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
more auncient then error And although you esteeme not of the testimony of the fathers witnesâ—â—ng against you yet haue you summoned togeither such men as you thought would give any contenance to your error to batle against both the Scriptures and them but their testimony doth little pleasure you as shall appeare by the examination of the particulars The first you alledge is Henr-Pantalâ—on Chro. fol. 6. who saith that Victor Apher anno 193. ordeyned that aâ— Easter it should be indifferently administred to all wherevpon I gather that before his time onely such as were catechised in the faith were baptised for he would not decree that heathen should be baptised This man I take his words upon your report doth mention Victors decree for the time of administration of baptisme to all yong and old viz at Easter But would any but you inferre hereupon that baptisme was not administred before this time to infants You might aswel say that before that time it was not administred to the elder sort for he speakes in generall of the persons to be baptised Victor brings not in baptising of infants which was then the Churches practise but prescribes a certaine time for the general administration of that sacrament as Gelasius did the like anno 494. That infaÌ„ts were baptised before Victors time appeareth by that â—eliques 〈…〉 e p. â— 96. â—â—bius * of Higinius who decreed that children which were to be baptised should haue a Godfather and a Godmother Anno 143. Higinius lived before Victor about 50. yeres Your next Eusebius Hist lib. 7. cap. 8. saith that Novatus reiected the holy baptisme and overthrew the faith and confession which was accustomed before baptisme whereby it appeareth that faith and confession were required before baptisme and therefore the rudiments thereof still remaine that in the baptising of infants a confession of sinne and faith is required of the suretie or parents That confession was required before the baptising of men growne to yeres and newly come to the faith is not denyed and more then this can not be gathered from Eusebius words as you set them downe But what is this against the baptising of infants Howbeit I find not this of Novatus in Lib. 7. chap. 8. but in that chapter mention is made of a certayne faithful brother that being present when some were baptised and heard what was demanded and what was answered weeping c. began to confesse that he had otherwise received baptisme of Hereticks c. Now if he was baptised of Hereticks without confession of his faith it was contrary to the practise of the Church of the Apostles concerning such as came newly to the faith Eusebius ecclesiastical hist lib. 6. c. 33. thus writeth of Noâ—atus that â—e being vexed with an vncleane spirit in his youth and having spent sâ—me 〈◊〉 with Exorcists fel into a great sicknes and lying in his bed for necessity he was baptised neither any of those things which were accustomed to follow baptisme wâ—re so 〈…〉 nly fulfilled c. As for the rudiments of this confession which you say still remaynes therevnto I answer that this practise is a kind of imitation of that which was observed in former times towards them of yeres and it may be that the parents which brought their childten to be baptised did make some short confession of their faith for of confessing of syn is no step remayning that I know onely a promise to forsake sinne which after did grow as other things into corruption Againe you alledge Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 15. reporting a story of one that did baptise children in sport and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria though dâ—ne in sport yet finding that the children had questioned and answered according to the manner of the catechumeni in baptisme did approue it whereby it appeareth that then onely persons by confession of their faith and sinnes were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria This storie I doe not find in that chapter before quoted but such a like in chap. 14. yet both your written copie and printed book appoints to cha 15 If you meane that of Athanasius baptising of certaine Catechumeni lib. 10. c. 14. I answere that those children so baptised seeme not to be any children of the Church but some of the heathen which with their parents were instructed in the faith but not yet in communion or baptised Againe in that they being thus baptised were by the Bishop delivered to his Church to Athanasâ— vero atâ— eos c. â— vocatis pâ— reÌ„tibus sâ— Dei obteâ—tione tradâ— ecclesiae suâ— nutrienâ—â— to be brough up their parents thereto consenting which consent the Bishop needed not to haue required or so committed those children to be educated if they and their parents had bene already of the Church for to them then had this care apperteyned Besides if none but the elder sort had bene baptised which by that which is here obiected is not proved yet was this but the practise of one particular Church which might be tainted with that error about baptising of infants as Tertullian and some others were in those times Next you alledge Hoseus Petricov Confes de fide cap. 27. saying that these 2. Apostolical traditions which the Scripture teacheth not viz that there are 3. persons and one God and that Dionysius Origin do testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostolical traditioÌ„ Now you know their Apost traditions were antichristiaÌ„ inventioÌ„s This witnesse wil do you little pleasure for as he calleth the baptising of infants a tradition so doth he the Trinitie which the scripture doth manifestly teach in sundry places Now if you accept not his testimonie in calling the Trinitie a tradition why do you produce him against baptising of infants Besides though this man was a Papist yet is his witnesse with us for calling the baptisme of infants an Apostolical traditioÌ„ he meanes as the Papists do such doctrines of the Apostles as were not written which they hold equall with the scriptures Againe this he sayth is so called by Dionisius and Origen who understood thereby the doctrine of the Apostles And those Apostolical traditioÌ„s whereof you dream were not in their times in esse Polydore Virgil you bring in also to testifie that it was the use with the Auncients that persons of yeres sere in a manner should be baptised clad with white garments c. and this was performed at Easter and Whitsontide c. This witnes tels us that it was in use with the Auncients not onely to baptise the elder sort that turned to the faith but appointed the nâ— to be clad in white that they were instructed until Easter thâ—ir time appointed for baptism these it seemes were the Catechumeni for in those former times many had not imbraced the faith now this authoâ—â— sayth not that children borne in the Church were kept unbaptised until they could make profession of their owne faith whereof our dispute is The wordes of
thereof and purpose of the holy Ghost who intendeth to discover the hypocrisie of vaine professors and to shew who are true sonnes of God viz. such as by a godly conversation declare their fayth to be unfeighned I denye that infants are carnal because they shew not their fayth by their works Those whom the scripture so calleth are they that â—om 8. â— 8. †walk after the flesh and do the deeds thereof which Infants nether do nor can do wanting actual power of doing good or evil The former scripture that you alleadge to prove infants carnal is Rom. 7. 14. The Apostle sayth of himself I am carnall and so you conclude â—â—m 7. 14. thence that al that naturally discended of Abraham and so of the faithfull are carnal and so to be reputed of us and consâ—quently without the covenant Paul when he thus sayd of himself I am carnal was regenerate And if you cal children carnal in that sense it hinders not but they may be spiritual seed as he was The Apostle cals himself carnal in respect of his natural corruption and carnal infirmities wherewith he was compassed neither was he wholly carnal but in part †Rom. 7. spiritual And here is to be noted that carnal is opposed to spirituall in one and the same person and is found to be in al that professe fayth and are regenerate yet doth it not debarre them eyther of the covenant or of baptisme A like Answer may be given concerning 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians 1 Cor. 3â— are called carnal because of their infirmities and carnal works as enrying strife c. vers 3. c. Infants cannot in this sense be called carnal therefore this scripture also is unfitly applyed unto them And here it is to be noted that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptised are called carnal whereby we may see how impertinently this scripture is alleadged You say also that you cal children carnal as in opposition to the spiritual seed that one seed of Abraham Gal. 3. 16. I have sayd that carnal as the Apostle opposeth yt to spirituall is our corrupt nature that * lusteth against the spirit and is found in the faythfull Gal. 5. 17 Rom. 7. 2 Now to oppose the infants of beleevers to spiritual seed is no opposition for such infants in regard of the covenant are spiritual though by nature they are carnal Concerning Rom. 9 8. see page 63. The Apostle proving God to be Rom. 9 8 faythful sheweth withal that though the promise was made indefinitely to al the Israelites yet al that were carnally begotten of Israel were not true Israelites save onely such as were the children of the promise verse 7. 9. but he intendeth not to oppose all the seed of Abraham naturally begotten to the childreÌ„ of the promise for then should Isaac be opposed against himself for he was both the natural seed of Abraham and a child of the promise but this he teacheth that although many be reputed the sonns of God in regard of the promise which is made indefinitely to all the seed of Abraham and to al that are called to be members of the visible church yet al of those in the account of God are not children of the promise seing many hypocrites are found to be in the outward visibilitie of the Church to whom the Lord shall say * Luk. 13. 25. 27. I know you not whence ye are c. Touching Gal. 4. 23. it hath been handled before pag. 14. Thus I will here answere to your obiection out of it viz. that Paul doth not intend Gal. 3. 2â— to make an opposition betwene the natural seed of Abraham and the heires of promise but opposeth against the false doctrine of such as vrgeth circumcision and the workes of the law to be necessary to iustification and after divers reasons against this error he illustrateth his purpose by an allegorie which shadoweth forth two sorts of children borne of two Testaments as Ismael Isaac were of two mothers the one sort that should seek after righteousnes by the law but they were no better theÌ„ Ismael no heires of the promise but in bondage vnder the law The other should seeke after righteousnes by Christ and these are of the covenant of grace as Isaak was of the freewoman which are heires and free indeed and this appeares to be the Apostles meaning by that which followes in the Allegory as also by vers 21. And so it is to be noted that to be borne after the flesh typed out by Ismael is to be without the covenant under the bondage of the law which was given in Sinai signifying that all such as seek for iustification by the law are as they that take up their habitation in the wildernes and never enter into the land of promise â—eb 7. 16. The next Scripture is Heb. 7. 16. where the commandement is called carnall so children borne of theire parents say you naturally are carnal c. see this place expounded pag. 68. by carnal commaundement the Apostle means that law that coÌ„maunded the ordinatioÌ„ of the Preists under the old testament which stood in fraile and transitorie things as in Aarons consecration c. Also this commaundement or ordination of the Leviticall Preists may be called carnal compared with the ordination of Christ â—sa 61. 1. 〈◊〉 45. 7. which was without all * external ceremonies and not simply for in other respects it may be counted spiritual as all Gods ordinances are whether under the old or new testament and so this scripture rightly vnderstood maketh nothing to your purpose And towching childreÌ„ you should observe that as it is true that naturally children are carnall so is it true also that the children of the faithful borne under the covenaunt are by grace spirituall Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually sease upon any infant of the Iewes in deed and in truth and the place Act. 2. 39. doth not prove that it did for the place is to be understood of the offer of Christ and the new testament to all the carnal Iewes and their children c. and therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed For this point for the exposition of this scriptur see p. 19. where also is answer to that which is here obiected for by this scripture it is playn that the promise apperteyned to the Iewes their infants into which they their childâ—eÌ„ had entred when God made his covenaÌ„t with Abra his seed for theÌ„ were they in his loynes And upoÌ„ this grouÌ„d the Apostle exhorts theÌ„ to be baptised not saying the promise is now offred but thus the promise is to you that is made or given to you and your children as the Apostle explayneth the same Gal. 3 16. 17. 18. Act. 26. 6. And to as many
