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
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
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
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
not that onely they that beleeved were baptised but that they preached to al that were in his howse and waâ— baptised with al that were his Next you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants the former is this The Apostles practise is our instruction but the Apostle in baptising howsholds First Preached to all that were in the family and then they beleeving were baptised Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised This argument might have bene granted had not the conclusion contayned more then the former propositions viz. this word onely which ought to have bene placed in the one of them and if in the assumption then were it false to say that onely they that beleeved were baptised and â—o more the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before And it is to be further observed that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church Your other Argument is this That which the Apostles practised in one family they practised in all families that they baptised But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. c. This argument also may be granted and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants except your heretical collection which I deny And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this the rest of my argumeÌ„ts OF THE TESTIMONIE OF THE fathers concerning the baptising of infants HErevnto I will adioyne some testimonies of the fathers not to prove that children ought to be baptised which is to be done is by the scriptures already proved but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches Augustine as I find alledged writing to Ierome epist 28. sayth Cyprian not making any new decree but firmely observing the faith of the Church iudged with his fellow Bishops that as soone as one was borne he might lawfully be baptised See Cyprian epist to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. 24. sayth that the baptisme of infants was not derived from the authoritie of man neither of counsels but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles Ciril vpon Lev. Cha 8. approveth the baptisme of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptisme Origine vpon the Rom. sayth that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum 3. sayth that baptisme agreeth to everie age to every condition of life to all men if thou hast an infant it is sanctified from his infancy yea from the finger ends it is consecrated After he sayth some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne what shal we baptise those he answers yea verily Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha 11. Speaking of baptisme sayth neyther old man nor Proselyte nor infant is to be excepted because every age is guilty of sinne and therefore stands need of the Sacrament These many other of the fathers do beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the lawfulnes of the baptising of infants Mr. Smyth And for conclusion you produce the fathers I say that the producing of fathers who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies shall availe you nothing in your cause and you that deny the testimonie of fathers contrary to the Scriptures how can you with any colour produce fathers against vs in case contrary to the Scriptures c. R. Clifton I plead not for the errors of the fathers but for the truthes which they held according to the Scriptures And where you charge them to hold pleÌ„tie of antichristian heresies you tax them very deeply and you that so censure others had need to judge your selfe otherwise the Lord wil find out a sentence against you Also I desire you to shew where I produce the testimonie of the fathers contrary to the Scriptures you are growen to be very careles what you affirm For my producing of the fathers against you I do not recall that I have done seing theire testimonie is the truth who shew the practise of their times according to the Scriptures I know the device of your producing of fathers viz. 1. to set a glosse vpon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy c. what would you answere would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt tymes c. even so say I to you c. Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptising of infants antichristiaÌ„ heresy †Esay 5. wo to him that speaks evil of good 2 with sinne in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a glosse vpon my antichristian heresy c. for were it a falseshod that I defend as I know it is not yet know you that my soule is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf It is one thing to produce the testimony of the fathers witnessing the truth according to the scripture another for the defence of errors the latter we reiect you take vp but the former we approve and you condemne And although we are not to build our fayth vpon the fathers yet for matter of fact done in their tymes we may give credit to their report and so theire testimonie serves to prove something namely to shew the practise of their tymes to which end I did alledge them and that is not to confesse that they prove nothing as you charge me And say Remember that and let al men take notice that you produce testimonies that you say prove nothing And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers forsooth to shew the practise of ancient Churches But all these Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession c. Yea Sir I do produce them to shew the practise of Auncient Churches whose testimonies is not so lightly reiected save of you and such like that condemne all Churches for antichristian except such heritical Synagoges as your owne is As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred yeares after Christ albeit some devises of men crept in and as they grew elder so increased yet that they were Antichristian where have you my confession it is strange that you dare affirme such untruthes And for anticihrstiaÌ„ antiquitie vniversality I could wish you were as free froÌ„ Anabaptistical novelitie as I am froÌ„ approving of any error or superstito eythâ—â—oâ— the antiquitie or universalitie of it the truth we defeÌ„d needs no such Popish propps but yet antiquitie when the thing is found to be true that is ancient is not lightly to be regarded seing the truth is
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
sinnes c. it should not have been repeated So that to be members of a false church shal not hinder the efficacy of baptisme Againe if Antichrist intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace ex opere operato to infants and therefore setteth upp his owne idoll as you say what say you to his baptising of the Indians which are of yeares For he intendeth the same thing And yet his so baptising of the elder sort c. you wil not have repeated So by your own opinion to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace ex operâ— operato is no good reason to prove the â—â—erating of childrens baptisme for then should it do so in the elder people confessing their sinnes c. As for the promise made by others for the partie baptised I place as a devise of man amongst the accidental corruptions of this sacrament CoÌ„cerning persons coÌ„fessing their sins fayth whoÌ„ you make the onely subject of baptisme I hav aÌ„swered before And here tel you that the scripture meÌ„tioneth †1 Cor. â— Act. 16. persoÌ„s that were baptised yet sayth not a word that they coÌ„fessed their faith syns And you caÌ„ never prove that al in the familie of Stephanas Lidiah c. did confesse their sinnes and fayth but to al that you say here answer is given before IIII. Argument THose holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people through the hands of prophane persons are not to be rejected for the authors sake Ezra 1 11 But the scriptures and baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people Therfore not to be rejected for the Authors sake If it be objected against the Minor it is not true baptisme but false that is administred in the AsseÌ„blies of Antichrist I answer though it may be sayd to be false in regard of some humane devises used in the administration thereof yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter forme and author thereof which causeth it to have a true being Mr Smyth I answer directly that if it could be proved that baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist Answ is appointed by Christ and that water is the true matter of baptisme and the true forme is washing into the Trinitie I would yeeld unto you but this you have not proved c. but to deal something more fully c. â— water is not the matter of baptisme but onely the instrument c. R. Clyfton First I have proved that baptisme which is administred in the Antichristian Rep. churches is not to be iterated but that Christ appointed baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist I do not affirm onely this I say that Christ ordeyned this sacrament for his church which becoming Apostate yet reteyning the same is notwithstanding baptisme because it is of God And so I affirme that Christ is the Author of baptisme which the Antichristians pollute by their administration thereof as God was the author of that circumcision observed in the apostate church of Israel And therefore as circumcision received of the Israelites in their Apostasie stood as the seal of Gods covenant to so many as repented So baptisme received in Babylon confirmeth the promise to al Gods people departing thence and returning to walk in the wayes of the Lord. But concerning the matter and forme of baptisme you charge me to have sayd in my answer to your second Argument That water is the matter and the forme washing with water into the Trinitie In calling water the matter if so it had pleased you you might have understood my meaning viz. that I understood thereby the outward signe or element whereof in Poperie was no change They used the same which Christ ordeyned And in calling it the matter I did not intend the subject or partie baptised which I know must be also one that beleeveth or the seed of such but considering what Christ ordeyned to be observed in this Ceremonie I found these water and the baptising therewith into the name of the father c. The former I called the matter or element wherewith the partie is baptised meaning that material outward signe that Christ ordeyned in this sacrament as in the other he hath done the like For it was not in my thought to intend that if the water be administred with this forme of words that it is baptisme without a fit subject to be baptised Nay I hold it an error in the Papists which baptise their bells and wil have bread consecrated as they speak to be a sacrament though it be never received but layed up in a box Concerning the subject of baptisme or matter as you terme it I wil not contend but in that you denye the Infants of beleevers to be fit matter of baptisme the contrarie I affirme and have proved before 2. I say that washing into the name of the father of the sonne of the Holy Ghost Ans is not the forme of baptisme for to wash a Turke Jew Foole madman or Infant into the Trinitie is not true baptisme c. I answer first I know that formes can not consist without their subjects Re. therefore I say the forme of baptising is reteyned in Poperie applied to infants though corruptly in that standing Secondly I stand not to defend that to baptise an unfit subject is true baptisme but this that the baptisme of Apostates is not to be iterated when they repent and turne to God no no more then the circumcisio of the Israelites in the like cause 2 Chro. 3â— 6 -11 21. as before I have shewed 3. That infants are to be baptised I have already proved And to baptise a Iewe Turke Foole c. continuing in their infidelitie madnes c. we do not affirme it lawfull nor yet the baptisme of Apostats for all such abuse that holy ceremony being guilty thereof as they are of the body and bloud of Christ that receave it unworthely 1 Cor. 11. The true forme of baptisme consists in 3. things 1. washing with water 2. a new Ans creature 3. into the name of Christ or into the Trinitie This might also be graunted saving that by new creature you mind onely â—p such as are of yeares and so appere to vs new creatures by their profession excluding infants who also must be so accepted of vs inrespect of the covenant whereof they are partakers as wel as theire parents Also the children of the faithful may be estemed new creatures seing they are holy and are so to be accounted til they manyfest themselves otherwise which may be the case of old persons as of S. Magus c. And the Apostle in the place alledged speaketh of such as are of yeares and by the speach of a new creature implyeth a special vse and fruite of the thing signified by the outward signe and so is not a part of the external forme of baptisme †as by
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
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
