knew no such custome used by Christ to baptise them But the first is true Ergo c. Whether they knew any such custome or not it is not to the purpose Christ did as occasion was offerred he satisfyed them according to their desire 4. If Christ receiving infants praying for them blâ—ssing them doth neyther baptise them nor coÌ„maund his disciples to baptise them then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptised or els he forgat his duetie in not teaching baptisme of Infants upon so iust an occasion But Christ did neyther baptise them nor command his disciples to baptise them neyther did he forget his dutie c. Ergo. I answer the consequent followes not Christ his pleasure was not against that †GeÌ„ 17. 1â— general commandement given first to Abraham for the setting of the seale unto his covenant to all the faithful and their seed Also Christ performed as much as they intreated for at his hands and though he taught not all things at one time yet was it no forgetting of his dutie â—eing in due time he taught all things 5. They that are not actually possessed of the promises or covenant are not actually to be invested with baptisme Infants are not actually possessed in the coâ—â—nant seing they performe not the condition viz. confession of their sinnes and their faith actually Ergo c. If you mean by actually possessed such a state right or possession as the Lord of his free grace hath infeoffed his people withall by vertue of the â—en 17. 9. â—1 Act. 39. 1 Cor. 14. graunt of his covenant to Abraham I deny the minor and say that infants of beleevers are †children of the covenant and of the kingdome and actually possessed thereof As concerning the reason annexed to the minor it is answered before that the Lord requires the actuall vse of faith and repentance of them that are of yeares and not of infants And thus much for confirmation of my third reason Argument IIII. 1 Cor. 7. 14. If the children of beleeving parents be holy then are they within the covenant of Abraham and so consequently have right to the seale thereof But the first is true 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo the second Touching the former proposition I take it that none will affirme holynes in any that are not of the covenant for in that respect Israel was called an holy nation Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. and all others vncleane Act. 11. 3. and 10. 15. that were without If infants be within the covenant then cannot the seale be denyed to such seing the Lord hath joyned the promise and seale together Gen. 17. 10. which no man may or ought to separate Mat. 19. 6. What can be objected against the assumption I see not seing the Apostle playnly affirmes but now are your children holy Vnlesse it may be sayd as of some I have heard that as the vnbeleeving wife is sanctified to the husband so are the children viz to the use of their Father but this to affirme is a great abusing of the scripture For the Apostle in that place answering an obiection that the faithfull is defiled by the societie of the unfaithful proveth that the faithful husband may with good conscience use the vessel of his unfaithful wife by an Argument froÌ„ the effects namely because their children which are borne of them are accounted holy or within the promise God having sayd to all the faithful I will be thy God and the God of thy seed As for that other strange exposition that the Children of a beleeving father are no otherwise sanctified theÌ„ the unbeleeving wife is unto her husband viz to their fathers use onely that can not stand with the meaning purpose of the Apostle For so much may be sayd of an unbeleeving servant that he is for the vse of his master to do him service if children be no more holy then so then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father neither is the objectioÌ„ removed by this answer If it be further pressed that the unbeleeving wife is sayd to be holy as well as the children yet is she not within the covenaÌ„t I answer that she indeed is not holy as be her children for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant and therefore she is sayd to be sanctified to her husband the Apostle respecting their mariage which though it was contracted before eyther party beleeved yet stands firme and
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
John and the Apostles Ergo. c. R. Clyfton First the Major of your former Sillogisme is not necessarily true your selfe confesseth †that every consequent necessarily deduced from the scripture is as wel Parallels â—g 71. and as truely the word of truth as that which is in playne termes expressed c. and therefore you ought to have added nor ground of the scripture or such like 2. The minor I deny and haue proved that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants Your second Syllogisme may be granted save that the conclusion seemes to entend more then the propositions viz in these words are the persons to be baptised as yf onely such not infants as can confesse their faith are to be baptised which I deny Before you proceed to confirme your argument you labour first to remove my answer saying Although a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevaile yet I say the Lord can not leave vs in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainely and faithfully with vs c. You graunt a necessarie consequence in all cases shall prevaile why not in this particular Your reason is seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old c. and Moses hath set downe distinctly and plainly the persons with their qualifications to be circumcised c. either Christ hath as plainely and fully set downe these particulars or els the new testament is not so playne as the old 1. By this your reason you iniure God his word who leaft the Iewes in the books of Moses onely to consequences towching that great point of the resurrection which yet Christ accounted sufficient and against the Sadduces drewe his Argument to prove the resurrection out of Exodus 3. 