the faithful and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh yea some infants circumcised should be types as the carnal seed of Abraham and other infants circuÌ„cised as well as they to wit the children of the Proselytes should be no types for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self nor you with the truth Secondly I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful Paul sayth * that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat 1 Cor. 10. â— 5. drank the same spirituall drink c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended and after the enumeration of many particulars the Apostle sayth all these through faith obteyned good report Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful if infaÌ„ts of the faithful then were they types of theÌ„selves 3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham as Isaac Iacob c. were the true children of Abraham Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh * Rom. â— 16. 17. 19 20. 23. â— coÌ„ferd wâ— Gen. 17. â— 9. 13. Joâ— 44. sonnes of the promise of life so to be reputed as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of beleeâ—ers But say you If you wil make true consequents you must reason from the type to the truth and not from the type to the type neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do c. And I answer you neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed But as for my confounding of the covenants and seales that is your bare affirmation and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham for your carnal and spirituall infants is answered before Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed then you undertake to prove the contrary saying That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands commeth in place of circumcision made with hands Collos 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11. By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promised the †Deut. 1â— 16. 30. circumcision of the hart and the hart of their seed as before is shewed and they had the grace together with the outward signe therefore your reason is insufficient and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning Towching the place of the Romaines 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced Rom. 2â— the Iewes of syn vers 17. 24. they might object what doth our circumcision nothing profit us that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles yea sayth he if thou keep the law els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision vers 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law before circumcision transgressing the law vers 26 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites the inward and outward circumcision sheweth who is a true Iew not before men but before God viz he that is one within wherein is no guyle And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation which is not onely outward but of the hart this is the Apostles meaning and not to teach that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh c. as you affirm That other place Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the â—2 11. former for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel in this verse he denyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh which was specially urged seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge seal and witnes of our inward renuing or regeneration therefore having baptisme to confirme these graces vnto them need not the use of outward circumcision And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught â—â—e 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes by nature corrupt but also after an especiall manner strangers without God c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise which is the spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Ephe. 1. 13. 14. Although circumcision was set in the flesh yet was it not a seale of the flesh but of the * spirituall covenant and the holy spirit of promise succeedes RoÌ„ 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them that heavenly covenant of salvation as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly as in Abraham Isaac Iacob and the rest yea the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision for they being converted were after circumcised Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “ assured by the â—om 4. â— 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision you quote Ephes 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes because they were called by the same gospel which they imbraced by fayth and sealed up by the same spirit which is the earnest of our inheritance And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision Againe the spirit being invisible is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant Further you say I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new teâ—stament though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal I say therefore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament spiritual and yet visible and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water as Peter
there teacheth This visible seale of the new testament is confession as in the â—d testament circumcision was their confession and baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale First you deny a principle of religion and that which formerly you held for in your book of Difference c. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptisme seales of the covenant these are your words The publishing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the seales is onely one concrete action c. for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seales otherwise breaking of bread and baptising are but putting of seales to a blank And thus unstable are you in your wayes 2. What if baptisme be not called a seale yet if it can be proved by scripture that it is a seale we ought so to receive it The sacraments given of God unto the Israelites were called seales as †Rom. 4. 15. 8. circumcision by the Apostle is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith And when God made with Abraham his covenant to be his God and the God of his seed he gave him * Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1â— circumcision a signe thereof which did confirme unto him and to his seed that which God did promise as before the Lord had done to Noah to whoÌ„ he gave the “ Gen. 9. 9-17 rayn-bowe as a signe of his promise that the world should be no more destroyed with water so the Passeover is called a signe Exod. 13. 9. Now if circumcision be a signe and seale of Gods covenant as the Apostle testifieth then it must needs be granted that baptisme succeeding circumcision is also a seale of the Lords covenant though the very word seale be not expressely set downe in the scripture And this the Apostle intimates Act. 2. 39. where he exhorteth the beleevers to be baptised every one in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes for the promise is to you and to your children The Lord commanding his “ Mat. 2. 19. Gospel to be preached to all nations commanded them also to be baptised confirming by this outward signe his covenant to all the beleeving Gentiles and their seed as he had done to Abraham and his seed the same covenant by circumcision * Paul †Cornelius “ Lydia and the Gaylor after they beleeved and had â—ct 9. 17 received the covenant were baptised which confirmed unto them the free * forgivenes of all their synnes by the death of Christ And this is plainly Act. 10. taught us by Peter 1. Epistle 3 21. where he sayth that baptisme now also saveth us Baptisme cannot be sayd to save as any cause thereof Act. 16. â— 31. â—â—k 3. 3. â—ct 2. 38. â—â— 6. 3. â—al 3. 16 â—om 7. 11 Mar. 16. but in this respect that it witnesseth and sealeth unto us from God our salvation that which circumcision did type out to come the same doth baptisme now signifie to be fulfilled in Christ the true †seed of Abraham And as by “ circumcisiion the righteousnes of faith was sealed so by Baptisme salvation is sealed as Christ sayth * he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved Againe Rom. 6. 3. Paul sayth all we that have been baptized into Iesus Christ have beene baptized into his death In which words the Apostle giveth vs to understand that by baptisme the benefits of the death of Christ are on the Lords behalf confirmed unto us And if this be not the signification of baptisme let it be shewed out of the word what els is minded by these phrases baptised into the death of Christ and buried with him by baptisme into his death Thus have I shewed that baptisme is a seal of the new Testament which you deny affirming a new kind of seale thereof viz Confession say the seale of the spirit must go before baptisme Which two in my understanding differ farre one from another for confeession is the act of man as the Apostle sayth * with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation proveth sometime to be Rom. 10. â— Act. 8. 13 hypocriticall as that of Symon Magus was But the baptisme of the holy Ghost is an action of God and is eyther an internall work of the spirit as Mat. 3. 11. or els external by some visible signes and extraordinary guifts Act. 1. 8. 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44. 47. This latter now ceasseth being then given of God for the further confirming of the Gospel in the Churches newly planted until the faith of Christ was fully established amongst the Gentiles and therefore is no ordinary seale of the new Testament given by Christ to be continued unto the end of the world though I confesse those extraordinary giftes of the spirit miracles works done by the Apostles and other of the servants of Christ have still their use in the Church to confirme the truth of God by them published And as for mens confession of the faith that can be no seale of the â—ew Testament because it is imperfect and oftentimes hypocriticall many falling away from the truth which formerly they professed as Demas Nicholas the Deacon and those mentioned in the first epistle of Iohn chap. 2. 19. Now that which must seale Gods covenant unto us for the confirmation of our faith must be certayne and perfect and that from God because it is he that promiseth salvation to all that beleeve therefore it is he that onely can give assurance of his owne covenant And as â—or our confession it is but an outward testification of the grace of God bestowed upon us it can no more be a seale of the new Testament then the profession of the Iewes was of the old And as you require of me â—here in all the scripture baptisme is called a seale so more justly may I demand of you where in all the new Testament that confession is called a seale Besides if confession be a seale of the new Testament then a man may be par taker of the scale that is not of the Church as they that confesse their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints 3. That the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water c. Vnderstanding it as you do of confession then I graunt that such as were never of the Church ar first to make coÌ„fessioÌ„ of their faith to testify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptised Act. 8. 37. 38. but neyther is such confession required of their infants neyther is it a seale of the new Testament as before I have proved Otherwise understanding the seale of the spirit as the Apostle doth Rom. 8 15. 16. Ephe. 1 13. 14. so goeth it before and together with Baptisme in all the elect of God whether infants or of yeares As for that sealing with the spirit of Cornelius company which you instance Act. 10. 47.