help of God to put a brief answer to these opinions which by the Churches in all ages have bene and are condemned for hereticall the practise whereof I could wish might never have befallen to any of myne owne country especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth And chiefly vnto him to whose charge both I and divers others had once purposed to have committed our soules had he not besides these broached some former opinions both erronious and offensive wherby the truth for which we suffer is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked many hindered in our owne country that shall heare thereof of whom we had great hope that they would have walked in the same faith with vs. NotwithstaÌ„ding for as much as I am informed that the authour hath promised vpon the sight of his errors to confesse the same I do the more willingly take vpon me this labour praying the Lord to give a good yssue to his glory for his mercy sake Amen Mr Smyth A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truthes viz 1. That Infants are not to be baptised 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme These two truthes are by you Sir in your answer intituled Anabaptisticall c. Rich Clifton Sir Whereas you iustify your two Positions to be two truthes and so â—title your Reply A defence of two truthes And charge me with vsing of â—eproachfull speaches in calling them Anabaptisticall Herevnto I answer â—irst that your two Positions will no more prove two truthes then Ieroboâ—ns two calves proved two Gods as in my former answer I have shewed â—nd shall by Gods grace more fully manifest in this treatise following Secondly I deny to have vsed any reproach by intituling your erronious opinions Anabatisticall But your self do sinne in calling evill good and darknes light thereby bringing vpon your self that fearfull woe dâ—nounced by the Lord against such Esa 5. 20. If you repent not 3. Whereas you blesse God that yoâ— are accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christes truth wish me to know that my reproach shall light vpon myne owne head c. I could wish you did not rejoyce in vayne for there is a suffring for evill iustly deserved as well as for the truth 1 Pet. 2. 20. The Iesuites some of them have sufferred vnto death yet had they no cause of reioycing therein seing they suffered for their due desert And so your opinions being termed Anabaptisticall for their vntruthes can bring no true comfort vnto you in suffring for them nor yet my reproach as you call it any iudgement upon my head being warranted to give falsehood her deserved titles Gal. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 2. Gal. 4. 9. As for Christ and his truth which you say are by me evil spoken of it had bene lesse sinne in you to have stayed your pen from publishing of such sclaunders vnlesse you could have proved your Positions the truthes of Christ which I am sure you shall never be able to doe Mr Smyth In your Preface you avouch that your are provoked to write I mervayle you should so speak seing your conscience telleth you did make the first quest or motion â—â— Mrs Bywater c. Rich Clifton For Answer herevnto know you Sir and let all men take notice that the thing which you charge me with is most vntrue for presently after you were fallen into these grosse errors came Mr Southworth Mr Brâ—mhead two of your followers to my chamber as they sayd in kindnes to see me and entred conference with me concerning these opinions saying that they had heard that I had bene enclyned that way when I was in England with some perswasive speaches to consider of this your new walking saying also that you were willing to conferre with me and did wish that eyther I would come to you or els if I were willing you would take paynes to come to me to whom I answered that I never had any thought of imbracing such opinions neither was willing to have any conference with you thereabout which when they heard me so to say they further did solicite me to write with you about these points and sayd that you would as willingly as frendly write with me thereof as you did in England in our former conference concerning excommunication and other differeÌ„ces then betweene you me offring if I would not beginne that yet I would vouchsafe to read and answer your writing to whom I sayd againe that I would not write first or require your writing for I thought not to have any dealing with you yet being so importuned I tould them that I would be content to read it if you sent it me but for Answere therevnto I I promised none onely I sayd I would consider thereof and so do then as I thought good This was the substance of my speaches to Mr Southworth and Mr Bromehead and of theirs to me Now if this had bene true that I had provoked you by any former speaches it is very like they would have made some relation thereof especially requiring that you might have conference with me neither need you to have sent me word that you would write or conferre if so I pleased and to desire either at my hands as these men did testifie if I had before moved you thereunto But for witnesse hereof you produce Mrs Bywater a gentlewoman â—at hath imbraced your errors with whom after I had received your poâ—ions which also she sayd she had seen I had speach to this effect that she â—ould be carefull over her self how she entertayned your new opinions afâ—rming that I was perswaded they were grevous errors and prayed her â—staÌ„tly to stay a while vntil your positions might be answered assuring her that I could by Gods help defend this truth we stand for against you with some other words to like purpose Now let the indifferent reader iudge if you have not greatly wronged â—e to say that I did make the first request or motion of writing nay your own act in writing first vnto me your own speaches in this your * Pag. 1. book which are these Certayne reasons propounded to Mr Rich Clifton concerning the two Popositions following as also your adiuring vs to answer you or els you wil proclayme vs subtily blind leaders of the blind into the ditch do witnesse the contrary And that this busynes comes of your self though you seek to lay it vpon my back let your owne conscience iudge as for myne owne part being so provoked I could do no lesse then answer 2. You charge me with perverting of this scripture Jude 3. and say that I â—â— neither to plead for Baall nor contend for Antichristian errors And I answer that these being truthes for which I contend as have ben proved sufficiently and shal be God willing as occasion serveth more fully confirmed then am I not guilty of any
another contrarie to the scripture for the truth sake That Augustine was an heretick and condemned Auxentius for the truth contrary to the Scripture resteth for you to prove if you can I have already proved that the denying of Baptisme to Infants is an error you have not in all this your writing confuted the same as wil appeare in the answer And here let it be observed that you acknowledge AuxeÌ„tius Pelagius to be hereticks so these your errors to have bene first broched by men iustly condemned for heresie for you say one heretick condemned another Further concerning the fathers by me alleadged in the 6. page of my writing to shew the practise of Churches in baptising of Infants you passe them over with this answer saying I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Cyprian Origine Nazianzene Ambrose and many others were as grosse hereticks if he be an heretick that holdeth an heresie as Auxentius and Pelagius c. That these Fathers and others had their errors we do not deny but that they were hereticks and such as did obstinately defend their errors being convinced therof by the word of God is more I think then you can prove we do not say that the holding of every error makes an heretick but when he that holds an error and persisteth obstinately therin after admonition â— say that such a one is to be rejected Tit. 3. 10. And though you could â—ove those fathers as grosse heretiks as Auxentius Pelagius as I know â—u can not in that sense as the Scripture taketh this word Hâ—reticke yet â—is opinion of those Catabaptists is not therby iustifed for as an heretique â—ay hold some points hereticall so may he some truthes And you are to â—ove that those fathers did vnjustly condemn Auxentius and Pelagius â—r the denying of the baptisme of Infants or els you Answer not to the â—urpose As for our acknowledging of the Auncient fathers to be Antichristian â—t is more theâ— you have froÌ„ me or can shew that I have so affirmed in deed â—n there tymes the churches were in declyning and through ignorance and careles taking heede to the word Sathan beganne to prepare way for Antichrist but that we account them simply Antichristian as fallen into that deepe Apostacy we doe not they had some Ceremonies and other observances that we approve not of yet reteyned they many of gods ordinances wherof Paedobaptistry is one And where as yov say it is no more to be respected 〈◊〉 the Ancient Churches then the Prelacy and read prayer in the same we have learned by the word to put difference betwene the things of God reteyned in Churches declyning and the inventions of men though you cast out both together account vs AntichristiaÌ„ for the same next you proceed to examine my Arguments from the scripture alledged to prove that Infants are to be baptised 1. OF THE FIRST POSITION concerning the Baptising of infants Rich Clifton Argument I. Gen. 17. 10. God made his covenant to Abraham and to his seed from whence I reason thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him and to all his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfore that is commanded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrhams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2. 39 sayth the promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are a farre off as many as the Lord our God shall call In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive and were baptised into And therfore is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is sayd to redeme vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8. 9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant for otherwise ABRAHAMS covenaunt should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a tyme Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs and to our infants els it is not the same that by the coÌ„mandement of God For the abolishing of circuÌ„cisioÌ„ the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospell doth not abrogate or disannul the commaundement of sealing the covenaunt to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant beloÌ„gs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seale thereof to them to their seede as it did to Abraham to his seed The outward ceremony onely changed Mr Smyth To this Argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two coveâ—nts or testaments for a covenant testament is all one in the originals though â—he English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham and his carâ—al seed and of that covenaÌ„t was circuÌ„cisioÌ„ a seale another covenaÌ„t made with AbrahaÌ„ and his Spirituall seed and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seale for â—he carnall covenant had a carnal seale vpon the carnall seed the Spirituall covenant had a Spirituall seale vpon the Spirituall seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnall seale could not seale vp the Spirituall covenant to the Spirituall seed for to say so is to leap over the hedge and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth c. Rich Clifton Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham a carnall a spirituall the one with Abraham and his carnall seed the other with him and his spirituall seed I answer first that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation which is That God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was * Gen. 17. 10. 11. Râ— 4. 11. sealed with circumcision and it is the same covenant that is established by the †2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12. bloud of Christ vnto all the faithfull seed sealed vnder the Gospell * Mat. 19. by baptisme in stead of circumcision Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed the scripture knoweth none In this covenant is promised through Iesus Christ remission of sinnes iustification life everlasting with all saving graces to all that †Heb. 8. â— Ier. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11. beleeve And that this is so the
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
the lawe ordeyned to like vse vnto the Iewes 〈…〉 m this placeis that there are two seeds Ismaell of Abra 〈…〉 carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah 〈…〉 seed 〈…〉 this type th 〈…〉 that Hagar Ismael did shadow 〈…〉 lawe with her children 〈…〉 bondage and Sarah â— Ierusalem and her children which 〈◊〉 and sonnes by promise â—nding hereby not onely Abrahams 〈◊〉 seed 〈…〉 e vnder bondage 〈◊〉 through the observation of the law looked for 〈…〉 tion But all o 〈…〉 s whatsoever that by pretending to observe the law â—â—pe thereby to be instified as by applying this doctrine to the Galathians â—ppeareth But you say Hagar and Ismael typed the carnall seed after the flesh â— All that the Apostle sayth is this that he that was borne of the servant 〈…〉 e after the 〈◊〉 meaning thereby that he was not bornâ— by promise 〈◊〉 mother that was free as Isaac was and so did typâ—â—â—t as afore 〈◊〉 the state and condition of them that seek iustification by the works of 〈…〉 what you affirme more then this you must prove 3. You say there are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall 〈…〉 〈◊〉 carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a 〈◊〉 spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed Ephe. 1. 13. First I deny that circumcision is the seale of any other covenant ◠〈◊〉 â— Gal. â— Gen. â— of that †one covenaunt made with Abraham 〈…〉 of Christ w 〈…〉 was confirmed vnto * him and to his seed therby a 〈…〉 spirit calleth circumcision a ‡ Gal. 4. seale of the righteousnes of faith And lastly because Isaac that was borne by * Gal. 4. promise was circumcised who was partaker of the covenaunt of grace and of the righteousnes which is by faith therefore circumcision was a signe and seale thereof But you will obiect that Isaac was of Abrahams carnall seed and in that respect received circumcision as a seale of the carnall covenant which he also had It is true that Isaac was borne to Abraham after the coÌ„mon course of nature and therefore had he thereby this prerogative to be circumcised which no other children had but Abrahams vntil they or their Parents were by faith partakers of the same covenaunt made with AbrahaÌ„ but it is not true that he received this signe of circumcision as the seale of a carnall covenaunt or of the promise of Canaan onely or that it was a seale vpon the carnal children of Abrahams onely seing 〈…〉 Exod. 12. the beleeving Gentiles as before was observed 〈…〉 and Ismael also was circumcised that had no righ 〈…〉 And â— all such as beleeve have received the gospel are sealed 〈…〉 rit of promise is true but as the spirit doth not onely 〈…〉 promise of God in the hatteâ— of 〈◊〉 but externally â—â— the 〈◊〉 cheth the same Heb. 8. 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. 15. so doth he both inwardly â— outwardly seale the sâ—me promise to them vnto whom it belongs Tâ— * spirit and circ 〈…〉 on are seales of the same covenaunt of grace righteousnes â— Gor. 1. â— 21. 22. â—he 1. 13. â—erd with â—om 4. 11. of faith And thus may you see that your distinction of two seales of two severall covenants a carnal and a spiritual is but a devise of your owne invention which wil fall to the ground when Poedobaptistry shall stand firm against 〈◊〉 strongest reasons though you hold it to have a sandy foundatiâ—◠〈…〉 next place you answer to the scriptures by me alleadged to prove 〈◊〉 of my argument and first to that of Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. you say 〈◊〉 proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenaunt made with 〈…〉 all seed and not a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with the faithful for 〈…〉 it is the seale thereof 〈◊〉 answered you before that circumcision was a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham and have proved the same by those places of Rom. 4. 11. and Gen. 17. 7-12 although you labour to infringe the the testimony of the Apostle saying that it is not the scope of the place but this viz. that circumcision had one specialitie in Abraham differring from all other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the father of all the faithful as concerning the matter of their iustification c. The words of the Apostle are so playne as you cannot shift them off for Paul proving that Abraham was iustified by faith and that faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnes when he was vncircumcised sayth after he received the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Ram. 4. 