6. where no such thing is expressely mentioned and so by your doctrine he dealt not plainely and faithfully Also every other argument that he or the Apostles used upon a necessarie consequence can not stand with the open face of the gospel thus far doâ—h your reason exteÌ„d but I wil come to your particular whereof you would have it understood viz that Christ can not deale faithfully if for the baptising of infants he hath not as playnely described the ordinance of baptisme the persons with all other circumstances c. Do you thinke that if Christ have not set downe every circumstance about baptisme that he is therefore unfaythful what think you of his describing of the other Sacrament where is it set downe so playnely that wemen shal be partakers thereof there is no mention that any woman was present at Christs administration of his last supper where is the tyme so described for the administration thereof as was for the Passeover must Christ for this be accused to have dealt not so faithfully as Moses had our Saviour any need to teach or write otherwise then he hath done about the sacraments seing it is the same covenant under the Gospel that was sealed to the old Church and a commaundement given for the sealing thereof unrepealed that which was to be chaunged concerning the outward ceremonie Christ hath plainely set it downe with direction for for the administration thereof And that which was needful for Moses in describing circumcision was not so necessarie for Christ in describing of baptisme because circumcision was to be administred onely to the males but baptisme to both sexes circumcision on the 8. day baptisme is tyed to no strict time and therefore the particular description of these circuÌ„stances might wel be omitted and no unfaithful dealing in Christ As for the minding of it to be administred to infants there was no use of any such particular direction seing the Lord had once ordeyned to seal his covenant to the faithful their seed renueth the same in a general maner under the Gospel which may suffice to all that are sober minded For it had bene easily said go teach c. baptise them if they have any infants baptise them c. It is not for man to prescribe wisedome how to speak things are taught plainly inough if God give men eares to heare But say that Christ Iohn and the Apostles leaveth direction for this meane matter onely by dark far fetched probable coniectures consequence from the old testameÌ„t whiâ—h was onely typical c. and hath not left evident grounds for it expressly in all the foresaid pâ—rticulars c. is to say that Christ is not so faithful in his office propheticall as Moses was c. For these things which we defend are playne enough and no darke or farfetched coniectures except to such whose eies the Lord hath blinded Concerning our Reasons drawen from the writings of the old Testament we do herein follow the exaÌ„ple of Christ his Apostles who did confirme and prove that doctrin which they preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets Paul sayth †that he witnessed to smal and great saying no other things then Act. 26. those which Mâ—ses and the Prophets did say should come notwithstanding I have also confirmed this doctrine of baptisiing of infaÌ„ts from the new TestameÌ„t In that you say the old Testament was onely typical you must explaine your meaning for although some things were * typical vnder the old TestameÌ„t Heb. 10. 8. 13. â— 9. 1-9 â—l 2. 16. 17 Gal 4. 24. â—5 yet other things were Moral as the Moral †law which was a parte of it preaching prayer and other spiritual parts of worship which were commaÌ„ded vnder the old Testament Agayne That Christ hath left vndeniable groundes in the Scriptures for the baptising of infants before is shewed Moreover seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp and preached obscurely in the old Testament and types thereof it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrection c. but now that the new Testament being written c. why should we be sent to obscurities and coniectural consâ—quentes c. Because the bookes of the new Testament were not written Christ and the Apostle might reason froÌ„ obscurities coniecturall coÌ„sequents out of the old TestameÌ„t do you thus argue indeed was Christs reasoning obscure for the resurrection do you thinke the Saduces would have bene soner perswaded if the new Testament had bene written and Christ had reasoned from it no more then you wil be perswaded to beleeve the baptising of infants for al the reasons we bring frome the same He that wil not beleeve Moses and the prophets wil not beleeve the Apostles Agayne I deny that to reason from the Scriptures of the old Testament is to reason from obscurities the Apostles have made all things cleere and manifest Ephe. 3. 5-9 whose writings do further us to the vnderstanding of the prophets Christ himselfe sends vs to search those Scriptures Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter â— Pet. 1. â— sayth †yee do wel if you take heed to the word of the Prophets as before is observed Besides
the Trinitie of persones vnitie of essence in the Godhead is proved by playne wordes 1. John 5. 7. c. That the Trinitie is proved by this scripture and by divers other places I deny not yet in these expresse words That there be 3. persons in one Godhead is not so set down in this place or in any other Nether is found to be in those playn words though the same thing may be concluded out of the Scriptures But I did instance these to shew that every thing is not set down in so playn and expresse words as you would bear us in hand Finally I say shew me any necessarie consequence for baptising of Infants out of the old Test. or the new and I yeeld This I have done already but for your yeelding it is not in your owne power but in †Phi. 2. â— God that must shew mercy and give grace which I pray the Lord to give you Amen Yet a reason or two I wil here adde unto my former to prove that infants of beleevers are within the covenant from Gal. 3. 29. thus I reason Whosoever are Christs are Abrahams seed within the covenant The children of beleevers are Christs Therefore Abrahams seed with in the covenant and so consequently have right to baptisme the seal thereof The Assumption is thus proved Children be eyther Christs or els they * Act. 4. cannot be saved But they “ Mar. â— 13. 14. may be saved Ergo c. 2. The infants of beleevers are eyther of the church †Eph. 1. 2. 23. which is the body of Christ or without If within then are they of the covenant and Christ is theirs for he * Esa Eph. â— 25 -27. 2. 18. 