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
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
differeÌ„ce externally betweene the times of Christ promised to come and his manifestation in the flesh and accomplishment of his promise And as * we have 30. â— 8. 11 â—4 RoÌ„ 10. â— 7. 8. â—er 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 â— 1 Cor. 10 â— 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. â—â—k 1. 74. the spirituall covenant and spirit so had the faithfull vnder the law and therefore it is false to say that they had the carnall covenant and wee the spirituall typed by the carnall for although vnder the Law the Lord did traine vp his people vnder many ceremonies which were types of things to come yet did he never ordeyne any carnall covenant with a seale therof as you devise But let vs see your proofes for all these particulars First that there are two Testaments made with Abraham you alledge Gal. 4 24. saying Agar that is the old Testament and Sara that is the new both married to Abraham 2. There are two seeds Ismael of Abraham and Hagar who typed the carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah who typed the spirituall seed ver 23. 3. There are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall covenant vpon the carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seale of the spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. c. First for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnall covenant that nothing fits your purpose for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles who vrged the works of the law for iustification and taught the people that vnlesse they wer circumcised Christ could not profit them whom after he had confuted with divers reasons he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 â—â—egorie of Abraham and his two wives shadowing out there 〈◊〉 â—at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in â—atter of iustification the law ingendring bondage requiring strict â—dience without which is no salvation but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2â— 26. â—egall bondage and requireth to †RoÌ„ 10. 6â— 11. Rom. â— 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation â—o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law doth shew them â— foolish they are which by the gospel are set * Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of â—w and legall ceremonies do frustrate that freedome by subiecting â—mselves againe to the law which could never make them †Act. 13. 39. righteous â—d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman whereas all â—hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law â—eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman Now this being â—he purpose or scope of the Apostle this allegorie setting downe the diâ—â—rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament vnder the gospel or new testament concerning iustification and salvation doth â—either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham or yet that the Iewes were so vnder the lawe that also they were â—ot free by faith in Christ for if we consider the times wherein the law was given 430 yeres after the promise it will appeare that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham or yet that it did * Gal. 3 1â— disannull the covenaÌ„t to dispossesse his seed of that estate which they obtayned by that promise made vnto him And it is to be noted that aswell vnder the â—ew testament as vnder the old all they are in bondage with Hagars sonns that seek by the workes of the law to be iustified 2. I answer more particularly to your proofes whereof the two former are drawen from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first because the Apostle calls Hagar Sarah the two testaments vers 24. and both â—â—re married to Abraham therefore to Abraham were made two testaments True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments the one of the old the other of the new But the Apostle applyes them to set out thereby the different estate of them that be vnder grace from such as be vnder the lawe of works Now to Abraham was not the lawe given whereof Hagar is made a type and therefore could not have that coâ—nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision for sure I am moe covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of but 〈…〉 Heb. 8. â—3 new the one abrogated by Christ his comming the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments it may be s 〈…〉 playnely out of the text it self for speaking of the lawe he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth vnto bondage making 〈…〉 tion purposely of Sinai because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountaine whereof Hagar was a shadow ver 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace sayth but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above is free c. ver 26. 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same be sayd to be two in respect of the tymes and diverse administration thereof and then your carnall covenant cannot stand Certaynly the Lord made one eternal vnchangable covenant to his Church instructing and dispensing his benefites otherwise in the time of the Law then now he doth under the Gospel And in this respect the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament may well speak in regard of the dispensation therof as of two And so understand by the old Testament that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses the Prophets to the Fathers promising eternal life openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law threatning of the curse if they did not perform it together with that intollerable burden of legal rites yoke of Moses politie and covertly under condition of repentance fayth in the Messiah to come prefigured under types shadowes ceremonies that by this meanes the Iewes as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ And by the new Testament understaÌ„d the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ his Apostles manifestly without shadowes and legal rites promising righteousnes life to al both Iewes Gentils that shal beleeve in Christ already come And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenaÌ„t seing both these TestameÌ„ts are spiritual though some carnal things wer commaunded in the old testament Yet those makes it no more a carnall covenant then water in Baptisme bread wine in the Lords supper the receiving of them which al are carnal things do make the new Testament carnall they being given to signifie vnto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnall things vnder
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
confirme Their * Deu. 2â— 10 13. “ Gal. 3. â— coâ—enant was to be the Lords people is the same that we are entred into els could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise through fayth if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed Also Peter affirmes it to be the same Act. 2. 39. If then the Lord required of Israel true holynes and made no other coâ—enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people but that everlasting covenant and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Testament true holynes of the members and communion in the covenant and Gospel then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this but even the same with the church under the new Test I speak of the substance of this covenant and not of the outward administration thereof which was divers wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption Heb. 10 â— In the former Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle sheweth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect because they were yearly renued proveth also that Christs sacrifice is one and perpetual here it must be minded that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their coÌ„stitution no spiritual promise but onely carnal typical things Heb. 9 â—â— 23. In that other scripture Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed between the legal sacrifices and purifyings the purging of synne by the blood of Iesus Christ between the old Testament and the new c and so shewing how the truth answereth unto the type concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sinnes of many by the sacrifice of himself And this is that which the Apostle intendeth and not to shevv that the constitution of the old church vvas the tipe of the constitution of the nevv 3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected â— produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Testâ—â— Iustification and fayth and sanctification and repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament Heb 9. 9. Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo c. Deut. 29. â— Ier. 13. â— â— Luk. 1. â— 74. 1 pet â—â— 9. 10. â— 2. 12. â— 22. Gen. 17. 7 â—om 4. 11 â—a 26. â— Heb. 4. 2 â— 11. 30. â— Cor. 10. 3 â— Ezech. 18 â— 32. Ioel. â— 3. â—b 9. 9. â—â— 2. 15 The assumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before for the members of that church might have and had fayth repentance justification sanctification seeing the †Lord was their God in that standing he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ therfore it must follow that they were partakers of fayth justification c. in that their coÌ„munion Again as the covenant was geven to Abraham so was “ it to his seed but to Abraham it was geven †for justification therefore to his seed I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test Also I have proved * before that God required of the Israelites “ fayth and repentance and that they did repent beleev so consequently justification sanctification were effected accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof and required in the constitutioÌ„ Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument yet this I will further add that the Apostle having described the partes of the Tabernacle c. in ver 9. sheweth the use of those things to be a figure for the present preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ in whom they beleeved the same to be fulfilled And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh were such as by Moses were given to that church long after the constitution thereof In that other scripture Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reasons not about the constitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether justification was required therein but having to deal against the false teachers that taught the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law affirmeth the contrary in these two verses saying we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law but by the fayth of Jesus Ch. c. