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
reason is from the testimonie of Tertullian Eusebius The words of Tertullian as Mr Sm. himself hath englished them are these Therfore to deferre not to hasten baptisme is more profitable for the condition disposition age of every person but especially as concerning yong children for what 〈…〉 there to bring sureties into danger for the baptising of Infants if there be no 〈…〉 of hastening the baptising of infants Seing the Sureties are disabled often 〈…〉 to performe theire promise both by reason of mortalitie and of the evil dispositiâ— sâ—â—e children when they come to yeares for whom they promised in baptisme c. â— First concerning Tertullian it is to be noted that thus he writeth â—n he was fallen into the opinions of the Cataphriges or Montanists â—â— so held divers errors as Augustine and others have observed out of â— workes And therefore being thus departed from the fayth Let â—e Reader judge if this man be a competent witnesse in this case Yet â—th not this man affirme that infants were not baptised in his tyme but â—ther the contrary in that he makes mention of Sureties for infants sayâ—g what necessitie is there to bring Sureties into danger for the baptising of infants â—hich words do plainly argue that the Church then used to baptise inâ—ts 2. Agayne that which he affirmeth was his owne private judgment â—d his Reasons are of no weight as the bringing of sureties into daunger and â—â— the suerties are disabled oftentymes to performe theire promise c. such sureties â—ot being appointed of God 3. P. Mart. Clas 4. ca. 8. affirmeth that â—â—tullian denyed Baptism to yong men and yong widowes and his owne â—rdes here related do seeme to intimate some such like thing in saying 〈…〉 ferre and not to hasten baptism is more profitable for the condition disposition and â—â— of every person And this he meaneth of others then yong children For â—er he speaketh of yong children saying especially concerning yong children â— 4. Crispen State of the Church pag. 47. 48. witnesseth that Tertullian brought â— extreeme vnction after baptism the Sygne of the Crosse offering for the dead and â—er the like dreames of the Montanists Now if Tertullians judgment be â—and agaynst infants baptism why not also for extream vnction the sygne â—f the Crosse and the like his errors seing all these are fruits proceeding â—om the same tree But thus this adversary careth not who the witnesse is so he wil speake in favour of his heresy let him be Montanist Papist or what othersoever But let it be further observed that about Tertullians tyme and after some deferred theire baptisme vntil they thought they should dye and so were not baptised vntil they fell into some great sicknes as Theodosius others And this seemeth to be Tertullians error as if baptisme was for washing awaye of sinnes past and not to come Concerning that which Eusebius reporteth of Athanasius his bap 〈…〉 of children in sport I have answered pag. 109. and set downe reasons â— prove that those children were not children of the church but of some oâ— the heathen which were instructed in the fayth of Christ by the church but were not received into the communion of the same These are the two Auncients that M. Smyth produceth against us whereof neither of theâ— affirmeth that the church did not baptise infants in those tymes Now to these two I wil oppose other two Auncients amongst many others that do testifie that infants in their tymes and before were baptised viz. Origin who sayth that the church received from the Apostles to give baptisme to infants lib. 5. ad Rom. And Augustine de Bap. contra Donatist lib. 4. cap. 23. who speaking of the Baptisme of Infants sayth that which the whole church holdeth neyther is ordeyned by councels but alwayes hath been holden we are to beleeve to be delivered by Apostolical authoritie The next corruption that the Separation is charged withal is to have a false ministerie Now the Ministers that we have are of Pastors Teachers called thereunto by election of the Church according to these Scriptures Eph. 4 9. 11 12. Rom. 12 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12 28. Acts. 13 1 2. Revel 1 20. Nehem 8 1 8. Mat. 23 2. Mal 2 7. Act. 14. 23. And practise of the primitive churches And of this Ministerie of Pastors and Teachers M. Smyth himself approveth in his Principles pag. 18. and in his Questions and answers pag. 8. printed this last year 1609. he describing the officers of the Church devides them first into Bishops and Deacons then the Bishops into Pastors or Teachers or Elders and withal describeth the Pastor to be a bishop over one particular Church excelling in the word of wisdome The Teacher to be a Bishop over one particular church excelling in the word of knowledge The Governour to be a Bishop of one particular visible Church excelling in wise government Thus hath he written and yet we having no other Ministerie then he himself approveth chargeth us to have a false Ministerie not caring to crosse himself so he may utter his bitternes against the Church of Christ The 3. corruption this adversarie chargeth us withal is false worship of reading books This he sayth but proves it not I will breifly set downe our practise that the Reader may take notice how unjustly we are charged 1. For prayer giving of thanks that is publiquely performed by our Pastor or Teacher who invocate the name of God praise him for his benefits â—s the spirit directs their harts to conceive and giveth utterance â—ithout the use of any book during that action according to those â—ptures Rom. 8. 26. 27. Eph. 6 18 19. Col. 4 2. Act. 6 4. Num. 6 23. â—4 27. Nehem. 9 3 38. Ezra 9 5 15. 10. 1. Ioel. 2 17. 2. They read the holy scriptures translated into our owne language â—me two or three chapters or moe as tyme wil serve shewing briefly the â—eaning thereof Which is warranted by these Scriptures Neh. 8 3 8. â—eut 31 11. Act. 15 21. Col. 4 16. 1 Thes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 4 13. 3. The Pastor or Teacher taketh some Scripture which they ordinarily â—llow and after the reading thereof do expound and apply the same by doctrine exhortation c. to the further edification of the church according to these scriptures Luk. 4. 16. 21. Act. 8. 35. 13 15. and 26. 7. â— Tim. 4 13. 2 Tim. 4 2. And together with the preaching of the word the Sacraments are administred after the rules of Christ with prayer and thankesgiving according to these Scriptures Mat. 28 19. 1 Cor. 11 23. c. Act. 20 7. c. 4. Some of the Psalmes of David before and after the exercise of the â—ord the same being first read and opened by the Pastor or Teacher is â—ing of the whole church together to the praise of God and our own ediâ—â—cation according to these Scriptures Eph. 5 19. Col. 3 16. Mat 26