22. is given for and to his Church and is the saviour of it and so being of the church baptisme must belong unto them But if children be without the covenant then are they “ Eph. 2. 1 without God without hope and without promise of salvation and so their estate as hethen and the children of beleevers no more holy then the children of infidels though Paul witnesseth the contrary But I desire it may well be observed that you are driven to consequents for this matter and secondly that the Gospell of Christ is for babes Matth. 11. 25. c. What except you against a necessary consequence is not that maÌ„ner of reasoning lawful did not Christ so reason as before is shewed you your self do †Paraleâ—â— pag. 71. Caract p. 33. justifie it I know if you had such consequents for the baptising of your self you would make them go for currant as indeed they ought But I do not onely reason a consequentibus but set down the expresse †commandement of God for the sealing of yong and old and the example 〈◊〉 17. â— 13. of the Apostle baptising whole families 2. That the Gospel is for babes I graunt and that in Mat. 11. 25. is applyed to men of yeares which are lowly and meek but you must know that the most simple persons as you speak are capable of the mysteries Cor. 13. 12. Heb 11. 14. 6 13. 2 Pet. 4. of the Gospel but in * part and every man hath his tyme of groweth therin and needeth to be instructed that he “ may increase in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ And though the Gospel be playne yet we attayn to the knowledge of it by degrees your self wil confesse this at least your many alterations do testifie thus much against your self and therefore the most simple is not so capable thereof as you pretend Lastly for my consequences which you cal mere hallucinations Sophismes I justifie them against your best arguments how well you have disproved them let the good Reader judg Your second Answer and exception is that if want of special precept and example barr children from baptisme it shal also barre women from the Lords supper I deny it for in playn termes it is sayd 1 Cor. 11. 28. let Anthropos viz. eyther man or woman eat after examination Gal. 3. 28. there is neither male nor female in Christ c. 1 Cor. 12. 13. we have been all made to drink into one spirit and Dorcas is a disciple Act. 9. 36. and the disciples met together together to break bread Act. 20. 7. c. That women are to be partakers of the Lords supper is no question but whether there be commandement or example expressely nameing women that you have not shewed from these scriptures Concerning 1 Cor. 11. 28. there is a word of the common gender but the Apostle sayth not in plaine termes thus let every woman examine her self and so eat seing the word anthropos may be applyed to the man and is sometimes restrayned to man onely as in Matth. 19. 3. is it lawfull for Anthropos to put away his wife and Hebr. 5. 1. and every high Priest is taken ex anthropon And in reproving of their abuse the Apostle useth words of the masculine gender also the words joyned with Anthropos 1 Cor. 11. 28. are of the masculine gender let a man examine himself cauton for he that eateth esthion c this compared with Christs institution where onely men were present though women were in the citie shâ—weth this testimonie not to be so plain as you pretend Neither do the rest of your scriptures prove your desire As for Dorcas being a disciple is no expresse example the women of the Iewes were Moses disciples yet were it not true to reason that therefore they were circumcised As for Gal. 3. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 13. they speak of the spiritual union in Christ and spiritual grassing into his body by the spirit and baptisme but neither of them sayth let women partake of the Lords supper I reason for the plaine termes otherwise I deny not that arguments may be drawn froÌ„ these scriptures to prove that women are to receive the Lords Supper Your 3. Answer and exception followeth wherein you do affirme that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants c. to these I have already answered in the sixt and seventh reasons going before And there also may you receve satisfaction to that you have answered but yet to one objection concerning the commandement once given of the sealing of infants I answer say you besides that baptisme is not the seal of the new Testament but the spirit and that circumcision was not the seal of the everlasting covenant c. So though it were granted that infants of the old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in Christ which I peremptorilie deny yet seing the tyme of circumcision is expired therefore infants are not to be sealed by baptisme To al this it is answered “ pag. 12 37. 38. before that circumcision as also baptisme are seales of the covenant of salvation and though the tyme of circuÌ„cising be expired yet is not the
meaning better then you do For Paul speaketh of Abrahams justification by fayth Rom. 4. 3. 11. asketh how fayth was imputed unto him when he was circumcised or uncircumcised ver 10. answereth when he was uncircumcised Then preventing a double objection that might be made thus 1. If Abraham received the righteousnâ—s of faith when he was uncircumcised then his example seemes to belong to them that are uncircumcised No sayth the Apostle for he received circumcision 2. It might be objected yet it seemeth that he received circumcision in vayn seing he had received the righteousnes of fayth before no sayth Paul for he received it as a seal for the confirmation of his fayth which he had in his uncircumcision Then he expresseth the cause both of Abrahams justification by fayth when he was uncircumcised and also that being justified by fayth he received circumcision viz. that he might be the father of al that beleeve being uncircumcised that righteousnes might be imputed unto them also And the father of circumcision not unto them onely which are of the circumcision but also unto them that walk in the steps of the fayth of our father Abraham c. this is the Apostles meaning Now whereas you affirme that circumcision upon Abraham was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcised that beleeve I desire this may be proved according as you mean For the Apostle sayth it not but thus he received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of the fayth which he had for how could Abrahams circumcision that was applied to his particular person seal up justification to us not to himself seeing a seal is a particular applying of the covenant to the partie that is partaker thereof By this your exposition you make Abrahams circumcision to differ from the circumcision of his seed of which difference the Lord spake not a word in the institution thereof nor in any other place Yet you say the righteousnes of fayth is not sealed up to Abrahams particular person but to the uncircumcised that beleeve Which doctrine is very strange that Abrahams circumcision shal seal that to others those uncircumcised not to himself being circumcised you must therefore bring better proofe hereof els your confident affirmation wil be accepted as the facing out of an error As for the coÌ„mon acceptatioÌ„ translation of Rom. 4. 