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by fayth without works doth not deny the church before the coÌ„ming of Christ to be justified by fayth but teacheth that both that church and this under the Gospel were saved not by works but by the free promise of God in Christ received by fayth And thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire 4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members presupposed not â—â—th and repentance to the members and so not real or true holynes But the old Test â—e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the â—hurch of the old Test Heb 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. c. First concerning the major The old Testament though it brought not perfection yet did it require fayth in Christ to come 2. Touching your â—inor first I require what you mean by the old Testament whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator if the former then is your minor false for those books conteyn as wel Gospel as law the promise made unto the fathers in Christ to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance aswell before Christs incarnation as since But iâ— you â—ind it †Rom. â— Heb. 10. of the law onely administration of Moses it is true that perfection and life came not by the law nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law but withal you must know that the Iewes were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ as * pa. 23. ◠“ Gen. 3. â— 12. 3. â— 17. 7. 21. Esa 1. â— 7. 14. â— 9. 6 GeÌ„ â— 10. Numâ— 24. 17. Gâ— 3. 8. 14 before is proved 3 For the church of the old Testament it could bring or publish life to the members thereof seing it had the promises “ of the Gospel and so presupposed fayth repentance true holynes as you speak To the scriptures first to Heb. 7. 19. I answer that the law indeed maketh nothing perfect nor could give lyfe but I have told you againe and
relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal then any relation of adoption or servitude why the wife shal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage happely it wil be sayd that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted because of her unbeleef and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of fayth It is true that neyther the wife nor servants if they refuse can be admitted because of their unbeleef but the case is not alike of men and women growen to years as of infants borne in the church the former eyther consent or refuse actually infants do not refuse and therefore being the seed of the saythful are to be admitted to Baptisme But it wil be sayd that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed onely I say it was made by your confession with him and his adopted infants c. We say as the scripture teacheth us that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed the faythful their children Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby the whole family of the faythful if they refused nor as before is proved And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant and those that are further off why shal not these that are nearer as his wife I have answered before her unbeleef hinders her to be one flesh makes them not one in the covenant which is by grace not by mariage But you wil say because infants do not refuse the covenant they may be admitted to baptisme c. but wives refusing may not I further insist that as infants do not resist so they do not consent and that al the children servants and wives that do not resist may be admitted though they cannot make declaration of their fayth c. c. We do not make the infants not refusing the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant but the Lords dispensation and coÌ„mandement in children there can be neither actual coÌ„sent or resisting the one of which Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3 1. â—am 2. 18. â—2 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares who also are to †live by their own fayth also * confession is of such required so is it not of infants Then I say there is no reason why fayth and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification c. more then of an other except God be an accepter of persons To this I have answered before and again do answer that there is one and the same way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers they receiving the covenant after the same maÌ„ner that he did beleeving that God is their God and the God of their seed Also fayth and repentance is required not onely of such as are of yeares and to enter into the Lords covenant but of al that are in the covenant they being the condition thereof on our part to be performed continually and therefore we must know that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise and not any act of theirs fayth receiveth grace but causeth it not and repentance is the fruit thereof required of every one as they are of understanding And further the covenant is onely with Abraham and his seed not with adopted children c. and therefore fayth and repentance must necessarily be had and so â—y cannot be baptised til they shew their fayth c. I have proved already that God in saying I wil establish my covenant beâ—en me and thee and thy seed included Abrahams family or els shew unto â—e wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision if they â—ere not with him in the covenant Agayn fayth and repentance is required of the elder sort not of infants Ergo c. As for partaking of the covenant actually how children are thereof capable I have proved oft ynough and therefore it needs no further answer And whereas it may be justly objected against you that if infants be denyed to be within the covenant they cannot be saved you labour to remove this exception saying we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be â—verted but leave the secret of them to the Lord Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or against your opinions is the condition of infants such a secret that God hath not manifested his wil concerning them Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants when he was to circumcise them Gen. 17. 12. And doth not †Mar. 10. 14. Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them manifest unto us how we ought to account of the infants of beleevers The prophet Malachy sayth * Mal. 2. 1. did not he make one seeking a seed of God Act. 2. 39. the promise is to children as Peter there witnesseth and Ier. 31 1. God promiseth to be the God of al the families of Israel and children are a part of the familie 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy Now if God had given you eyes these scriptures †Gen. 17 c. Deuâ— 29. 10. 15. might teach you that the state of the childreÌ„ of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend Moses shewed the state of children under the old T. you say “ Caracter pag. 6. 3. the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of al affaires c. as the old How is it then that the state of children is now more secrete then formerly it was Thus you might see your speeches contradictory if your right eye were not blynded Secondly I desire you to prove unto me by scripture that in this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes signifieth true sanctification c. And I desire you to prove unto me that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified you keep not to the state of the questioÌ„ that place is to be understood of the general holines pertayning to the â— every meÌ„ber thereof in respect of the covenant your demand is of Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded and is to be understood of the general face of that church which was called holy because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people in Exod. 32. 9. 33. 3. the Lord cals them a stifnecked people in regard of personal sinnes which he found to be in some of them not in all the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part whereof they repenting the Lord forgave them The personal sinns of some meÌ„bers do not disposses the face of the church of holynes â—he labouring to reforme such faulty members Concerning the holynes of children of the unbeleeving wife before is shewed Finally you say God hath sayd to al the faythful I wil be thy God and the God
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
in force to the faithful and their seed Rom. 9. 6. 8. 15. 11 1. 2-5 2. Christ speaketh to such of the Iewes as by their works did shew themselves to be of the Divil he intendeth not to teach that this was the constitution state of the whol Church under the old Testament as much as Christ sayd to these Iewes may be sayd to us under the Gospel as of those Antichristians whereof Iohn speaketh 1. Iohn 2. 19. and therefore all that you have sayd proves nothing for the question in hand Againe to prove the Disciples to be baptised you cite Ioh. 4. 1. 1. 35. 40. I answere in the latter place is no mention of baptisme and in the former it is sayd that Iesus baptised moe disciples then Iohn which in verse 2. is explaned that he did not baptise but his disciples shewing that Christ baptised disciples by the hands of his disciples So I think they were baptised of Iohn as Christ was but I wil not contend there about And for that you answer concerning the Eunuch that some mention should have bene made eyther of Philip or of the Eunuch towching his children It is nothing that you say for what occasion was there to speak of his children And it is for you to prove that the Eunuch had children seing he was one as it is like that was made chast by man Mat. 19. 12. the rather because in regard of his honour and auctoritie he was called Cheiffe governour as also in respect of his country an Ethiopian Act. 8. 27. see Esa 56. 3. 4. 5. Now to your second reason The 2. reason against baptising of infants answered R. Clifton But having thus discovered the weaknes of this first reason let vs come to the next which is this Reason 2. Because Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptise them Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 4. 1. But infants can not by doctrine become Christs disciples and so can not by the rule of Christ be baptised Answer 1. The Apostles were indede commanded to make Disciples and to call vnto the faith and felowship of the Gospel not onely the Iewes but the Gentiles throughout the world and gave them power to preach the Gospel which before had bene preached to AbrahaÌ„ Gal. 3. 8. And to baptise all that did receive it And this we grant that fayth must go before baptisme in al such as are to be made Disciples and brought into the covenant of God So went fayth before circumcision Abraham first beleeved after was circumcised And likewise must al they which with AbrahaÌ„ enter into Gods covenant first beleeve and then be baptised as the Eunuch Act. 8. 