9. 10. 11. Doth not the Apostle plainely affirme that circumcision was a seale of the righteousnes of faith which â—â— Cor. 1. 30. Act. 13. 39. 2 Cor. 5. 21. righteousnes what is it else but the matter of Gods spirituall covenaunt made to Abraham for Christ the substance of this covenaunt is this righteousnes by which Abraham and all the faithfull ‡ are iustified And you confesse that by circumcision Abraham was sealed vp to be the father of the faithful 〈…〉 ning the matter of their iustification Now if it did seale to Abraham the â—uall covenaunt then is circumcision a seale of the covenannt of salvaâ— and not of a carnall covenaunt as you affirme And if circumcisiâ— a 〈◊〉 Abraham of this heavenly promise then is it so to all his 〈…〉 God put no difference in commaunding him and his seed to â—cumcised as to say to Abraham that this sacrament should seale vnâ—â—im the covenaunt of grace and to his seed a carnall covenaunt but â—d thus to Abraham †Gen. 17. 9. 10. thou also shalt keep my co 〈…〉 thou and thy seed afâ— thee in their generations But say you he was sealed vp toâ—â— the father of the faithâ—l that as he was iustified by faith so should they be and th◠〈…〉 ltie had circumcision in Abraham differing from all other That Abraham had this prerogative above others to be â—â—e father of the faithful is not denyed but to affirme that circumcision â—â—s not a seale of the spirituall covenant is false and you answer not the Apostle but shift it off with saying this specialtie had circumcision in Abrahan differing froÌ„â—ther which is no conscionable dealing seing you cannot but 〈◊〉 that Paul having affirmed that Abrahams faith was imputed to him 〈…〉 â—ousnes when he was vncircumcised doth prevent this obiection 〈…〉 Abraham was iustified being vncircumcised to what end was he then cir 〈…〉 cised to which the Apostle answers that his circumcision was not iâ— vayne but was given of God and by him received as a seale of the righâ—â—ousnes of his faith so setting downe the vse of circumcision not limitting the same as a specialty to Abrahams fatherhood but as the proper end or vse of the sacrament it self belonging to all others that were circumcised as well
sayd to be coinheritors with them and of the â—ame body see also Ephes 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the Iewes were called the * Mat. 8 12. children of the kingdome and of of the “ Act. 3. 25. covenant and unto whom the †Act. â— 32. promise was made And now it being proved that this spirituall covenant apperteyned to the Israelites and the conditions therof required at their hands I hope you will grant as much to the faythfull and their seed under the Gospel or els shew vs where and when the hand of Gods grace was shortened but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be lesse bountiful now then he was to the Iewes and therefore as the chidren of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circumcision so are the children now that descends from beleeving parents * 1 Cor. 7. 14. holy and have right to the covenant “ Mat. 19 14. and kingdome of God and consequently to baptisme the seal thereof But you say Infants wanting actuall faith cannot truely be sayd the children of Abraham I answer that actuall faith is required of such of Abrahams children as Here noâ— that actuaâ— faith in alâ— this treatisâ— is put for tâ— actual usâ— faith are grown to yeares And therfore you must proove that infants wanting actuall faith cannot be the children of Abraham and then must you prove that they are not Christs for if they be Christs they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29. But are that they are in secret to the Lord whatsoever they are Christ hath sayd playnely “ Mar. â— 14. that of such is the Kingdome of God And the promise is * Act. 2. 3. made to the beleevers and their seede And you leave them in secrete to the Lord thus shutting your eies against the cleare light of the truth The Scriptures following viz Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9. compared with GeÌ„ 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most playnly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham you leave vnanswered Next folow your reasons against poedobaptistrie the first wherof is this As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with the children of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first beleeved actually and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision Ergo the childreÌ„ of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive the baptisme of water This Argument which you alledge against Paedobaptistrie the very 〈◊〉 serves to confirm it for thus we reason for it observing your termes As it was with Abraham the father of the faythful so must it be with thâ— children of Abraham But Abraham first beleeved and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision he and his children Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeveâ— and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive baptisme of water they and their children Here let the reader consider yf you by this your owne Argument have not yeelded the cause for this is that which we stand for viz that As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his children the beleeving Gentiles Now Abraham beleeved that God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the †seale thereof he himself and all his males yea Isaac of eight dayes old â—om 4. 3 â— Gen. 17. â— 14. â— 27. â— 21. 4. Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeeve and then receive the seale thereof which is Baptisme themselves and their children But if your meaning be this that as Abraham beleeved first after was circumcised so every one of Abrahams seed must first actually beleeve and then be baptised then I must intreat you to shew me when and where this difference was put between the seed of AbrahaÌ„ which descended from him by the course of nature his seed that are of the Gentiles that the former being infants might notwithstaÌ„ding first receive the seal before they did actually beleeve And that the other viz the infants of the Gentiles must first beleeve and after receive the signe surely before the comming of Christ the Lord put no such difference but that such of the Gentiles as did turne to the faith “ their infants were circumcised as well as â—xod 12. the infants of the Iewes After Christs comming the Apostle witnesseth that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the Iewes for he sayth Ephe. 3. 6 * the Gentiles are coinheritors also meaning with the Iewes and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel And therefore the Apostle did not doubt to “ baptise the households with the beleeving parents Act. 16. â— 33. Act. 10. â— I wil answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not God hath purifyed the Gentiles and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham therfore yt is an iniury offered to pollute that is to reject from the coveâ—ant our children whom the Lord hath received Your second â—s this As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admitâ—d into the Church of the old testament so in the new testament the spirituall children â—ust be spiritually circumcised and then be admitted by baptisme into the Church â—f the new testament But the first was signified by the type Ergo the second is â—rified in the truth First If this Argument should hold proportion then it would folow that as circumcision was a seale of the covenant so should baptisme be a â—eale likewise for it is brought in here to answer circumcision as the dore into the Church But you deny * Charaâ— pag. 9 Baptisme to be a seale of the covenant 2. I answere that the carnall children of the Israelites were not admitted to be members of the Church of the old testament by circumcision for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day “ Gen. 17 the covenant apperteyned unto them and therfore were they circumcised for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong Also to the Majors consequent I answer that they which enter into the Lords covenant be they beleevers or their Infants we are to hold them †1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk â— 15. Ier. 1. â— spiritually circumcised and therefore to be partakers of baptisme Concerning your assumption as * Mat. 3. 8. Act. â— 12. 37. repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoyned to the Church of the new Testament so was it of “ Gen. 17 â—
circumcision by which the Iewish children were received into the covenant that must type out baptisme by which say you the partie so qualified should be received into the new Testament actually or els shew a reason why this ceremonie of baptisme is added to the truth as you expound it and nothing added to the type to shadowe out baptisme this is not proportioable that there must be a ceremonie added to the truth in receving in of members into the Church now since the coÌ„ming of Christ and not any to the type in receiving in of members into the Church before his coming Lastly if you wil keep proportion you must compare together circumcision and baptisme both which do lead to the circumcision of the hart are the seales of one and the same covenant the one appointed for the old Church before Christ the other for the Church under the Gospel then wil your Argument fall out against your self And thus I have shewed both the weaknes of your answer of your reasons grounded therevpon Argument II. Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumcision belonged to faithful Abraham and his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to all beleevers and to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the second The consequent wil follow seing baptisme coÌ„meth in place of circumcision sealing up unto us and to our seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham and to his seed Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelites for of them onely were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males and females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coÌ„ming of Iesus Christ should be more restreyned then it was under the law who came to ratify and confirm it wholly as the Apostle sayth 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea and Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham and his infants and if Christ should give it unto us onely and not to our infants this were to lessen and infringe the covenant and not to confirm all but to take away part of that which God before had given Mr Smyth I answer that this argument is built vpon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant and seale and seed and there is manifest violence coÌ„mitted upon the scripture by perverting and wresting it to false consequents first therfore I deny the consequence and I give reasons of my denyall c. The former Argument is proved to stand upon a true ground and so â—all it be manifested that there is no mistaking eyther of the covenant seale or seed in this reason nor yet any violence offred to this scripture by wresting it to false consequences as you affirme The consequence you deny but desprove it not to your reasons I wil answer particularly which in number are three Your first reason because that circumcision did not appertaine to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant but of the externall temporary covenant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moses c. I have already proved the contrary both out of Gen 17. 7. 9. where it is added as a signe vnto that everlasting covenant and also out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith Furthermore circumcision did signify the †Deut. â— 16. Ier. â— Act. 7. 5â— inward circumcision of the hart which was not required of them in respect of the promise of CanaaÌ„ the same being required vnder the Gospel nor yet of the law for it admitts of no repentance but as a condition of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and his seede in Christ also the proselites Ismael were circumcised that had no promise of Canaan nor right to one foot of inheritance in it for * Ios 14. â— 16. 17. 18 19. 21. c Canaan was devided by lot to the 12. Tribes and in every tribe to the several families and therefore their circumcision did eyther seale vnto them the spirituall covenant or none at all as before is observed Againe if by the male circumcised Christ was typed as you have affirmed before in your fift reason in your answere to my former Argument then circumcision was a signe of the spiritual covenant For Christ is that which was promised And if the infant circumcised was a type of him it must nedes followe that circumcision was asigne of that covenant whereof the child circumcised was the subject but the infant in becomming a type of Christ became in this respect a subiect of the spiritual covenant and therfore his circumcision a seale thereof for the type and truth must have relation to the same thing or covenant Lastly Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises unto the fathers Rom. 15. 8. Also I deny that circumcision was first given as a seale of obedience to the law of Moses seing the law was not given when circumcision was ordeyned but * Gal. 3. 1â— 430. yeares after the thing to be sealed is to go before the seale or els it is preposterous and the seale without fruit Neyther was it given to be a seale of a carnall promise in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace God togither with it promised unto him and his seed the Land of Canaan but he never appointed circumcision to be the seale thereof els when Israel possessed that land circumcision should have ceassed as all Sacraments shall do when the promises whereof they be seales shal be fully accomplished and circumcision should have bene of no force to them that had no right to Canaan which yet were circumcised Your second reason because the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the new Testament c. I answer they do thus occupy the place of Abraham that as he did so Act. 2. 39 do * they receive the covenant to them and their children who through the free promise of God received by the faith of the parents have entrance into the covenant together with them and in this regard parents are so may be called “ fathers of their children being the meanes whereby they Act. 2. 39 come to this prerogative And this is not to supply that particular of Abrahams fatherhood which was extraordinarie Your third reason is because the infants of the faithful doe not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh c. First how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham I have shewed here deny that the children of Abraham according to the flesh onely as you mean were types of the infants of the faithfull seing the children of the Proselytes were the children of
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.