11. which you say is the mother of this heresie it is confirmed in these words but unto them also that walk in the stepps of the fayth of our father AbrahaÌ„ when he was uncircumcised which makes it plaine that the Apostle understood by the righteousnes of fayth Abrahams righteousnes which he by fayth apprehended and which was sealed up unto him by circumcision Againe al the persons of Abrahams familie were not circumcised because of Abrahams fayth but the males onely the males being assumed as types for to teach them figuratively the male Christ So many of Abrahams familie were circumcised as the Lord commanded to the women it was not injoyned and though Christ was typed out in the circumcision of the male yet as it was a sacrament it sealed unto them the righteousnes of fayth and therefore in Genes 17. 10. it is called the covenant because it was a signe thereof sealing unto them remission of sinns and regeneration by fayth in Christ to come And the femalâ—s were uncircumcised c. to signifie that those that had not the male Christ in them were not fit to be members of the Church of the new Testamentment 1. The females were not accounted as uncircumcised seing they were comprehended under the males and so distinguished from the uncircumcised Gentiles Genes 34. 14. Deut. 7 3. Esa 3 16. 2 I confesse that such as are not in Christ are no fit members of the church but this seemes not the reason why women were not partakers of this sacrament but rather to teach that salvation should come by the male but this alegorising proves nothing Further you say as it was with Abraham and his familie in Circumcision so was it with Lidia c. it is not so I shew the difference in divers particulers 1 They of Abrahams familie were circumcised upon particular precept c. 2. They that â—ere males onely were circumcised c. 3. They that were circumcised of Abrahams familie were al the males being of yeares though never so lewd c. 4. As fayth did not intitle the female to circumcision and as infidelitie did not deprive the male of circumcision so fayth did intitle the female to baptisme in the familie of the Gaylor and â—f Lidia c. To these pretended differences I answer 1. that the precept of sealing the covenant to Abraham is not reapealed onely the ceremonie is changed and that Christ hath given * a coÌ„maundement for the administring 〈◊〉 28. of the signe as the preaching of the covenant to all nations and by vertue hereof were the families of the Gaylor and Lydia baptised and so it was with Lydia and her family as it was with Abraham and his household els was she not the daughter of Abra. entring into Gods covenaÌ„t she hers as Abraham and his entred in seing the holy Ghost saith that the housholdes were baptised without limitation it belongs to you to prove that the children in these families were exempted or els that children are not of the family or els we may not restreyne the Apostles words contrary to the tenure of the first giving of the covenant which was sealed to yonge and old For your first difference I deny that coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to be a particular precept to Abraham and his house alone it was also to all beleevers of the Gentiles and their children and so was it a generall precept to the whole Church for the sealing of the covenant though circumcision was proper to the former Church as baptism is to the church of the new testament and so there needed no particular precept for baptising of infants they being coÌ„prehended under the general For the 2. difference that the â—males onely were to be circumcised I answer this was according to the Lords dispensation then to set his signe on the males now on both sexes but neither then nor now to restraine it from infants Concerning your 3. difference I ask you where the scripture sayth that any wicked persons were circumcised in Abrahams familie Dare you condemne that house which the Lord doth iustifie see Gen. 18. 19. where the Lord saith I know that he wil commaund his sonnes and his household after him that they keep the way of the Lord c. and that infants being males in Abrahams house were circumcised you can not deny for the commandement is that every man child be circumcised and Abraham did so Gen. 17. 12 23. And therefore you must prove that the children in Lydiaes the Gaylors families were not baptised els you shew no difference For your 4. difference it stands upon an unequal
confesse the Lord these were called “ Acâ— proselytes which signifies a stranger coming and converted to their manner of religion as the Eunuch such like And it is not to be doubted that the Iewes would ever admit into their communion and to administer circumcision unto a Gentile that did not renounce his heathnishnes and professe their fayth seeing †Ex. 12 one law was to them that were borne in the land and to the stranger that dwelled amongst them therefore as much required of them that were to joyne to the Church of the old Testament as is now of theÌ„ that wil ioyne to the Church of the new And so I hav shewed you that more was required of theÌ„ that were circumcised then to be a male for every one must be a professor or the child of a professor so much is required coÌ„cerning baptisme no more And to your particulers I answer that these things were also required of the Israelites CoÌ„cerning the two former infants both have Ch. wer are circumcised in hart in that they are partakers of the covenant of graceâ— we are to hold them partakers of Christs benefits Mat. 19. 