37. Lydia Act. 16. 15. the Keeper of the prison verse 33. but when such have receved the fayth then are their infants and houshold capable also of baptisme as Abrahams family was of circumcision he beleeved the promises Gen. 17. therefore it is written that when God opened the hart of Lidia that shee did attend to the word that Paule preached and beleved not onely she herselfe but all her household were baptised and yet is there no mentioÌ„ of the fayth of any of them save of Lidias onely And so the Keeper beleeving all that appertayned vnto him were baptised And this is proportionable to the example of Abraham whose fayth we find sufficient to interest all his in the covenant and make them capable of the seale 2. Christ taketh the same course in giving out his commission to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to bringe the Gentiles into Gods covenant that the Lord tooke with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the father of many nations c. he did not first command him to be circumcised but preached to him the Gospel or covenant and he beleeving was circumcised and his houshold So here is a commandement first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ and for baptising such as beleeved with their families for it is included in this commandement els had not the Apostle baptised the families of Lidia and of the Keper as before is observed And it is wel to be minded that there is no mention made of the faith of any in the familie of Lidia save of Lidias onely for it is not sayd all in the house that beleeved were baptised which had bene necessary if this commandement of Christ should be expounded after the mind of the Anabaptists 3. If children shal be excluded from baptisme because they can not be made Disciples by teaching and so beleeve then by as good reason may they be excluded froÌ„ salvation for he that sayth he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved sayth also he that beleeveth not shal be damned Mar. 16. 16. if therfore want of fayth be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme then likewise the want of faith is sufficient to exclude them from salvation If the former be held to be the meaning of Christ then must also the latter be graunted a thought whereof is to be abhord Lastly generall rules must be taken with their sense and meaning It is a generall rule given by the Apostle 2 Thes 3 10. that if any would not work he should not eate Yet if any should gather froÌ„ hence that the impotent infants should not eat because they do not work this were to offer violence to wrest the Apostles doctrin So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples and baptising them now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme because they cannot receive instruction which is intended onely of them that are capable thereof is to diminish the commandement of Christ alike as he that should say infants can not beleeve and therefore cannot be saved Againe it can never be the true meaning of a scripture when it is so expounded that the exposition contradicteth other scriptures or any sound conclusioÌ„ gathered out of the Scriptures as this exposition of the Anabaptists doth upon this place of Mat. 28. 19. as my former reasons for the baptising of infants do playnely manifest Mr Smyth Next followeth your answer to my 2. Reason which reason of mine is framed thus They that can not by teaching be made Christs disciples ought not to be baptised Infants by teaching can not be made disciples Ergo c. Your answer to this Argument of myne consisteth in 4. particulars c. to the first particular of your answer I say that you erre mistaking the Scripture for AbrahaÌ„s faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessarie antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or patterne of iustâ—fication And circumcision in Abraham was not a seal of his iustification or of the everlasting covenant of God c. R. Clifton I answer 1. to the former proposition of your argument that it is false for infants of
confesse the Lord these were called “ Acâ— proselytes which signifies a stranger coming and converted to their manner of religion as the Eunuch such like And it is not to be doubted that the Iewes would ever admit into their communion and to administer circumcision unto a Gentile that did not renounce his heathnishnes and professe their fayth seeing †Ex. 12 one law was to them that were borne in the land and to the stranger that dwelled amongst them therefore as much required of them that were to joyne to the Church of the old Testament as is now of theÌ„ that wil ioyne to the Church of the new And so I hav shewed you that more was required of theÌ„ that were circumcised then to be a male for every one must be a professor or the child of a professor so much is required coÌ„cerning baptisme no more And to your particulers I answer that these things were also required of the Israelites CoÌ„cerning the two former infants both have Ch. wer are circumcised in hart in that they are partakers of the covenant of graceâ— we are to hold them partakers of Christs benefits Mat. 19. 13. 14. For the third point that we must learne what the schoolmaster of the old Testament doth teach It is for such as are of yeares and was required of the Israelites and not of us onely as the writings of Moses and the Prophets do shew And where you say this must be done of al before they can be baptised it is your addition which you can never prove Moreover if you by old Testament do mean the writings of Moses the Prophets then can not we †learne al that they can teach us whylest we live Cor. 13. â— unlesse you dream of perfection with the Familists and so by your doctrine shal not be baptised But if by old Testament you mean Moses administration Heb. 8. 9. â—3 Gal. 3 25. it is * abrogated and seing “ fayth is come we are not under that schoolmaster to be taught by such legal types and ceremonies as were the Iewes And so your doctrine is false howsoever it be understood And whereas you wonder at me and at your self that we could not see so evident a truth al this tyme for myne owne part I saw I thank God long since and stil do see your evident truth as you cal it to be a manifest Act. 13. 10 error And further I see that God hath given you over to †pâ—rvert the right wayes of the Lord and to be the leader of others into heresie and so for just cause known to himself blynded your eyes and hardened your hart This is that great comfortable state that now you stand in God in his mercy deliver you forth of it To the 2. particular of my Answer to your reason you thus reply 1. Your distinction is without warrant and I deny that Infants of the faythful are to be considered in these two respects And whereas you bring Gen. 17. 7 1 Câ—r 7. 14. to prove the latter part of your distinction I have answered these two places alreadie shewing your false exposition of them c. And these two places of scripture I have likewise formerly proved to stand with my exposition where it wil appear that this is but a calumniatioÌ„ of yours and that my exception is not frivilouâ— For first you wil not deny that the children of the faythfull are carnall in respect of their naturall berth then being proved within the covenant in that regard they must â— Cor. 7. 14 needs be spiritual and as the Apostlâ— calleth them * holy To the third particular of my Answer you reply saying The sacrament of baptisme is prophaned when it is administred upon a wrong subiâ—ct as to give the Lords supper to an infant of two yeares old so to baptise an infant is â—â—phanation c. That to baptise an infant is a prophanation of baptisme I deny and by sundry reasons I have proved the contrarie shewing that infants are not a wrong subject but a right subject for baptisme As for the Lords supper the institution and use of it and the actions duties required of them that eat and drink at that table shew it to be otherwise for the not giving of it to infants But you say As profession of fayth shal intitle any man to al the ordinances of the Church and fâ—rst to baptisme So absence of confession of fayth shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the church in communion And afterward you say Although I dare not say this or that infant is not under the election of God yet I dare say that never an infant in the earth is actually seazed of the new Testament which is onely attayned by confession of sinne and of fayth c. Mar. 1. 15 Ioh. 3. 3. Eph. 3. 17. c. To this I have answered before and have shewed that profession of fayth is required of such as were never of the church and that with them their seed enters in also but that absence of confession shal debarre every one from the orrdinances of the church can never be proved seing there is not a like reason of persons without and of infants borne in the church Also I have shewed that infants are actually seazed of the new Testament according to the â—enure of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed I mean so actually seazed as we are to repute them children of the covenant And here also I mynd that al infants to you stand in the state of condemnation this is your Gospel contrary to Gen 17. 7. Act. 2 39. 3 25. Gal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Concerning the Scriptures which you alledge I answer first that all Mar. â— three places are applyed to them of yeares secondly in Mar. 1. 15. the Evangelist setts down in breif the summe of Christs doctrine the unfolding thereof doth reach to the faythful and their seed as by his own action Iohn 3. â— appeareth Mat. 19. 13. 13. Mar 10. 14. In Ioh. 3. 3. Christ speakes of regeneration without which none can enter into the kingdome of God and he speakes to Nicodemus that was a member of the Iewish church into which as also into the visible Churches under the new Testament many did and may enter into with outward confession onely as did Simon Magus though their harts be not regenerate And therefore this scripture speaking of that grace of God which is imvisible is not fitly alleadged for this purpose where we are to judge of members of the church not as they stand so before God in his secret counsel but as they externally appear to us within Gods covenant by their confession or otherwise That of Ephes 3 17. is also spoken to them that were of yeares who â—h 3 17. being beleevers they theirs were Christs of whom is named the wholâ— familie in heaven