whereby you seeme to understand confession you cannot but know that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words was the extraordinary geving of the spirit wherewith he and the rest were indued and not onely that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true beleever as by the text is plainly to be seen which sayth that they of the circumcision were astonied as many as came with Peter because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost For they heard them speak with tongues And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them even as upon us at the beginning Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them viz there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre and it sat vpon each of them and they were filled with the holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinarie for he came not so upon all that were baptised Act. 8. 36 37. 16. 14. 15. 33 seing * the multitude was astonished â—ct 2. 6. â— 12. wondred all and marveyled Therefore that comming of the spirit upoÌ„ Cornelius and his company was extraordinary for Peter sayth The holy Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them baptisme for he seing them partakers of the spirit sayth can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we This visible seale seale of the new Testament say you is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confession That confession is not the seale of the new Testament I have already proved And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old TestameÌ„t thus farre may be granted that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance and so is baptisme now to us a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pagans but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our baptisme Act. 19. â— Rom. 10 10. King 18 â— Exo. 19. â— Psa 107. â— 21. 31. Esa 29. 13. â—e DaÌ„ ch 9 Exo. 12. â—8 Act. â— 27. c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God and his truth not onely by circumcisision but also †with words to his praise And I make no question but the Proselytes before they were “ circuÌ„cised made confession of their faith Baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale I pray you Sir of what seale is baptisme the manifestation Confession you say is the visible seale of the new testament Doth it manifest our confession it needs not for that is visible If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace it is true but thereby we are assured of Gods promise and so is the visible seale thereof Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to coÌ„firme the consequence of my Argument the first whereof is Collos 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme coÌ„meth in the rome of circumcision this you deny so to be construed and say That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision c. That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcisioÌ„ was the seale I wil further manifest prove both out of this place of the Collossians and also by other reasons First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Gospel proveth that the Church stands no need therof seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvatioÌ„ he answereth that neyther needed they to be circumcised because they were spiritually circumcised And whereas the Collossions might have objected that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof which if we want our state is not so good as their was yea sayth Paul that it is for in stead of outward circumcision you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children under the Gospel the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed this is the meaning of the Apostle and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Now I vvil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant First the sacraments of the nevv Testament have the same end scope in respect of the thing signified with the sacraments under the law For as Paul attributed the same vertue efficacy and effect of our baptisme the Lords supper * 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers so doth he ascribe to the beleevers under the gospel the efficacy of the †Cor. â— Pascall lambe “ Col. 2. 1â— 12. and circumcision therfore in respect of the thing signed there is no difference the same Christ was the Lambe * Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world Also the same instrument and meanes of application the same †Rom. 4 16. c. faith end and effect one and the same righteousnes of faith the same “ Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham the same spirituall circumcision of the hart both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel so that in all these things there is no difference which plainely argues that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments 2 This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and baptisme together in their special vses and ends There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptisme viz to * be signes of the covenant â—o 4. 11. â— c. Gal â—6 Mar. â— 16. conâ—d with â—om 4. 11 Deut. 10. â— 30. 6 â—it 3. 5. â—er 4. 4. â—l 2. 11. â—uk 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 â— 6. 4. 6. â—om 2. 29. â—hil 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 â— Exo. 12. â— Act. 8. â— 16. â— 33. â—at 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 â—2 1 Cor. â—2 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ both of the sacraments of †regeneration “ requiring repentance and mortification both signifying that we are corrupt and by the ¶ blood of Christ to be clensed by both of them such as were * without were received into the communion of the Church And by both of them Gods people were †discerned from
the covenant * For if the root be holy so Rom. 11. â— Gen. 17. 7 â— 11. 12. â—at 28. 19 are the branches And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant through the free grace and large promise of God so have they †to the seal thereof which is administred by the commandement of God according to the outward dispensation of his covenant and not after his secret election according to which election neyther all the carnall infants of Abraham or all the seed of the faithfull or yet all that make * 1 Io. â— visible profession of their faith and stand members of true Churches are under the covenant save onely the elect But thus to vnderstand to be vnder the actuall possession of it as it is proper onely to the true children of Abraham so the certaine knowledge thereof †2 Tim 19. belongs onely to God And thus you see the majors consequent in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow Your second is this If Baptisme doth not succeed circumcision then Baptisme doth not perteyne to carnall infants But Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision because the seale of the spirit is correspondent to the typicall seale of the flesh and Baptisme with water is onely the manifestation of the seale Ergo c. The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true for though baptisme should not succeed circumcision yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God But I deny the minor and do affirme that Baptisme doth succeed circumcision as I have formerly proved The reason of your assumption is also before disproved for the spirit as you vnderstand it for our confession is not correspondent to circumcision seing infants are excluded Your third is this If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants then by your proportion baptisme doth not seale up the everlasting covenant to the faithful their carnal infants But circumcisioÌ„ did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants Ergo c. The Assumption is false being rightly vnderstood viz in respect of their outward standing and the contrarie is proved before to wit that circumcision did seale up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed Gen. 17. 7. c. Your fourth is this If beleeving Parents do not stand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants then though they be baptised themselves yet their children shall not But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants for no man is the father of the faithfull as Abraham was and he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnall infants Ergo c. For conveighing of the everlasting covenant this is that which we say that it is conveighed to the children by the free grace and disposing of the Lord who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their seed And although the beleeving parents stand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations yet stand they in Abrahams rowme in this that as * God did conveigh his everlasting covenant by Abraham beleeving â— 17. 7 â— 2. 39 â— 7. 14 â— 11. 9. to his seed so dooth the Lord conveigh †his covenant to the children of beleevers for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their seed and thus entred Abrahams carnall seed as you call them into the everlasting covenat as before is proved And be it that all their seed are not within Gods election yet leaving secret things to the Lord we are to beleeve the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely and not to put difference before the time that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham Amongest them that confesse Iesus Christ and “ are members â—oh 2. of the visible Church many depart away yet we account them childreÌ„ of the covenant vntill their hypocrisie be discovered and so in like manner are we to esteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy vntill the coÌ„trary â—or 7. appeare Your fift argument is this If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham but onely occupy the place of carnal children then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized yet the infants shall not which cannot beleeve actually But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham seing the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Joh. â— 39. which infants cannot do Ergo c. First it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onely occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderstand it for they are also the †children â—ct 3. 32 â—at â— of the covenant and of the “ kingdome Secondly the consequent of the major according to the true meaning of the termes therein used is also denyed the contrary is proved before viz that infants are to be baptised though they have not the actuall use of fayth To the minor I answer that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the Act. 2. 29 â—t 29. â— 15. true children of Abraham for to * them is the promise and in that respect children of Abraham as hath been sayd Your reason drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children is not truely gathered from that scripture for Christ there proveth that the Iewes living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be seing they did not the deeds of Abraham and he speaketh to men of yeares of whom the practise of â—â—ith is required Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires â—o such works is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes 3. 6. that because children cannot work therefore they must not eat And such is â—our absurd reasoning from this place Now when children of beleevers do come to yeares to manifest their infidelitie by their works we are accordingly to iudge of them after the example of Christ and not before Thus much to your five reasons whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptised Argument III. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive But the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts are of the kingdom of God Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptisme seing they are capable of it
Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5. Secondly for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament which you say was of another nature then that of the new I answer that former church was of an heavenly constitution a †kingdome of Preists and a “ holy nation the people * saincts as wel as the members of the church of the new Testament And this people being separate from al other nations called out to be the Lords “ peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them and so became the people church and kingdome of God as in renuing of their covenant is manifest Deut. 29. 9-15 Exod. 14. 8. They were †natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by fayth on Christ then to come in whom they beleeved 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation Gal. 3. â—6 Luk. 1 68-75 This old church by their constitution admitted of no prophane person to be a member therof but such as professed holynes They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con 〈…〉 their syn Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch 5. 5. NuÌ„ 14. 40. to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged Num. 5. 7. Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be coÌ„â—idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof with that of the â—d and there wil be no such difference in substance between them as you pretend the matter of them both being holy and living stones and the forme an holy uniting together in the covenant of God to walk in al his commandements els could not the Gentiles be made one body and coâ—heriters with the Iewes Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promises in Christ if the constitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not spiritual Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament 〈◊〉 onely a carnal holynes viz. the circumcision of the foreskin c. I have already proved that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holynes Lev. 11. 44. saying I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and â—e holy for I am holy Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after Gods example who neither is carnally holy or yet delites in carnal holynes without the spiritual Psal 50. 7-23 Esa 1. 11-20 chap. 50. And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not onely the truth but your self for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal holynes carnal yet in your Differencâ— pag. 10. book of Differences you say that the Septuagint Translation was a gree 〈…〉 synn for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles So by your own confession Israel had the covenant of grace els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant can not your hearers mynd how unstable a leader they follow Wel let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer that the Apostle by the law of carnal commandement intendeth not thereby to teach that the coÌ„stitution of the old church was carnal but sheweth the diversitie of Christs priesthood from Aarons understanding by carnal commandement those frayl and transitorie things which the †law commanded â—… 24. 