13. 14. For the third point that we must learne what the schoolmaster of the old Testament doth teach It is for such as are of yeares and was required of the Israelites and not of us onely as the writings of Moses and the Prophets do shew And where you say this must be done of al before they can be baptised it is your addition which you can never prove Moreover if you by old Testament do mean the writings of Moses the Prophets then can not we †learne al that they can teach us whylest we live Cor. 13. â— unlesse you dream of perfection with the Familists and so by your doctrine shal not be baptised But if by old Testament you mean Moses administration Heb. 8. 9. â—3 Gal. 3 25. it is * abrogated and seing “ fayth is come we are not under that schoolmaster to be taught by such legal types and ceremonies as were the Iewes And so your doctrine is false howsoever it be understood And whereas you wonder at me and at your self that we could not see so evident a truth al this tyme for myne owne part I saw I thank God long since and stil do see your evident truth as you cal it to be a manifest Act. 13. 10 error And further I see that God hath given you over to †pâ—rvert the right wayes of the Lord and to be the leader of others into heresie and so for just cause known to himself blynded your eyes and hardened your hart This is that great comfortable state that now you stand in God in his mercy deliver you forth of it To the 2. particular of my Answer to your reason you thus reply 1. Your distinction is without warrant and I deny that Infants of the faythful are to be considered in these two respects And whereas you bring Gen. 17. 7 1 Câ—r 7. 14. to prove the latter part of your distinction I have answered these two places alreadie shewing your false exposition of them c. And these two places of scripture I have likewise formerly proved to stand with my exposition where it wil appear that this is but a calumniatioÌ„ of yours and that my exception is not frivilouâ— For first you wil not deny that the children of the faythfull are carnall in respect of their naturall berth then being proved within the covenant in that regard they must â— Cor. 7. 14 needs be spiritual and as the Apostlâ— calleth them * holy To the third particular of my Answer you reply saying The sacrament of baptisme is prophaned when it is administred upon a wrong subiâ—ct as to give the Lords supper to an infant of two yeares old so to baptise an infant is â—â—phanation c. That to baptise an infant is a prophanation of baptisme I deny and by sundry reasons I have proved the contrarie shewing that infants are not a wrong subject but a right subject for baptisme As for the Lords supper the institution and use of it and the actions duties required of them that eat and drink at that table shew it to be otherwise for the not giving of it to infants But you say As profession of fayth shal intitle any man to al the ordinances of the Church and fâ—rst to baptisme So absence of confession of fayth shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the church in communion And afterward you say Although I dare not say this or that infant is not under the election of God yet I dare say that never an infant in the earth is actually seazed of the new Testament which is onely attayned by confession of sinne and of fayth c. Mar. 1. 15 Ioh. 3. 3. Eph. 3. 17. c. To this I have answered before and have shewed that profession of fayth is required of such as were never of the church and that with them their seed enters in also but that absence of confession shal debarre every one from the orrdinances of the church can never be proved seing there is not a like reason of persons without and of infants borne in the church Also I have shewed that infants are actually seazed of the new Testament according to the â—enure of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed I mean so actually seazed as we are to repute them children of the covenant And here also I mynd that al infants to you stand in the state of condemnation this is your Gospel contrary to Gen 17. 7. Act. 2 39. 3 25. Gal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Concerning the Scriptures which you alledge I answer first that all Mar. â— three places are applyed to them of yeares secondly in Mar. 1. 15. the Evangelist setts down in breif the summe of Christs doctrine the unfolding thereof doth reach to the faythful and their seed as by his own action Iohn 3. â— appeareth Mat. 19. 13. 13. Mar 10. 14. In Ioh. 3. 3. Christ speakes of regeneration without which none can enter into the kingdome of God and he speakes to Nicodemus that was a member of the Iewish church into which as also into the visible Churches under the new Testament many did and may enter into with outward confession onely as did Simon Magus though their harts be not regenerate And therefore this scripture speaking of that grace of God which is imvisible is not fitly alleadged for this purpose where we are to judge of members of the church not as they stand so before God in his secret counsel but as they externally appear to us within Gods covenant by their confession or otherwise That of Ephes 3 17. is also spoken to them that were of yeares who â—h 3 17. being beleevers they theirs were Christs of whom is named the wholâ— familie in heaven