and in earth Esa 3. 14. 15. of this scripture also is spoken before Though infants could hear and beleeve it is nothing to me except they can shew me their fayth I say therefore that al infants are carnal to me Rom. 9. 8. If you be not carnal to your self also it is wel But thus you confesse that you have no word of God that children can be saved The scripture requires confession as I have sayd of persons growen to yeares which are to enter into the Church not of their Infants It was required of the Gaylor himself that he should beleeve and the promise was that †he and all Act. 16. â—1 â—â—ck 19 â— 8. 9. his howse should be saved And Zacheus receiving Christ and professing his repentance Iesus sayd to him * this day is salvation come to this howse Note he sayth not onely salvation is come to him but to his howse And he adds a reason thereof forasmuch as he is also become the sonne of Abraham And therefore as want of confession in Zacheus Familie in Lidias Stephanas c. hindered not salvation to come to their howses no more shal it hinder any other families of the faythful Touching that of Rom. 9. 8. which you alleadge to prove that infants â—m 9. 8. are carnal I have expounded before pag. 63. have shewed that it makes not for your purpose And where you tel me that I sayd that every infant of Abraham and so of the faythful was borne spiritual as wel as carnal and that here the Apostle is contrarie to my aserâ—ion Although being well understood it may so be sayd yet this was that I sayd that I did thus conceive of the seed of the faythful that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects And so I say still nether doth this scripture contradict it for those that the Apostle calls children of the flesh he meanes not thereby al the circumcised but such of them as became carnal by their works as those in Ioh. 8. 44. and such as for their unbeleif were rejected and “ broken off from the olive tree until â—oÌ„ 11. 20 which tyme they are to be held the children of the covenant so was Iudas accounted of by his fellow disciples to be one of them although God in his secret counsel know them for none of his And so Paul doth not deny the natural sonnes of Abraham to be accounted his spiritual seed in respect of Gods covenant but that of * Ioh. â— 41. 37. these so externally estemed there were of them carnal sonnes manifesting themselves in tyme through unbeleef to have been in shew that they were not in deed as Iohn speaketh †1 Ioh. â— of the hypocrites of his tyme. And thus these impossible contraâ—ictions as you cal them are easily reconciled And where I sayd that children of the flesh can never be the children of the promise in that sense as the Apostle opposeth the one to the other Rom. â— 8. 13. You answer that al the children of the Jewes were borne according to the flâ—sh Gal. 4. 23 24 25. and so were carnal and so are the children of the faythful and yet as many of the Iewes were afterward regenerate so many of the infants of the faythful may prove children of the promise but I confesse that Esau can never be Iacob c. If you wil thus understand being borne according to the flesh and so being carnal you speak not to the Apostles meaning And Abraham Isaac and Iaacob al the faythful are so borne as you intend of which point I have spoken before And I have already answered to “ pag. 14. Gal. 4. 2â— 24. 25. that place of Gal 4. 23 25. that by that allegorie is described two sorts of children whereof the one seeks by the workes of the law to be justified the other by the covenant in Christ seek after salvation through fayth in him typed out by the two mothers and their two sonnes Now take this scripture in his true sense and it can not be gathered from hence that eyther al the children of the Iewes were thus borne after the flesh and in this sense to be called carnal as the Apostle meaneth nor yet that the childreÌ„ of the faythful are thus to be held of us to be carnal For they seek not by workes justification and therefore makes not themselves children of the bond-woman I mean of the covenant of works or of the law for this falleth â—ut by an action of the parties themselves that refuse the doctrine of free justification by fayth and seek salvation by the law And this is that the Apostle reproves the Galathians for because †Gal. 3. 3â— after they had begunne in the spirit they would be made perfect by the flesh Carnal corruption doth hinder infants from baptisme more then men of yeares because men of yeares make confession of their sinnes and their â—ayth and so declare their mortification and regeneration but infants can not or do not so at al to us and so with them we have nothing to doe But the covenant of God hath to doe with them and therefoâ—e we also if we wil walke according to it Also your comparison is not equâ—l for infants nede not to make such confession of their sinnes and fayth as men of yeares are to do seing they are already to vs within the covenant of God 2. The Scripture gives nether precept not example to require an actuall confession of their fayth of al that are baptised except of such as are of yeares and to be added to the Church but †examples of the contrary â— Cor. 1 â— Act. 16. â— 31. 33. And therefore to make a general rule of such particulers thereby to exclude the seed of the faithful is contrary to the meaning of the Scripture But where as I did affirme that natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men beleeving you answer That I cannot defend that without the opinion of vniversal redemption And then if all infants of the faithful being delivered from their natural corruption may therefore be baptised then all infants partakers of the same benefite shal be baptised even the infants of the Turkes As concerning that opinion of general redemption I reiect as an error but as touching the imputing of natural corruptioÌ„ to infants thus I mean that as the children of the faithful are to vs within Gods covenant as wel as their parents because of the promise made to the faithful and their seed So of vs they are to be estemed of as pertakers of the promise whereof * Heb. 10 17 the not imputing of sinne is one But whereas you would inferre herevpon that infants of the Turkes partakers of the same benifit may therefore be baptised as wel as the infants of beleevers I deny that eyther they are partakers of the same benyfite I meane the covenant in Christ or may be baptised if
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
posteriety of such parents as were members of the Church planted by the Apostles els could we not have Apostated 2. That people which the Apostles gathered into Churches were never baptised And baptisme coming in steed of circumcision and being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant it was fit that they which beleeved and became the seed of Abrah should so enter in to covenaÌ„t they their seed as he his seed entered that is as he his were received in by circuÌ„cision so they theirs should be receved in by baptisme Act. 2. 38. 41. 8. 38. But we are a people that ar already baptised the seed of them that were baptised had received the Gospel And although through Antichrists deceaveablenes both we and they were taynted with many corruptions yet had they or might have in that Apostasie and so we also so much faith as thereby both we and they might become the people of God Apoc 18. 4. And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches here it is to be noted that the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the imediate directioÌ„ of the H. Ghost And so serveth for a coÌ„tinual rule of establishing Churches to th' end of the world which forme or frame layed downe by them no man hath power to alter or change 1. Cor. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 6. 14. But the constituting of Churches now after the defection of Antichrist maâ—â— more properly be called a repayring then a constituting of Churches which through Apostacy have bene ruinated or a gathering together of the dispersed sheepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches the patterne whereof is shewed vnto vs in the word For as before hath bene noted our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches And so it wil not follow as is aledged that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessaryly must be by baptisme as in the primitive tyme it was except onely of such persons as have not bene baptised before And herein I take it lieth the deceat of this Argument that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming ouâ— of Babylon and them that came to the fayth from amongst the Gentiles equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an apostate Church the other no Church the one partaker of the word sacraments though with much corruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neyther at all the one professing Christ teaching many truthes of God so many as the elect thereby might coÌ„e to faith Apo 18. 4. The other neyther professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God whereby any might be converted to Christ and become Gods people in that estate of Gentilisme And thus having made playne the different estate of the first planted Churches and ours in Apostacy I answere 1. That Churches now are to be constituted if repayring be not a fitter speach as in the Apostles tymes that all such as are received in as meÌ„bers being vnbaptised must be received in by baptisme but for such as were baptised in Apostate Churches their repentance is sufficient without rebaptization as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vpon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were received of the Church without any new circumcision And therefore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Christ and not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could do no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptised but if they had mett with any that before had bene baptised into the name of Christ as they that received the baptisme of Iohn and as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptised them And therefore the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptised Mr Smyth As in the former point for baptising of infants you are compelled to runne to the old Testament and from thence to fetch the cheif corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new testament of Christ c. and set vs againe to schoole to Moses as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach vs his new Testament but we must go learne the new Testament of the old Testament Christ of Moses the Gospel of the law c. Rich Clifton Before you come to answer my exception against your reason you prefix Answ as it were for a ground certayn thinges which you intreat me and al the Seperation especeally the leaders wel to weigh and ponder and not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors In which your great observation 1. you charge me to be compelled to runne to the old Testament c. What my answere is to this your reason shal be iustified Now where you except about the former point for baptising of infants against my running to the old TestameÌ„t to fetch my cheif corner stone c. If I have done evil herein beare witnes of it but if I have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles who proved that which they taught by the Scriptures of the old Testament why impute you this unto me to disgrace search these * Mat. â— 23. 