1. â—sa 61. 1. â— 45. 7. in the consecration of the Levitical Preists so called in respect of Christ his anoynting which was “ spiritual Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for justification exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. c. to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath madâ— â—… 5. 3. us free c. testifying to every man that if he be circumcised he is bound to keep the whole law Noting circumcision especially because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification And he reasoneth against it not as it was in it self by the ordinance of God but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it which made circumcision a part of their salvation And he that so esteemes of it as a work to justifie must also sayth Paul keep al the rest of the commandements For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances the whole observation therof Deut. 27. â—6 Gal. 3. â—… RoÌ„ 3. 20. â—al 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promise no * life And because no man can be “ justifyed by the works of the law therfore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them and calleth them †beggerly rudiments And now if a papist or any other should contend that a man is justified by Baptisme as by a work wrought we might so speak to them as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians that if you receive baptisme to be made righteous thereby ex opere operato you are bound to keep the whole law for baptisme being made a work to justifie is perverted And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision in this place as a work urged to justification the very next verse viz. ver 4. sheweth wherein he sayth ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are iustified by the law And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth 2. The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self true is nature and reason The constitution viz. the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. the constitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Test is the truth c. Heb. 10. 1. 9. 19. 23. I answer first to your Major that one and the same thing may both be the type and the truth for Isaac was a type of the faythful as your self doth affirme yet was he also faythful and so was both the type and the truth Secondly to your Minor the constitution viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type c. of the church of the new Testament in that sense as you take matter and forme for the matter of that former Ch. â—as not to be ceremonially but truly holy as before I have proved and these †Deu. 2â— 9. 14. â— Esa 5. 4. â— 15. 24. 3. 4. 5. Esâ— 58. 2 7. â— 14. Deu. â— 12 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further
that is which by the works thereof †seek justification â—l 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. â—or 3. 7. and so were some members of the old church under the law as the Pharisees that * sought to justifie themselves as now they ar that do the like but to hold that the whole church was under condemnation without faith in Christ is an error to be abhord That scripture 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death coÌ„pareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that coÌ„tinued not in al things to fulfil it then much more the ministration of righteousnes shal exceed in glorie which bringeth salvation to them that beleev This is the meaning of the Apost and not to shew that Israel was under condemnation seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ And as they so wee under the Gospel have the law to accuse condemn us if we transgresse it but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Christ are freed from the curse of the law so were the Iewes also Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur eyther before or since Christ but to the “ faythlesse and disobedient both â—s 1 Tim. 1. â— 10. under the old Testament and under the Gospel Finally you say the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iustification by fayth in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iustification Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the disputation of Paul concerning justification is a notable error For where Paul reasoneth against such as mainteyned justification by the works of the law he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holynes for albeit some of the Iewes fel into this error to hold justification by works of the law yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then as wel as now And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification yet fayth in Christ could effect it which I have proved that the old church had in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could â—ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament iâ— the matter or constitution of it was not really holy but onely typically c. I have shewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes not to make them holy and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given and therefore your bould defence against al men that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically hath in it more boldnes then truth the contrary is proved †pag. 23. c. before And therefore your inference is false fiz that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant c. but onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham and afterward assumed written â—mplified by Moses Ioh. 7. 19-23 with Heb. 8. 8. 9. That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed see pag. 20. c. concerning these scriptures in the former Christ charging Iohn 7. 19-23 the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabboth day proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practise reasoning thus if you may circumcise on the Sabboth and not break the law then why may not I as lawfully heal a man this is that Ch. intendeth now because it is sayd ver 22. that Moses gave them circumcision c. it seemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test were given first to Abraham and afterward assumed written by Moses but thaâ— cannot be proved by this place For circumcision was a signe of the promise in Christ not of the law as before is proved In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apostle sheweth that Christ is the Heb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Priests and ther fore his ministerie more excellent then theirs this first hee proveth because this covenant was established upon better promises and then he sheweth the excellency of it compared with the former And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of Ieremy Now concerning the first Testam it was made with the church when the Lord gave his law in Sinai the people did covenant with him saying Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do of Abraham we do not finde that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse as Israel did Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law the covenant of works or old Testament was not first made with him and after examplified by Moses but â—xo 19. 5 24. 3. Lev. 34. â— Dâ—u 5. â— Heb. 9. â— 23. it was †made with Israel as further also may be shewed by the description thereof in Heb. 9. 1-10 which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme. Agayn the Apostle * sayth when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law he toke the blood of calves and of goates and sprinckled al the people saying this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you c. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministerie of Moses And Paul sayth that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham his seed in respect of Christ Now if the law had been geven to Abraham the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of tyme had been of no force And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs Next followes your answer to my objections wherein stil you afferme That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy but tipically that their holynes was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trained or schooled to Christ c. What is here sayd is answered elswhere here I deny that the Iewes holines was onely typical though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Christ whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Israel was called a holy â—od 19. 6 people you answer thus I say that eyther the meaning is that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes or that they by atteyning the end of the law should attayne true holynes in Christ so that this place
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
But the first is true Mat. 28. 19. Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13. 48. 16. 14. 15. 32. 33. It wil be objected against the Major that it followes not that the infants are any more bound to receive baptisme then they are bound whilest they are infants to receive the word but the word they cannot receive Ergo. I answer that the coÌ„mandement is general to al nations and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circumcise him self and al his familie yea the infants he should grevously have rebelled against God so whosoever of the Gentiles shal not beleev and be baptised both himself and his seed shal have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ seeing he cutts himself and his seed from the covenant of God Genes 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant which notwithstanding they are bound unto as they shall come to yeares of discretion yet are they capable of the seal as before is shewed and therefore by vertue of this generall commandement Mat. 28 19. are to be baptised M. Smyth The errors of this Argument I wil discover in order first I deny that baptisme is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ Thirdly Baptisme therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision c. Fourthly I deny that although Abraham had a speciall commandement did circumcise his male infants therefore Christians upon this generall commandement Mat. 28. 19. shal baptise their infants Fiftly I say rather the contrarie is hence proved c. R. Clyfton This is a ready course in answering if it might be admitted of to denye one thing after another without shewing any reason to the contrary As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors of three of them I have spoken before more particularly the fourth is now to be answered unto concerning the baptising of infants upon the general commandement of Christ Mat. 28. 19. which you deny to have warrant from that scripture I prove it thus If there was a commandement given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children then is this Mat. 28. 10. a comandement and faithfully described in the institution of baptisme as the person condition and tyme of circumcision But for paedobaptisme there is no expresse description of the person condition or tyme of their baptisme c. I answer to the consequent of the Major that our Saviour hath †reveled â— 17. 6. â—14 26. â— â— â— to his church the whole will of his father which is conteyned in the Scriptures not onely in the writings of the Apostles but also of the prophets which hee hath for that end commanded us to search Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter to take heed unto 2 Pet. 1. 19. and Paul commends to be profitable to teach to convince to correct and to instruct in righteousnes c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods wil must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles that the prophets be excluded but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expresly then the writings of the Apostles But to come to the point I answer that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner which before had been written and were stil to continue as example the sealing of the covenant the persons yong and old that were to be signed and such like what needs a new repetition hereof when the Lord purposed not to disaÌ„nul them so much as was to be altered concerning the outward signe Christ omitted not to declare And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaithfulnes if he in expresse words had not commanded infants to be baptised seing under the old Testament they had the signe of the covenant Again the Apostles writings do plainly ynough declare unto us that infants are to be baptised as both from that commandement of Christ Mat 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles in baptising of families and by other reasons hath been shewed And concerning the tyme of baptising I see no reason why you should cavil about it more then about the tyme of administring the Lords Supper which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day nor tyme of the day for the administring thereof as Moses did of the passeover And the scriptures which you cite do shew that bap is to be administred when men enter into Gods covenant and children entring in at the same tyme with their parents are to be baptised at the same tyme with them as Ismael and al Abrahams howse were circumcised * the same day with Abraham Deu. 17. â— And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major which â—so serveth to answer your minor But touching those scriptures which you alledge for proof of your Minor thus I answer in general to them all that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel to beleeve that Iesus was the Christ who were never baptised before And this rule I confesse to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptisme that they make confession of their fayth sinnes as they did but they serve not to teach vs to deale so towards their infants or the infants of beleevers that are borne within the covenant For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it is not the same as concerning the administration of baptisme no more then it was in the Iewish Church towching circumcision for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their owne profession and the other to be within it by their being borne of beleeving parents if you had instanced an example of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament of pareÌ„ts that were members thereof whose baptising was differd until he was able to make confessioÌ„ of faith then had you sayd more to the purpose though in such an example there might haue bene neglect as was in Moses in circumcising his sonne Argument VII Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly the Apostles practise is our instructioÌ„ but they baptised not onely the maister of the familie which beleeved but all his household Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now also the like is to be done and so consequently the infants are to be baptised for they are a part of the family see Gen. 45. 18. where Ioseph bad his brethren take their father and their househoulds and come to him Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is sayd they caried their children and wives in charets noting hereby