c. And therefore to be as Pagans or Gentiles in the Lords account and to iustifie Apostate Israel reteyning circumcision to be a true Church For your pleading against the adulteries of Rome I dislike not but by these your Arguments manner of pleading you shall never convince her or ever be able to justifie that adulterous Church of Israel neither wil this your reason stand good That circumcision in the Israelites Apostasie was true because it was performed vpon carnal Israelites or proselytes the 8. day And that baptisme in Popery is false and in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing c. for as much may be sayd for baptisme administred to the apostate Church of Antichrist as yoâ— can say for circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel And all that can be sayd is this that neither of them both is in deed capable in that standing For the sacraments belong to the members of a true Church not to apostates But if to be circumcised the 8. day prove that Israels circumcision was true in her Apostacy what letteth the circumcision of the Edomites and Ismaelites to be true also they keeping the 8. day seing they were of the seed of Abraham The right of circumcision belonged to the children of the promise which was made to Abraham in Christ And therfore when any of Rom. 2. 5. 2 Chro. 30 â—-11 AbrahaÌ„s seed did cut off themselves by infidelitie their †circuÌ„cisioÌ„ became vncircumcision on the contrary circumcision though administred in Apostacy vnto infants yea * those coming to yeares and seeking the Lord their circumcision was then profitable to them And so is baptisme in like manner to them that receive it in apostate Churches when they by repentance shall returne to God But you drive all to this yssue that not the profanes of the apostasie but the fittines of the subiect makes the sacrament true or false That infants are as fit subiects for baptisme as the infants under the law for circumcision I haue proved in the former part of this writing Your third answer 3. I declare that Israel was the true church of God or a meÌ„ber Answ of a true Church though infinitely corrupt as wel as Iuda in the dayes of her apostasie c. and therefore if Iudah reteyned true circumcision in her apostasie c. surely the circumcision of Israel was also true This is strange that Israel can be a true Church yet infinitely corrupt caÌ„ â—â—l a wife be a true wife also a harlot thus you may as wel iustify Rome all Antichristian assemblies The holy ghost calleth both * Aholah and Aholibah Ezech. 23 harlots and you in their infinite corruptions instifye them to be true Churches and particularly of Israel the Lord sayth †plead with your Hose 2. 2. mother for she is not my wife And you say she was a true Church that is a true wife directly contradicting the holy Ghost But you reason If Iudah retayned true circumcision in her apostasie then Israell c. Then if eyther Iuda her circumcision was false or that your comparison is not equall your argument is of no forse The sacraments seale up Gods covenant to his people walking in his wayes and not to them when they fall from the faith That of Hosea 2. 2. alledged by some is you say to Prove Israel a false Church you thus answer unto Hosea â— I say it was after the Passeover of Ezechias which was in the first yeare of his reigne 2 Chron. 29. 3. 14. and 30. 2. and the bill of divorce was given the sixt â—re of his reigne 2 King 17. 23. compared with 2 King 18. 10. yet notwithstanding Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophecied of the bill of divorce â—â— be given her Hose 4. 6. 8. 12. c. Concerning the time of Hosea his prophesie when he sayd plead with 〈◊〉 mother c. I take it was in the dayes of Vzziah king of Iuda and about the * Perkiâ— Specimen â— c. pag. 3 †2. Kinâ— 17. 23. 23. yeare of his reigne which was almost 60. yeres before Ezechias began to reigne and before the Lord †put Israel out of his sight Now so long before the prophet was bidden to tel Israel that she was not the Lords wife This being so I would know how you or any can iustify Israel to be a true church when the Lord denyes her she had broken covenant her divorcement as you call it argues as much for men put from them wives that had broken the band of mariage and not true wives To that of Hosea 4. 6. 8. 12. I have answered pag. 152. Furthermore you say when the bil of divorce was given divers of Isâ—ael kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme and went yeerly to Ierusalem I doubt thereof no more then you according to these scriptures 2. Chron. 34. 6. 7. 31. 32. 33. and 35. 18. and 30. 11. but we reason of the face of that Church as it stood in apostasie and so continued and not of particular persons In Babylon god hath his yet the face of that Church of ANTICHRIST is apostate and false to the LORD And so we say of Israel that if we respect the outward face of it it was a false Church to God long before Samaritanisme began And here I observe that you agree not with your self for here you say no manner of sinne made the Church of the old testament a false Church and yet you call it apostate as also you do the like in your Paralels pag. 14. and 26. And it is as much as we say of it for that people that are fallen into apostasie have broken faith and covenant with God And if in any place we call Israel or Antichrists a false Church we meane no other but a Church that hath unfaithfully departed from the LORD and so continues in Apostasie II. Argument BAbylon in Chaldea which was a type of spirituall Babylon Reve. 18. 2. though she did abuse and profane the vessels of the Lord Dan. 5. 3. yet did not that make a nullitie of them that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lord but were brought with them of the captivitie that came up from Babylon to Ierusalem Ezra 1. 11. Even so although spiritual Babylon have profaned the holy things of God as baptisme the rest yet remaine they still Gods ordinances to all them that come out of her Rev. 18. 4. and returne to the celestiall Ierusalem And as these vessels of the house of the Lord need not to be new cast because of Babels polluting them no more is baptisme to be iterated to the people of God because it passed through the polluted hands of the Papists If it be objected that they that administered baptisme in Babilon were Idolaters and had no calling therevnto I answere that they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters so standing
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