2. â— 15. 28. 3. 22. â— 32. Joh. 23. 5. 3â— Luk. 24. 2â— Act. 2. 2â— 3. 22. 4 25. 26. 18. 28. Roâ— 4 3 6. 7. 9. â— 11 with dâ—vers otheâ— places quoted in the margent and see if the things of the new testament were not proved out of the old Yet notwithstanding I have used other reasons from the Scriptures of the new Testament to prove the baptising of infants as in my answer is to be seen But my corner stone as you please to call it fetched from the old testament is so ponderous as you can not remove it Concerning the forsaking of the new Testament it is not I but your self Mr Smyth that sinns therin by casting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of salvation And as towching the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Christ himself set us to schoole to learne of them the things †Ioh. 5. 39 that are witten of him and yet this you fault in me as if it were not lawful to prove doctrines and ordinances of the new Testament out of Moses Characteâ— pag. 44. the Prophets But I pray you Sir that findes fault to be set againe to the schoole to Moses why say you “ we must attayne to and learne all that the school-Maister of the old testament could teach vs. Do not you herein set us to school to Moses But it seemes you are past Moses teaching I would wish you were not past Christs also The old Testament is not so abrogated that withal the †writings of Moses and of the 2 Tim. 3. â— 17. Pet. 1. 9. 21. Prophets cease to be in force
As for the spiritual genealogy both vnder the law and the Gospel I do approve to be the true seede of Abraham but not in your sense that excludes the infants of the faithful from the covenant which of vs are to be * Mat. â— Act. 3. accounted the children thereof as wel as these that outwardly professe their faith And concerning the Ministerie of the old Church although none could be Preists †Exo. 28. but of the line of Aaron yet was the “ Num. 6-19 Dâ— 33. 8-â— tribe of Levi chosen by God himself for that office And God * sanctified them to the service of his name and to the Ministery of holy things Lastly you charge vs with an introducing of a carnal line into the Church to be baptised by succession fetch baptisme vpon the carnal line through the Church of Rome c. “ Numb 19. 1 Cor. â— 13. Of this I have spoken before and I answer further 1. that we do not introduce any other carnall line into the Church to be baptised then the Lord himself introduceth that is the children of the faithful And this is not as you say to set up Iudaisme in the new Testament seing all the people of God of al nations and ages are bound vnto it for we know no other covenant by which we become the People Church of God but that same which was made with Abraham and his seed Concerning the carnall lyne as you cal it though in respect of vs it may seeme to stop in Apostacy yet the Lord continueth his promise to his elect therin Neyther by this our retayning of baptism do we iustify Rome to be a true church nor make our selves Schismaticks seeing we cast of her adulteries and keep that which is Christs ordinance by her polluted Also you charge us To be fallen from Christ and become a new second image of the beast never heard of before in the world For being fallen from Christ look that it be not your owne case Of the image of the beast I †read but not of a â—ev 13. â— 15. â— 9. new second image and therefore no marveil though it be never heard of in the world as you say and if it had been by you unspoken of also by so applying of it unto us your sinne had been the lesse And thus much in answer to your premised ground Next you set down the summe of my exception First I say that the new Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affairs â—l and occasions that befal in our tyme in the new Testament as the old Testament was for the occurrents that befel under the old Testament seeing Christ is as faythful as Moses and the new Testament as perfect as the old Gal. 3. 15. and therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostalike constituting of Churches and our constituting of them in respect of the persons to be admitted into the church and in respect of baptising and not baptising or rebaptising of them he could would have done it c. The sufficiencie of the new Testament we acknowledge of the books Answ thereof for that use wherefore they were written But it seemes that you confound the new Testament or covenant of grace with the books thereof for you reason thus that the new Testament meaning the bookes thereof are sufficient for direction of al affaires of the church And your proofe out of Gal. 3. 15. is of the covenant it self and not of the books thereof And afterward you alleadge as a reason for the same end that the new Testament is perfect and sealed with the blood of Christ thus deceiving the Readers with an homonomy of the word Testament The books of the new Testament were al unwritten when Christ sufferred and had sealed the covenant of Grace This Testament had been perfect if there had been never a book written The historie of the Gospel was written * Ioh. 20. 31 Rom. 1. 1. 2. 16. 25. 26. that we might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ promised and foretold in the holy Scriptures of the Prophets and that beleeving in him we might have eternal life Concerning the faythfulnes of Christ it consisteth in “ Luk. 1. 70 24. 27. â— Pet. 1. 10. â—1 12. Act. 26. 22. 13. 29. fulfilling of those things which Moses and the Prophets had sayd should come to passe And if he give us direction for all the affaires and occasions that fall out in our tymes eyther out of the books of the new Testament or old we ought to be thankful to God and accordingly to use them and not bynd him or our selves onely to the writings of the Apostles Seeing Christ is the Author as wel of the doctrine writings of the Prophets as of the Apostles 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 1 Pet. 3. 18. 19. Againe concerning the difference between the Apostolicke constituting of Churches and ours which you charge us with I answer we plead for no difference neyther do we practise contrarie to the first planting of the church witnesse Mr. Smyth Differences in the preface lin 12. â—ns â— for as then such as were to be received into the Church did confesse their fayth and so with thir families were baptised so wee hold that all such that are unbaptised and to be added to the church must enter thereinto they with their families after the same manner as in the Apostles tymes And we do acknowledge that all churches which have Apostated are to be reformed according to the patterne and platforme layd downe by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures But this difference we put between persons that were never baptised and such as have received baptisme in an Apostate church affirming that the former are to be adjoyned to the Church by baptisme the latter not to be againe baptised which if it had been necessarie the Lord no doubt would have coÌ„manded when he bad his people to goe out of Babylon But seing he sayth not a word of the renuing thereof we are to content our selves and to practise as the Holy Ghost †2 Chr. â— 5. 13. else where doth teach us by the example of the Israelites in an other like case Now if you can shew us eyther commandement or example or any good reason in all the new Testament to rebaptise them which have been baptised in Apostate churches we will receive it and practise it if not why do you plead for it without warrant do rebaptise your selves also affirme so confidently that all things be so manifest in the APOSTLES writings that upon every occasion that falles out in our tymes we have direction for it Lastly it is not wee that adde to this new Testament as you charge us or that bring in a new CHRIST a nevv Church a nevv Covenant a nevv Gospell and a nevv Baptisme but you your selves are guilty of this sinne for you by
men to caâ—â— away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought agayne to Ierusalem nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord. 2. I answer that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes And therefore we may no more renounce it and to assume a new then they that returned to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision be recircumcised It is obiected of some that this comparison holdes not for Israel was a true Church and therefore their circumcision was true But an apostate Church hath nothing tâ—ue neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing and it is not true baptisme to such This obiection in part I have answered before and now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church but a false seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie 1. King 12. 30 -33 and 18. 19 -21 and so became an Harlot Hosea 2. 2. Secondly in the Apostate Church there be some things true in the substance as the word and Baptisme though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises 3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of â—â—ch a Church 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves and their seed And though in regard of the former estate they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly yet even to such members considered a part from such standing and as they are the seed of their forefathers so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes Rom. 11. 28. this appeareth in that he sayth come out of her my people Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed but that to them belonges the covenant yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea Bondage hinders not Gods grace But some may reply that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors Exod. 20. if we respect herein Gods mercie even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers Neyther do the members of an apostate Church cast of all profession of faith for they beleeve the scriptures and in Christ c. though withall they professe divers errors and worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church had forefathers that beleeved I answer it can not be denyed seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons as the Lord hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better And further intreat that the truth which I contend for may not by my weak defence beare any reproch but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written and both he and they that so practise may seriously coÌ„sider of that which is done and glorifie God by repentance March 14. 