that children were of the household els had they no commaundement to haue caried them into Egypt see also verse 27. and Exodus 1. 21. it is sayd because the midwives feared God therefore he made them howses in 1 Tim. 5 8. The Apostle sayth hee that provideth not for his own namely for them of his houshold he denyeth the fayth c. Now I would ask if children be exempted from the howshold in any of these places or in any other where mention is made of a particular howshold Therefore this Argument will prove that children were baptised unlesse it can be shewed that they were especially exempted And if the holy Ghost have not exempted them who dare do it against a general commandement of baptising al nations M. Smyth I make answer to this Argument confessing it wholly but yet denying the consequent of your conclusion for it doth not follow because all the houshold of Lidia and the Gaylor were baptised that therefore infants were baptised you shal see what exceptioÌ„s I take R. Clyfton The consequence wil follow for if the Apostle baptised whole families then children also if there were any seeing they are of the familie and no where excepted but I wil come to your exceptions the first whereof is this I say though infants are a part of the familie c. yet it doth not follow that whersoever there is mention made of a familie that therefore that familie had infants in it c. Neither doth it follow that the families of Lidia of the Gaylor and of Stephanas were all of them without children because the scripture doth not mention their children The generall speech of baptising the houshold satisfies you not except it be proved that there were infants therein and why should not you that standâ— for actual beleeving before baptisme as wel prove that Lidias familie did beleev as the mistresse did of whom onely it is sayd that the Lord opened her hart and she attended unto the things which Paul spake The Actes of Christ and his Apostles are summarily recorded and not every thing that was done at large explayned Certeynly if the Apostle had minded that children were not to be baptised he would not haue spoken so indefinitely of the family yea hereby he teacheth that in the administration of this sacrament he followed the coÌ„mon * Gen. 17 -13. Exoâ— 1â— 4â— 4â— practise used in circumcising of the whol family when the governor thereof received the faith 2. By this reason you might proue that Lydiaes husband and the Gaylors wife and their children of 40. yeres old and their servants of 60. yeres old were baptised c. First it is a question whether Lydia had a husband and more like that she was a widow because it is sayd to be her household 2. Concerning the Gaylors wife their children and servants what letteth that they might not be baptised if they refused not the grace of God offered The Apostle preached †Act. 16. 31. 32. salvation to the whole family and the Gaylor beleeved and he with all that belonged unto him were baptised Dare you now except against any in that family seing the holy Ghost so speaks from these general speaches I prove that all in both households were baptised shew the contrarie if you can 3. If it were yeelded that there were infants in Lydiaâ—s family and in the Gaylors doth it follow that they were baptised no thing les and that I wil declare thus 1. You say to the baptisme of the Gaylors wife and children of yeres of discretion there was necessarily required saith and repentance or els they were not baptised so say I because infants cannot beleeve and repent though they were in the family yet they shall not be baptised I might ask you where I so sayd of the Gaylors wife and children but I wil not coÌ„tend with you about it CoÌ„cerning infaÌ„ts I haue proved that their baptising is not to stay until they can themselves make confession of their faith and sinnes and you do not yet say any thing worth answer to the contrarie 2. I say that although it be said that all that perteyneth to the Gaylor were baptised yet it is also sayd verse 32. that the word was preached to all that were in his house verse 34. that all his howshold beleeved c. seing therfore all that were baptised in the Gaylors house beleeved by the preaching of the word Infants that could not beleeve were not baptised c. First all that you here say doth not prove that all that were baptised in the gaylors howse beleeved by the preaching of the word The word was preached to al in his house that were able to understand and so must both ver 32. 34. be undâ—â—stood of such But Paul speaking of baptising them sayth that he was baptised and al that belonged unto him Which speach must needs include his little children also if he had any And although it be sayd that he reioyced that he with al his howshold beleeved in God yet wil it not follow hereupon that his children were not baptised seeing children are to be esteemed in the number of beleevers And those words may have this construction viz. that he rejoyced that he with al his familie were received into the fayth of Christ or were accepted into the number of beleevers and so it includes his children Concerning the tyme being midnight which you say was a distempered time to waken yong children it is nothing that you say were not the infants of Israel awakened and caried out of Aegypt at the like tyme of the night Exod. 12. 31. upon lesse occasion then either of these children may be awakened â— I say for Lidias familie it is not sayd that al her howse was baptised or yet if it had been so said that everie particular person of her familie was baptised for Mat. 3. â—â— It is sayd al Judea went out to John and were baptised of him c. yet hence it cannot be concluded that al and every one that went out were baptised c. The scripture sayth that Lidia was baptised and her houshold without excepting of any the like is sayd of Stephanas familie 1 Cor. 1. 16. And by †that which is written of the gaylors house we are taught how to understand Act. 16. 33 the Apostle And be it that this word al be used sometimes for many as in that of Mat. 3. 5. 6. What then yet it followes not therefore it is so to be taken in this place of the Apostle seeing he useth it for every particular of the whole in al these places 2 Cor. 5. 10. Hebr. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 27. 28. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 4. 20. 4. 15. 5. 18. and in divers others But you say As Act. 16. 32. 34. onely they that beleeved were baptised sâ— was it with them of Lidias familie You are to bold with the text to add unto it The Apostle sayth
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
Lactantius whom you also cyte are generall of yong old whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number but proves not your desire his words you set downe thus Candiduâ— egreditur nitidis exerâ—itus undis atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort Concerning Lodovicus Vives vpon August de Civit. Dei cap. 27. if â—dovicus â—ves floâ—â— anno â—4â— â—â—d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his â—â— as did â—â— Erasm he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him seing he is but a late writer I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth certainly froÌ„ that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name Lastly you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes to say That in Pauls time it was not received that infants should be baptised Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth and therefore being of so late time what is his witnes against so many fathers testifying the contrarie Thus in alledging of him and the rest you shew the weaknes of your cause that have not one auncient father directly to vvitnes with you but are driven to call them to vvitnes that in this thing vvere of contrary judgment to your selfe REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the coÌ„trarye the first of them is this 1. Reason Because there is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their faith were baptised Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. Answer 1. This reasoÌ„ being brought into form wil bewray the weaknes therof for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a speciall comandement or example in the practise of Iohn or Christs Disciples for the baptising of infants yet it may not withstaÌ„ding be lawfull to baptise them namely if by sound coÌ„sequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warraÌ„t froÌ„ the exaÌ„ple of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by Argument necessarily drawen from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expresâ—ly mentioned and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament though wee can not shew any playne precept or example yet may upon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead that the son is Homousius that is of the same substance with the father now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture And many such like 2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence because they are within the covenaÌ„t and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested I wil thirdly answer vnto it 3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants Commandement I say Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents the same lawe of sealing the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be changed except the lawemaker do repeal it or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof which must be shewed or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia her household Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers 33. both which seming to be great housholds it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist meÌ„tioÌ„ them not But the exceptioÌ„ is that only such as did coÌ„fesse their sins confesse their fayth were baptised CoÌ„cerning Iohn he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the waye of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confesse their sins he baptised but did Iohn refuse their children if they broughâ— them to him but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them no more say I is there that they were offered unto him There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised and yet it were too bold a part and no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptised All things that Iohn did nor that Christ did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof And therefore to gather an Argument from hence because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn therefore they ought not to be baptised is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country now in iourney homeward therefore not like that he should have his children with him specially in such a tedious iourney not knowing of this accident M. Smyth Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants to the first argument you say if it be brought into forme it wil bewray the weaknes of it wel I wil bring it into forme c. That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example Ergo. c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus That which hath precept and example must be practised Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ
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
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
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
in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods holy ordinances And that the wanting of a lawfull calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nullitie thereof the circumcising of Moses sonne by his mother Zippora Exo. 4. 25. doth playnly teach For as the Lord makes effectuall his word to his people though coming vnto them by the hands of a false Ministery so doth he baptisme to al that be his though administered by them that have not a lawful calling therevnto The sin of the Minister makes not a nullitie eyther of the word or Sacraments els should the efficacy of the word anâ—â—acraments depend vpon him that administreth them which is noâ— so for both have their effect from the Lord Esay 55. 11 If agayne it be obiected that baptisâ—e was not administred in the Apostate Church of Antichrist to a fit subiect I answere that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the tyme of Ieroboam Ahab were to receave circumcision seing the covenant of Abraham after the coming of Christ belonged as properly to the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. as before it did to the Israelites Mr Smyth I answere many things 1. this Argument is an excellent argument for the retayning Ans of idol Temples the worship government ministerie of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England c. Rich Clifton This Argument is not so excellent for idol Temples c. as you pretend Re. For how can you reason from the ordinances of God to iustify the devises of men wil it follow that because the vessels of the Lord his sacraments and ordinances though polluted in apostaticall Churches or by the profane Babylonians may be restored to the right use for which God ordeyned them therefore so to reason justifies the inventions of men devised to religious vses you may shew your wit in composing of your Argument But with all you answer That baptisme of theirs was never appointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist Antichrist devised no new baptisme but polluted the Lords ordinance ordayned by God 2. I answer that the vessels of the Lords house were his owne ordinances therfore An. need not to be new cast But the baptisme of Antichrist is not the Lords owne ordinance c. Baptisme reteyned in the Churches of Antichrist is as much the Lords Re. ordinance as the vessels of the Temple were in Babylon and therefore nedes no more to be new cast then they But you distinguishe betwene the vessels of the Lords house and baptisme thus That they were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the Lords appointment but the baptisme of the Lord is a compound or concreete ordinance limitted in certayn essential p 〈…〉 lars not being a substance but an accident in definition Now if Antichrist hâ—â— reteyned the essentiall parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated c but â— is salse â— neither â—tter nor â—â—e â— invenâ— by Anâ—rist but â—ng the or â—ancâ— of â—d were â—uted seing baptisme in Poperie is not the Lords ordinance but Antichrists invention * the matter and forme being invented by Antichrist the matter being a carnal infant the forme washing one into the covenant and cannot consent to the covenant or baptising without a contract and sealing to the covenant c. Here you confesse that if the essentiall partes of baptisme be reteyned in Popery it is not to be repeated But you make question about the parts affirming that both matter and forme of baptisme in Popery is invented by Antichrist you saye so but proves it not Concerning the matter it is before shewed that infants are capable of baptisme not as they be natural and borne in sinne but as they are the seed of the faithful therefore being the †children of God and of the “ covenant are not in that respect carnal matter but spiritual As for the forme which you say is the washing of one into the covenant which cannot consent I answere that the forme â—zech 16 â— 21. Act. 2. 