Re. or example or els you reiect it as Antichristian now yâ—â— being pressed with this Act of Zippora you shew nether nor any reason for the lawfullnes of the fact and yet you defend it answering that you know nothing to the contrary but Zippora might circumcise her son c. What nedes the Scripture to forbid women to circumcise when for the adminisstring of that ceremony God gave coÌ„maundement that AbrahaÌ„ the * Gen. 17. 7. â—om p. with â—ers 10-13 â—osuah 5. 2 â— 4 master of the family should circumcise al his males as baptisme is now †Mat. 28. 19. injoyned to the Apostles and Ministers of Christ the which commaundements disable all others whether women or men that have not such calling from God for the administeration therof That Zippora did circumcise her sonne by Moses commaundement appeares not in the Scripture but that “ Exo. 4. 24 â—5 she being greeved at her husbands neglect did it But if Moses ought to do it himselfe the question is whether he might commaund his wife to do it The non-residents in England are condemned for preaching by their substitutes and you deseâ—d that a woman may be a substitute to administer a sacrameÌ„t If Zipporah may circumcise in case of necessitie at the appointment of her husband why may not the midvvives in case of necessitie baptise by the appointment of the Preists You pretend rule but in this you practisâ— it not 4. I yeeld that the Minister shall not preiudice baptisme if the baptisme be the Ans Lords owne ordinance c. In this we agree that the Minister if he be not lawfully called doth not Rep. so farre preiudice baptisme as to make a nullitie of it what is further here to be answered is done els where The 2 obiection you answer is that although baptisme be administred in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subiect yet it shall not be repeated no more then circumcision in the dayes of Jeroboam c. My words were these That â—epl the children in that apostasie are as fit subiects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the dayes of Jeroboam were to receive circumcision And you pervert my wordes and say that I affirme that although baptisme be administred in a false Church vpon an vnfit subiect Is this to confesse that infants are vnfit subiects to say they were as fit as the infants of Israel Your self doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apostasie were capable of circumcision I sayd that the infants of the Antichristians were as capable as they not approving of the state of eyther but arguing that if the former might stand for circumcision then also the other without iterating the state of the Antichristians being alike to the apostate Israelites but I will come to your further answer which is this I say that the Israelites infants in there defection were the subiect that God commaunded Ans to be circumcised so are not the infants in Antichristianisme both for that they are 1. infants 2. members of a false Church 3. the seede of vnbeleevers That the Israelites infants in their defectioÌ„ were coÌ„mauÌ„ded to be circuÌ„cised Repl. can not be proved God is no approver of apostasie When he gave to Abraham and his seed circumcision he did intend that it should seale his covenant unto them and that they should continue therein and not apostate and therefore to speak properly the Israelites in their apostasie could be no fit subiects although upon their repentance the Lord let stand their circumcision And so if the state of this people be rightly coÌ„sidered the dissimilitude between their circumcision and baptisme in Antichristian assemblies wil not prove such as you pretend Your reasons to prove infants in Antichristianisme to be no fit subiects of baptisme are of no weight The first of them is answered in the former part of this writing where is proved that infants are fit subiects of baptisme Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichrists Church and deny them to be members of true Churches but to let this passe I answere that this reason is of no force seing your self confesseth that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. it had bene true baptisme To the third I answer that the infants in Antichristianisme are no more the seed of unbeleevers then the infants in Ieroboams Church were the seed of unbeleevers both were the seed of apostates and that is all you can say of them Their parents although apostating from many truthes and polluted with mens inventions yet were not fallen from all profession of Iesus Christ but stil did and do acknowledge salvation by him retayne and beleeve many mayne grounds of faith excellent truthes so many as the Lord hath his people in * Rev. 18. Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by those doctrines there taught And therefore thus I think of such apostates that in respect of their outward standing they remaine in apostasie having forsaken many truthes pollute Gods ordinances practise the cursed inventions of men yet professing faith in God in Iesus Christ though corruptly I can not hold them as infidels simply but as the Israelites in their apostasie and their seed may rather be termed the seed of Apostates then of infidels or vnbeleevers And whereas you say that the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ did â—â— truely belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Israelits though both in defection I deny it for the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelits the carnal seed of Abraham even in their parents Apostacy and the spiritual covenant did never appertayne to the Apostate parents 2. much les to the infants of them c. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be vnder stode of the blessing of Abraham to come vppon any of the Gentiles in their Apostacy but onely being in Christ as the words are also ver 7. and 9. c. I speak comparatively of the seeds of the apostate Israelites and Antichristians affirming the one as fit subiects for baptisme as the other for circumcision because the Gentiles since Christ have as much title to the covenant with Abraham as the Israelites had This you deny shifting off with your devised carnal covenant It is not for the spirituall covenant or Sacrament to belong to Apostates that I contend I know it belongs to the faithful and their seed though you say no. But this was the end wherefore I did alledge Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is inlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as iust clayme to it for them selves and their seed as Israel could do And therefore did reason thus If the children of Israel could chalendg right to the covenant and circumcisioÌ„ their parents being in Apostacy