1608. Rich Clifton Mr. Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last Argument which may be framed into this forme As the false Ministerie worship are reiected the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed So the false worship and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something for the further clearing of the point 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised 2. He never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptised 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist R. Clyfton Concerning the causes of baptisme they have been formerly spoken of Answ To these particulars thus I answer brieflly to the first that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing To the 2. touching Pagans that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes fayth I am farre from approving 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful as you cal it I have before proved that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them and have removed al your objections to the contrarie The matter of baptisme is false 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should â—ep be baptised without his own confession c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22. This is true of such as are of yeares and now at the first to be received â—s into the church but not of their infants or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth Towching the places of 1 Pet 3. 21. Heb 10 22 I have answered unto in the former section Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them for Christ wil not contract â—ep in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age Gal. 4. 14. It is strange how you apply scriptures would any that is a Scholer or â—ns made conscience of the truth ever have applyed this place of the Galathians to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful The similitude that the Apostle useth comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors might teach you that the Lord did contract with that church how els could it ever have been
parents whose sinne can not * hinder Gods promise as the Lord did remember to shew mercy to those of Israel that “ left that apostate church and returned to Ierusalem as now he doth unto us And this is all that I alleaged â—his scripture for But you in a kind of bitternes and detestation of our forefathers do here againe utterly deny that ever they beleeved How religion came into our land I have shewed before that there have been are beleevers in it I make no question And whether there have been visible churches in the Apostolical constitution I leave to be confidered by the histories forenamed and the great persequutions they suffered for the truth of Christ And seeing there have been so many Martirs put to death in our nation for the witnessing of Iesus Christ his Gospel mynd well what wronge you do to your native countrie in denying that any of them did visiblie beleeve And of the church of Rome it is undeniable that it was a true established church in the Apostles dayes But you wonder at mee that I should say that seeing we are Apostates that we had auncestors that sometime beleeved and your reason is because we are departed from the scriptures not from the fayth of our Auncestors who never a one of them beleeved in a true constituted Church There cannot be an Apostasie or falling away from that we nor our fathers ever had If we apostate from the fayth of the scriptures eyther we or our fathers †2 Thes 2. once beleeved that which we are departed from or els how is our standing apostasie But our fathers say you beleeved not in a true constituted church Indeed I think they did never beleev in such an heretical Church of Anabaptists as you account a true constituted Church that must have all the members received in by Anabaptisme their children excluded but this is certaine that the general face of a people staÌ„ding in apostasie doth argue that there was a face of a church before professing the fayth as in the examples of Israel and the church of Rome may be seen Thus through Gods providence and blessing I am come to an happie end of answering Râ—p your writing wherein I praise the Lord for his mercy I have received such assurance of the truth that all the earth shal never be able to wring it out of my hart and hands And therefore I desire you Sir and all the leaders of the Separatiâ—â— to weigh seriously even â—â—twixt the Lord and their owne harts upon their bedds this which is written c. I am sory to see how you deceive your own hart in a false perswasion to Ans justifie your errors and most blasphemously as it were to make God a Patron thereof by praising him for his mercy that you have received such assurance of the truth that al the earth shal not be able to wring it out of your hart Whereas you are fallen from faith separating your self from the communion of all true Churches and become a pleader for a practiser of old concondemned heresies into which you are given over of God for iust cause knowen to himself And whereas you desire me and the Leaders of the Seperation as you cal them seriously to consider of your writings such counsel for myne owne part could I wish to your self to examine your writings by the Scriptures from the meaning whereof you have erred pitifully and to pray unto the Lord that this evil may be forgiven you And to remember wel how quickly you fell into these errours not conferring with others or counselling with the word of God as you should have done but following your owne deceitful and deceiving haâ—â— being strongly deluded by Sathan who stil doth incourage you in this new walking that you are perswaded it is thâ— undoubtedst truth that ever was revealed vnto you But know you Sir that the works of the flesh are pleasant wherof †heresie is one And 〈◊〉 5. 20. that Satan wil strongly perswade therevnto when the Lord hath given men over to beleeve lies that would not receive the love of the truth And as you confesse that you may err in particulars as you do indeed so think also that you may erre in your mayne points of controversie which were unheard of in the Apostolical Churches of the first age As you haue begunne to recall your baptising of your selfe as we heare in some respect vid videlicet in that you baptised your selfe and others without lawful calling c. so proceed to renounce it altogether with all your Anabaptistical errours And let me say to you in perswading you to returne unto the truth as you say to me in moving me to error As you love the Lord and his truth and the people that depend vpon you imbrace it and apply not your self to shift it of Think it a great mercy of God to offer you any meanes to see your erronious walking I speak unto you out of my best affection towards you and that poor deceaved company for whose fall I have great sorrow of hart And because you adjure vs in the Lord to shew you your errour I have done for myne own part what it hath pleased God to inable me for the present and so have others also taken paynes if God would give you an hart to be satisfied with the truth On the back syde of my answer was written thus If you reply shew your strength that we may make an end of these uncomfortable oppositions c. Mr Smyth Sir there may be weight in my Reasons and you happely eyther cannot through preiudice or wil not through some sinister respect see the waight of them I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel but eyther shew me myne error or yeeld to the truth I would be glad to be an instrument of shewing you this truth also at least you by shewing vs our error shall discharge a good conscience if you do not answere among you all I proclame you all subtilly blynd and lead the blynde after you into the ditche R. Clyfton Sir what small waight is in your Reasons I have shewed in this writing And though you think I can not through prejudice or will not through some sinister respect see the waight of them myne owne conscience doth cleere me of both these imputations For the Lord that knoweth the secrets of the hart is witnesse that I have not of purpose to mainteyne any untruth wittingly stopped myne eares or shut vp mine eyes from any truth revealed vnto me for any sinister cause or prejudice of your person but if I did see any further truth I would the Lord assisting me receive it with all thankfulnes Neyther do I hang my faith vpon the persons of men but upon the word of God to be charmed by evil counsel evil you call that which condemneth your errors but if by any man I receive further instructioÌ„ or coÌ„firmatioÌ„ in the Lords truth you ought not nor shall not diswade me froÌ„ it call it charming or what you wil. I would to God you were no worse charmed by the counsel of Satan then I am by those whom you point at in these your speeches I doubt not but we should then walk together comfortably in the house of God I have shewed you your error as you desire And for this truth as you falsely call it that you would be glad to impart unto me I dare not herein make you glad but wish rather that you might be sory that wee might reioyce in your conversion 〈◊〉 any former truthes whereof you have bene an instrument of myne 〈…〉 ction which you insinuate in this word also I am thankful to God for â—â— But if you remeÌ„ber that truth that you informed me of was concerning the trunesse of this Church wherof I stand a member which you now hold to be Antichristian And therefore if I had not had better ground for my practise and builded my faith herein vpon the word your revolting would haue sent me back againe to my former estate For your proclayming of vs all subtilly blind if we answer you not In this you shew stil the loftines of your spirit as if men were bound to answer you in every thing you write Now you are answered both to this and to your other heretical book of Differences c. And if you further oppose against the truth I trust the Lord will arme his Servants to contend for the faith once given to the Saincts Our cause is Gods we feare not your forces Rich. Clyfton FINIS 1610 Faults escaped Pag. 20. line 27. the Christ put out the. Pag. 21. line 3. for him read them Pag. 80. line 3. for kithin read within Pag. 130. line 18. for females read males Pag. 139. line 19. read be saved Pag. 173. line 14 how if put out how Pag. 149. line 4. for Rich Clifton read Mr Smyth and after line 6. read Rich Clifton Pag. 181. line 7. put out In Israel Pag. 187. line 20. for many read may Other faults may easily be discerned