39 â—3 25. of baptisme doth not any more stand in the Actual consent of the parties baptised then the forme of circumcision did consist in the assenting of the party circuÌ„cised for there is alike reasoÌ„ of the form of these two sacrameÌ„ts and therefore as infants of the Iewes were circumcised notwithstanding by reason of their age they could not consent to that action So infants of beleevers may be baptised especially seing they are but patients in this Mat. 2â— Action This is the Lords ordinance to †baptise the beleever and his seed with water into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost And of this are infants capable As for sealing to the covenant it is already proved that the Lord sealeth his covenant to infants And for their sealing to the Lord they do as much as at that age is required or was required of the infants of the Iewes circumcised Nether is there baptisme without a coÌ„tract for the Lord hath made his covenant with the faithfull and their seed For the Scripture describeth true baptisme thus The matter must be one that confesseth his faith and his sinns one that is regenerate and borne againe The form must be a voluntary deliveraÌ„ce vp of the party baptised into the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost by washing with water Mat. 28. 19. and 3. 6. Joh. 4. 1. Act. 2. 14. and 8. 36. 27. with Rom. 6. â—-6 where there must be a mutual confent of both persons contracting together And that this is so the forme of baptisme retayned in Popery yet teacheth c. That the matter of baptisme as you terme it or subject must necessarily be one alwayes that confesseth his fayth and synnes al that you have said Re. hitherto hath not proved it the scripture sayth it not and the contrary is confirmed before viz. that infants are to be baptised although they can not make actual profession of their fayth to us they are partakers of remission of synns and regeneration seing they are in the covenant 2. Concerning the forme of baptisme I confesse it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water into the name of the Father c. but your voluntarie deliverance up of the partie baptised to make that action a part of the forme of baptisme al the scriptures you cyte proves it not we confesse that such as are of yeares must voluntarily offer up themselves to be baptised and so were they that were to be circumcised notwithstanding the infants that could not do this were also circuÌ„cised so must our infants be baptised The Lord sayd to his Ministers baptise but sayd not let every one that is baptised offer himself voluntarily thereunto as he doth in the Lords supper say take eat c. it is otherwise in baptisme wherein the baptised are not ageÌ„ts but onely patients
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
churches degenerate from the truth remaynes some remnants of Gods ordinances that were given to his church The covenant is spoken of and preached in those Apostate churches And baptisme likewise administred but not in that puritie and light as they are in true churches And as in the heavens when the sunne is shadowed with clouds or mist the proportion of it may be discovered in the mist or cloudes be perceived to be the sunne So is the covenant of God and the seal thereof wading through those foggie mysts of Popish errors and Antichristian superstitions discerned seen to be from heaven of al the people of God whose harts the Lord opens to apply them aright Which if it were not so God could not have his people in Babylon or church in the wildernes As you take upon you to set up a true church as you say but we say a false church An. wil not be sayd to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel c. for you in your self conceitednes wil reiect them as Heretiques if there be any that dare so say of you forsooth So the Anabaptists as you cal them do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had â—verthrowen To passe by the manner of your speeches which well might be amended Rep. I answer first that for the setting up of churches it is the Lords work and not ours †Ioh. 10. who gathereth his sheep into his fold and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to joyne together to walk in his ordinances who also inableth us hereunto accepteth us to be his people and * Eph. 2. to be citizens with the Sainctes and houshold of God Therefore it cannot properly be sayd of us that we sett up a church but that God buyldeth us up to be his Temple And being thus “ Mat. â— 20. gathered together in his name we have the †Mat. 2â— 20. promise of his presence and are assured of our standing and that we are a true visible church of Iesus Christ though it please you to call us a false church and doubt not to approve our calling against you and al our adversaries And whereas you account it self conceiptednes in us to reject for Hereticks such as bring in damnable Heresies it were good for them whom we so reject to look into their estate and not wilfully to abyde in their errors to their perdition For the Anabaptists whom you say do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new baptisme What they do both their writings and practise shewes but howsoever they perswade themselves to retayne the old covenant and Gospel yet is it not so for whosoever receives not that Gospel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham and pretends to receive a Gospel or covenant they receive a new covenant and Gospel But the Anabaptists receive not the Gospel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant Therefore it is a new covenant and Gospel which they receive For that Covenant which was given to Abraham was given to him and to his seed to the Iewes and their seed but the covenant which the Anabaptists plead for is a covenaÌ„t that should be made to the parents and not to their seed therefore is not the same but a new and strange Gospel never heard of in the dayes of Abraham Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a sealed covenant to * Gen. 1â— 10. 13. The Aâ— baptists â—ny baptisâ— to be a seâ— of the covâ—nant indeed tâ— have no outward sâ— led covanâ— at al. him and to his natural seed but that covenant which the Anabaptists wil enter into and receive is an unsealed covenant at least but sealed onely to the parents and not to their seed and so is not the same but a new Gospel In my former answer I sayd that it can not be shewed that any man did ever baptise him self without special commandement from God c. and you thus replie I say as much as you have to set up a true Church wherein you answere not directly to the point but shift it of with saying that you have as much power to set vp baptisme or baptise your selfe as we to set vp a Church for suppose we have not this power to set vp a Church then how is your action of baptising your selfe iustified But how we have power for that we have done I have formerly shewed viz. that we have power by the Lords commaundement to * come out of babylon to obey the truth reveiled â—ev 18. vnto vs and to ioyne together in the †feloship of the Gospel to walk in al the wayes of God This is that we can do and all that we do is by Phil. 1. 5. divine commaundement for if the Lord had not so inioyned vs our coming together should have bene but an assembly of our owne devise and no Temple for the Lord. Now if you wil make your argument which stands vpon comparison answerable you must bring like warrant from the Scripture that you being vnbaptised may baptise your selfe or els that which we have done shal be iustified to be of God and your baptisme prove but a vayne fansie Further I desire it may be shewed that baptisme which is a part of the worke of the Ministery can lawfully and by warrant from God be administred by any but eyther by extraordinary authority as by Iohn Ananias the Apostles Prophets Evangelists or ordinary as by Pastors and Teachers Or that a person vnbaptised without speciall commaundement from heaven for ordinary rule there is none may baptise himselfe and having so done without any further calling to office take vpon him to baptise others And to do this I would knowe if it be Cor. 4. 6 not †to presume above that which is written For if you that baptise your self being but an ordinary man may this do then may an other do the like and so every one baptise himselfe You that stand so much for commaundement and example shew vs eyther of these two if you can or any sound reason out of the word or els consider wel if that you be not fallen into that which you would condemne in others viz. the practising of an vnwarrantable action But you say A true Church cannot be erected without baptisme c. If this be so as you say then eyther that baptisme which we receaved in the Antichristian assemblyes is baptisme or els one that is no member of a Church may induce the forme as you cal it vpon Disciples to make them a Church and this have we neyther commaundement nor example for He that was the first Minister of baptisme stode then a member of the Church of the Iewes had also commaundement to baptise but this new doctrine teacheth that one that was never
member of any Church shall baptise make a Church that without coÌ„maundemeÌ„t from God Now you say a Church can not be erected without baptisme because baptisme is the visible forme thereof consider you that are so barren of proof for the administring of Baptising to your self that you can not shew one good reason to warrant it to be lawful if by condemning reiecting of that baptisme which you received in Antichristianisme you overthrow not your new Church for if a Church can not be without baptisme and you not able to prove your new baptisme from the scriptures which have reiected the old Then is your assembly an idol And so while you condemne other Churches vniustly for false yours proves more false then any But concerning baptisme which you call the visible forme fo the Church I answer 1. the forme of a Church is coÌ„mon to all together 2. If Baptisme be the forme theÌ„ it may come to passe that one man may be a visible Church as he that first in the company baptiseth himself he is a Church being baptised for he that hath the forme upoÌ„ him must needs be the thing formed And so Mr Smyth was a Church when he baptised himself which is absurd to think But coÌ„cerning the matter forme of the Church this you have written That * Paralelsâ— c. pa. 11â— two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament and therefore have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament induced vpon them Againe speaking of the exiled English Church at Amsterdam you say that they have reduced the Church to the Apostolike constitution Differencâ— c. in the Preface which consisteth in 3. things 1. the true matter which are Saincts onely 2. The forme which is the vniting of them together in the covenant 3. the true propertie which is communion in all the holy things Thus you contradict your self here you teach us that vniting of people together in the covenant is the forme of the Church And in this writing that baptisme is the forme Certeynly the holy Ghost * Act. 2. 3. 39. Ephe. 4â— 4. 5. distinguisheth baptisme both from the covenant and the body But to contend about the forme of the Church is here not to the purpose seing both you and we graunt that a Church must consist of baptised persons you contending for your new devised baptisme we holding that baptisme which wee have already received Further you reason for the erecting of your baptisme That when al Christ visible ordinances are lost eyther men must recover them agayn Ans or must let them alone if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues as the Apostles did then men are FAMILISTS or if they must receive them men must begin so to do And then two men ioyning together may make a Church as you say why may they not baptise seing they can not conioyne into Christ but by Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christs commaundements must be obeyed Ergo this commaundement c. First for the visible ordinances of Christ his Church hath right unto them and his people are to have the vse of them by such means and Ministery as he hath appointed but every man may not take upon him the administration of these ordinances but * they whom the Lord hath given Heb. 5. 4. authoritie and office thereunto God is not the †author of confusion Cor. 14. but of order It wil not follow because the Church is to have baptisme therefore any one may administer it when al are vnbaptised Thus might Ieroboam plead for the * Preists that he made of the lowest of the people King 12 that it was a necessity seing al the Priests of Levi were departed and as at this dâ—y they plead in England for their vnpreaching Preists that eyther they must have such or be without service and Sacraments which plea as we condemne in them so do we the administration of the Sacraments or other of Gods ordinances without warrant from the Lord. And therefore they must be let alone til they may be had by that rule that Christ hath left vs for the injoying of the same For this I am sure of that the word of the Lord is perfect and CHRIST hath left vs certayne direction for the practising of al his ordinances at all tymes Now if the Scripture have not shewed who shal baptise in the Churches arising out of Apostacy then who dare take vpon him to give direction And though we are not to loke for extraordinary men which to do say you were familisme yet must we loke for ordinary meanes men must not do that which they are not warranted by the word though the thing be to be done Secondly for two being ioyned together in covenant with the Lord to walk in his wayes they have * warrant so to do if there be no visible Church for them to ioyne unto although I do not approve that every two Mat. 18 or three shall ioyne together so walk when they may conveniently ioyne to a Church set already in the wayes of God neyther may they attempt any thing beyoÌ„d their measure calling least they fal into the sinne of Corah c. And as for two baptising themselves or one an other that can they not do without calling from God And therefore you not having calling herevnto being as you say vnbaptised I pray you tel me how you are authorised by Christ herevnto conjoyned into his name The Admistration of Baptisme is by Christ †Mat. 19. Ephe. 4. 11 12. commaunded to his Apostles and Ministers of the word as before is shewed As for your reason which is That els they can not conioyne into Christ but by baptisme I answer we may be ioyned into Christ by being vnited in one spirit into his covenant of life And though persons that were never baptised be received into the Church by baptisme yet wil it not folow that such as are baptised in apostate Churches 〈◊〉 must any more be baptied theÌ„ they that being circuÌ„cised were recircuÌ„cised when they ioyned to the Church of the Iewes And baptisme is not our graffing into Christ but the signe or seale thereof and so are those Scriptures which you alledg to be vnderstode And as you say The commaundement of God must be obeyed and so this commaundement It is true being done according to the order and way that Christ hath appointed therefore you break the commaundement to baptise your self others without commission from Christ are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes Pharisees * Mat. 15 3. who traÌ„sgressed the commandements of God by their traditions so you do in this your new baptisme transgresse Gods coÌ„maundement to magnifie your own devised practise Look well to it the Lord