his use unto such as Acts. 8. 37. 2. â—1 44. Cor. 10. 3 repenting turne to the true church of Christ because baptisme is an ordinance of the new Testament appointed by the Lord himself And though the beleeving Iewes were in Christ members of his mysticall body and their circumcision a seal of the righteousnes of their fayth yet was their fayth in †Christ to come and circumcision did seal up unto them Christ to come And therefore al this being but by fayth in the Messiah to come it was necessarie that they should also receive him now being come and be baptised into his name if they would continue members in his body And so this may answer you why Iohn Christ and his disciples did not admit the Iewes as members of the church of the Gospell with out confession of fayth in CHRIST now come and Baptisme in his name And yet we may receive into our Church them that have been baptised in the Apostate Churches without iterating of baptisme upon the confession of their fayth and repentance Neyther is this to offer indignitie to the LORDS ordinances in the old TESTAMENT as you do seeme to charge us for wee honour them in their place and right use as the Lord then appointed them and your self I suppose wil not say that you offer indignitie to those ordinances of the Lord although you acknowledg that baptisme received in Popery is not be to repeated being administred to such as are of yeares upon their owne profession of fayth Agayne c. I deny that ever the English nation or any one of our predecessors were of Re. the fayth of Christ shew it if you can but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came and put vpon vs her false baptism And therefore though the Romanes might plead this yet England cannot plead it and so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing and our case simply Paeganisme If al this were graunted that you say yet is the state of England in as Ans good case as Rome seing she by your own confession hath Rome for her mother †Ezech 44. and as the mother so is her Daughter If England partake with Rome in her Apostacy and whoredomes she must nedes be a member of her But I pray you Sir wil you admit of that baptisme in Rome without new baptising of such as shal come from thence if you do you overthrow your owne position viz That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme And if you doe not why put you this dissimilitude betwene England and Rome which serves not to the question in hand But you desyre me to shew if I can that the Englishe nation or any one of our predecessors were of the fayth of Christ it may be I cannot shew that any of them were Anabaptists before you which you falsly call the fayth of Christ but I can shew to them that wil heare that our English nation receaved the fayth before Rome fel into this Apostacy First Gildas affirmeth * Act. Monuâ— Book 2. p. 95. Gildas liâ— de vict Aurelij Ambrosâ— that Britayne receaved the Gospel in the tyme of Tiberius the Emperour vnder whome Christ suffered And then was not Rome “ Rom 1. apostate And further he sayth That Ioseph of Aremathea after the dispersion of the Iewes was sent of Philippe the Apostle from France to Britayne about the yeare of our Lord 63. And remayned in Britayne all his time who with his fellowes layed the first foundation of Christian faith among the Britayne people 2 †Tertul. con Indeos Tertullian testifyeth how the Gospell was dispersed abroad by the sound of the Apostles there reconeth up the Medes Persians Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia Iury Cappadocia Pontus Asia Phrygia Egypt Pamphilia with many more at length commeth to the coast of the Morianes and all the borders of Spaine with divers nations of France And there amongest 〈◊〉 other reciteth all the parts of Britayne and reporteth the same to be subiect to Christ And also reckoneth vp the places of Sarmatia of the Danes the Gerrmanes Schythians with many other Provinces and Isles in all which places sayth he reigneth the name of Christ which now beginneth to be common 3. †Origine sayth that Britayne did consent to Christian religion 4. * Nicephorus saith That Symon Origin â— 4. in â—…ch â—icep li. â— â—â—0 Zelotes did spread the gospel of Christ to the west Ocean and brought the same into the Isles of Britayne 5. In the time of the Abbot of Cluniake the Scots did celebrate their Easter not after the Romane maner but after the Greeks as he testifieth to Barnard Which argueth that they had received the faith and not from Rome 6. Also it appeareth by a letter of Elutherius Bishop of Rome written to Lucius King of Britayne anno 169. that Lucius had received the faith of Christ in his Land before he sent to Elutherius for the Romane lawes for so do the words of the letter purport which are these Ye have receiued of late through Gods mercie in the Realme of Britayne the law and faith of Christ you have with you within the Realme both the partes of the scriptures out of them by Gods grace take ye a law and by that law through Gods sufferance rule your kingdome of Britayne c. And thus was fulfilled in Britayne as wel as in Isa 42. 4 other lands the words of the Prophet who sayth “ he shall not fayle nor be discouraged speaking of Christ til he hath set iudgement in the earth and the Iles shall waite for his law And it is also further written of this King Lucius that he did not coÌ„pel the heathen but imbraced such as by the word were converted Which is to be observed concerning the constitution of the Churches then For it is sayd that he founded many Churches and gave great ritches and liberties to the same And because of this imbracing of the faith it caused those great troubles that fel out between the Britaynes which were Christians professing the faith and the infidels who brought in the Romanes which exercised much crueltie amongest the Christians In Dioclesians tyme the Churches of Britayne were greviously persecuted many sufferred for the faith of Christ as Albanus Iulius Aaron Amphibulus many more And thus if it please you to take notice from these writters you may see that this English nation were of such as professed the faith of Christ and and not of a Pagan race til Rome came and put vppon vs false baptisme as as you say neyther that our case is simply paganisme if these things be thus as is aforesayd Next whereas I sayd that repentance of such as were baptised in Apostate Churches was sufficient without rebaptization for their admittance into the church c. You answer That the Churches of Antichrist were false and Rep. the churche
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