hath thus pronounced upon such transgressors †Mat. 1. 5â— In vayn do they worship me teaching doctrines mens precepts the Psalmist sayth “ Psal 11â— 21. cursed are they that do erre froÌ„ thy coÌ„maudemeÌ„ts the which iudgemeÌ„t of God you may behold in your selves if God so open your eyes who of one company are now at least divided into 3. ech one refusing communion with other stil increasing in nevv errors But for the baptising of a mans selfe you say There is as good warrant as for a man churching him self for two men singly are Ans no Church joyntly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church vpon themselves So two men may put baptisme vpon themselves This phrase of Churching a mans selfe is not the phrase of the holy Scripture Repl. it is the Lord that †Mat. 2â— 19. Act. 1 46. 47. Eâ— 4. 11. 12. calleth men out of the world gathereth theÌ„ together by his word and buildeth them vp to be his Church as Christ sayth * Ioh. 10. other sheepe I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall heare my voice And they whose harts the Lord openeth do willingly obey his voice and beleeving †Act. 2. 42. walk together in his wayes as before I have observed To passe by your strange phrases the scripture thus speaketh that the Eunuch Cornelius and others received baptisme administred unto theÌ„ by the Ministers of Chr. but that they or any other did ever put baptisme that is as I understand you administer it upon theÌ„selves I never read thereof in the scriptures unlesse we should think that Iohn B. did it who if it were so had his calling extraordinarie from heaven As two persons unchurched have power to assume the church ech of them for himself Ans with others in communion so each of theÌ„ unbaptised have power to assume baptisme for himself with others in coÌ„munion These things would do wel if they were proved Concerning 2. persons or moe coÌ„ing into coÌ„munioÌ„ together I have before set down what I think And now for assuming of baptisme if you mean therby receiving of it being lawfully administred theÌ„ I grant that they which are unbaptised †may â—cts 10. 8. 12. â— ought to receive baptisme in the coÌ„munion of the Saincts But that 2. persons or moe may take and baptise theÌ„selves or one another in your coÌ„munion I abhorre as an humane invention As for the exaÌ„ples of Abr. and Iohn B. administring the Sacrament upon theÌ„selves if so it were yet serve â—en 17 â— 13. â— 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. â— 25. 27. â— 13. 15 nothing to your purpose for AbrabaÌ„ had a * special coÌ„mandement to circumcise so had Iohn for his “ baptisme warrant froÌ„ God But wil it follow because these 2. administred the SacrameÌ„t upon themselves therfore who list may consecrate his hands to that office What is this â—ls that you plead for but to overthrow that order that Christ hath â—et down in his Church to make every one a Minister of the Lords Sacraments CoÌ„cerning the Proselytes that they did every one circuÌ„cise theÌ„selves is not proved by that of Exo. 12 48. for it is sayd there when a stranger shal dwel with thee wil observ the passeover of the Lord every male shal be circuÌ„cised unto him This scripture saith not that every one did circumcise himself but that every male should be circumcised Neyther if the Lord had sayd as the Translation is let him circumcise al the males that belong unto him had this proved that al the Proselytes had done it themselves for it is sayd of Iosua that the Lord bad him make sharp knives †return circuÌ„cise the sons of Israel the second tyme. And 〈◊〉 5. 2. yet wil any think that Iosuah did himself circumcise every uncircumcised male in Israel or rather that the Lord commanded him to see that it were done And so that coÌ„mandement given to Proselytes was that they should cause al their males to be circumcised or els they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Passeover But graunt that this was a special precept to the stranger to circumcise himself and his familie the Lord laying this upon him he had good warrant so to do but seing the Lord hath commanded the administration of baptisme to the Apostles and Ministers of the word now it is to presume above that which is written for any man to take upon himself to administer baptisme to himself or to others Neyther is this to follow the example of the Proselytes if they had done as you alleadge for then the Master onely and none els circumcised and he circumcised but his familie But this new opinion inableth any man be he Master or servant to baptise himself and also to baptise others that are not of his familie Note wel how this example serves to your purpose Howbeit for circumcision I take it that it was administred by the Levites after that they were called of office because †Num. 8. 14. 18. they were appointed in the roome of the first borne of Israel for the service of the Lord. And as I have heard the Levites amongst the Iewes do circumcise at this day But one thing more I would aske you whether by two assuming baptisme in communion you mean that two consenting together may the one baptise the other at one and the same instant or that one shal baptise the other first and then he that is baptised baptise him that was his baptiser and what rule or warrant you have so to do and do not with obscure termes seek to set a colour upon your errors to deceive the ignorant As concerning the administration of the Lords Supper to a mans self in communion with others prayer prophesying praysing of God uttered for a mans self as wel as for others of every unclean person washing himself at the door of the Tabernacle going to sacrifice of every master of a familie administring the passeover to himself all his familie the Priest dayly sacrificing for himself others All these proves not your desyre For as touching the administration of the Lords supper it appertaines to the Ministers of Christ to do it not to every man And by vertue of their office they do administer and as they are members of the church they participate of those holy things with the rest of the brethren And this is Gods ordinance your case of baptising one another is not alike for there he administreth the Sacrament that hath no calling and he that is unbaptised himself presumeth to set the seal upon himself or upon an other Also in the Lords Supper al are agents according to their estate and nature of the action but in the receiving of baptisme we are onely patients As for praying prophesying and praysing of God uttered for
to teach us that live under the Gospel And if they be in force to teach then are we to learne and to be taught by them As for Christ his faythfulnes in teaching us his new Testament which you think is diminished if we labour to prove any of the ordinances thereof from the Scriptures of the old Testament know you that we hold Christ * Heb. 3. 2. to be faythful to him that hath appointed even as Moses in al his howse And yet no disparagement to him or the new Testament but rather an honour to prove the parts and observances thereof from Moses and the Prophets For he that bad us Search the scriptures did also himself to the two disciples that went to Emaus “ Luk. 24. â—â— beginne at Moses and at all the Prophets and interpreted unto them in al the Scriptures the things which were written of him Which practise of Christ as it doth teach us that we may learn Christ and the new Testament out of Moses and the Scriptures of the old Testament so doth it manifest his faythfulnes that taught and fulfilled al that was prophesied of him not imposing upon his church any new doctrine not heard of before Baptisme under the Gospell is proved out of the old Testaments the Iewes did not think it strange to be at the coming of the Messiah Ioh. 1. 25. And Mr. Smyth sayth that the Iewes baptismes were into the Messias to come in type Ergo our baptisme being the thing typed must needs have warrant from the old Testament and then it is no disgrace to goe to school to Moses to learn it And first I would know why we may not as wel with the Papists fetch one high Repl. Priest from Moses succession in the Ministerie from Moses succession in the Church from Moses as a succession in baptisme from Moses and in effect you fetch a succession of the Church from Rome for in fetching a succession of Baptismâ— from Rome which is the forme of the church yea and in fetching a succession of the matter of the church which is the seed of the Parents baptised you of necessitie make the church of Rome a true Church First for the Priesthood of Moses the Ceremonies and such like ordinances Answ of the church under the old Testament they are †Heb. 7. 12. c. cha â— ch 9. â— cha 10. Col. 2. 16. 17. removed by the coming of Iesus Christ and therefore there cannot be any succession thereof under the Gospel save in Christ but of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and sealed to him and his seed before the law was given is no abrogation thereof There is an everlasting continuance which you call a succession not onely in the Church of the old Testament but also under the Gospell as the Apostles do * Gal. 3. 8 9. Act. 2. 3 witnes as also “ Mat. 28. 19. a continuance of the sealing of the same And therefore we must plead such a succession both of the covenant and sealing thereof from our father Abraham seing it is the †Gal. 3. 8. 14. 17. 28. 4. 28. same wherein we of the Gentiles are comprehended And this difference between this Covenant and the law and ordinances of the old Testament if it please you to take notice of will answer your question about succession Yet I would not have you mistake me for although I hold in this sense a continual succession of the people of God partakers of this covenant of salvation I affirme not that there hath been alway and at al tymes known established churches keeping soundly all the ordinances of Christ and making visible profession thereof In the Apostacie of Israel the Lord had his seven thowsand that never bowed their knee to Baal to whom this covenant belonged and so had he in “ Rev. 18. 4 antichristianisme Again we fetch not a succession of Baptisme from Moses otherwise then the Apostles have taught us Col. 2. 10. 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21. The sealing of the covenant was commanded to Abraham and never repealed save onely the outward signe changed as before is sayd And as we fetch no otherwise succession from Moses or the old Testament then hath been sayd No more do we succession of the Ministerie or of any other ordinance of Christ but in like manner and upon like warrant 2. Concerning fetching of succession of our church froÌ„ Rome because of our Baptisme I answer 1. that Baptisme as also the Scriptures were given to the Church of Rome when she was a true church and she retayning them in her Apostasie we receive them as Christe word and baptisme though continued through her corrupt Ministerie and estate 2. If according to your terming succession of Baptisme be graunted being an ordinance of God yet will it not followe that therefore we must reteyn the whoredomes of the church of Rome which we are coÌ„manded to separate from Rev. 18. 4 because we retein baptisme but rather thus as we have baptisme froÌ„ Christ so are we to have the coÌ„stitution of our church what is polluted in eyther by Antichrist to reject 3. Our retayning of baptisme administred in the Apostate churches doth no more prove that we fetch succession of our church from Rome then the Israelites that were circumcised in the church of Ieroboam returning to Ierusalem did fetch the succession of their church froÌ„ the Apostate church of Israel If it be objected that this people now separated from that Apostacy were matter of that false church and so we fetch a succession of the matter of our church from a false church I answer that al such of Gods people that stand members of those Antichristian assemblies must be considered two wayes 1. in respect of us and their outward standing so are they members of those Assemblies 2. in respect of the Lord and their election so are they no members thereof but the matter of Gods invisible church in tyme becoming visible As on the contrarie in a visible church al the people thereof in our account are held true members yet †hypocrites 1 Ioh. 2. 19. in the Lords account are no members or matter thereof And as the Apostle sayth of Antichrists if they had been of us they should have continued with us so I say of Gods people in Babilon if they had been of that Antichristian church they should have continued with them but by their coÌ„ing out it appeares that they are not of them and therefore we cannot be sayd to have the matter of our church by succession froÌ„ Antichristianisme but by the gracious work of God in his people of al ages and to use your word of Succession as it were by a secret and hidden succession even from the Apostles tymes And thus it wil not follow as you say that we make the church of Rome a true church If Infants of the church of Rome have true tytle
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