before and have shewed that the Apostle handles there no such thing as you do gather As for the reveyling of this division of the sonâ—s of Isaac which you say was to the church indeed thus much was reveiled to Rebecca Gen. 25. 23. it was told her that two nations are in thy wombe and two maner of people shoâ—ld be devided out of thy bowels and the one people should be mightier then the other the Elder shall serve the yonger meaning that they that should descend of the Elder brother should serve them that came of the yonger see the blessing of Isaac to his two sonns Gen. 27. 27. 28. 29 39. 40 Abdi 10. but that the personal reprobatioÌ„ of Esau was revealed then to Rebecca or to the church doth not appear in these words before rehersed can any say that none of Esau his posterty was in Gods secret electioÌ„ if this scripture wil not warrant any so to judg then neyther would it warrant Rebecca so to apply it to her sonne being so generally spoken The personal rejection eyther of Ismael or Esau was not reveled vntil by their evil workes they manyfested themselues and therefore these children being borne in the church as Esau was in Iacobs house were to be reputed holy to be circumcised and held of the covenant vntil there wickednes threw them out That the whole church of the Jewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ but onely vnder the offer of it I use these reasons first the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament Fayth and 〈…〉 tance is the condition and obedience of the matter and members of the new Testa 〈…〉 Mar. 1. 15. Ergo fayth and repentance is not the condition or obedience of 〈◊〉 matter or members of the old Testament Your proposition is not true you exclude fayth and repentance from â—he members of the old Testament as if by their covenant they were not â—ound to beleev and obey his commandements which is contrary to these â—criptures Gen. 17 1. 6. Rom. 4. 3. 13. Heb. 11. 17. Iam. 2. 21. 23. Deu. 19. 9-20 10. 12. 13. 20. That repentance was required of the Iewes not onely the prophets often exhorting of them to repeÌ„tance do witnes as before is observed but also in that their repètance †Iud. 2. â— 1 SaÌ„ 7. 3â— Ezr. ca. 1â— Neh. cap. â— Deut. 9. 10. Esa 1â— 16. 17. turned away Gods anger from them and the conditional * Esa 1. 1â— Jer. 3. 22. Hos 6. 1. â— 3. 14 â— Ioel. 2. 13 promises of pardon if they did repent Also Gods threatning of judgments against them if they repented not And that fayth was also required of them see al these scriptures Psal â—8 5. 6. 7. 22. 2 Chro. 20. 20. Esa 53. 1. and 7. 9. Hab. 2. 4. Act. 26. 6. 7. Heb. 11. 13. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. And thus you see that that condition and obedience of the members of the new Testament which you say is fayth and repentance was also the condition and obedience of the members of the old Test The reason of the maior is evident c. seeing that as the ministerie worship goverment of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the ministerie worship and goverment of the new Testament is so the condition viz. the matter and forme of the Church of the old Testament was of an other nature then the constitution that is the matter and forme of the new Testament c. Heb. 7. 16. Gal 5. 3. I answer first that it is not simply true that the ministerie worship of the church of the old Test is of another nature from that of the Gospel For although in their worship and ministerie were many things typical ceremonial yet vvithal God required of them spiritual vvorship obedience without which their “ Esa 1. 12. 15. Gâ— 4. 5 ceremonial was abhominable Also if preaching of the word and prayer c. be of a spiritual nature then was their ministerie and worship more then carnal The prophet †Esa 56. 1â— complaynes of neglect of teaching in the Preists which argueth that they were bound by their calling to instruct the people Malachy sayth * Mal. 2. â— 6. 7. The Priests lips shal preserve knowledge c. they shall seek the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts and this was by office for the Lord sayth My covenant was with Levi of life and peace c. the law of truth was in his mouth And in Ieremy the Lord complaynes of the Preists saying they that should minister the law â—ow me not promising unto the people if they repent that he would give them “ Pastors according to his owne hart which should feed them with â—â—r 3. 15. â—eh 8. â— Act. 13. â—â— Act. 15. â— knowledg and understanding And in Nehemiah it is written that the Priests and Levites †read in the book of the law and gave the sense and caused the people to understand the reading and this by their office Lev. 10. 11. The Iewes had the * lectures of the law and Prophets in their Synagogues And “ Moses had them of old tyme in every citie that did preach him Thus we see that the opening of the law and preaching of the scriptures Lev. 9. 22 â— Num. â— 23. 27. â— 9. 4 13 â— 10. 1. â—â—h 8. 6. â—l 1. 14. â— 2. 16. 17. was a part of the ministerie of the Priests and Levites and of their publick worship on the sabboth Also the Priests †gave thanks unto God for the people blessed them and prayed The Temple was called the howse af prayer Math. 21. 13. also they had certaine howres of meeting at the Temple which were called howres of prayer Act. 3. 1. And they were coÌ„manded spiritual sacrifices as Ps 4. 5. 50. 14. 15. 23. as formerly is observed Concerning the goverment of the Church of the old Testament which was by the Priests and Levites Elders I know no great difference in nature of thâ—t church and of this under the Gospel The former was governed ecclesiastically by the Priests Elders Mat. 26. 47. Luk. 22. 66 Act. 23. 14. and 6. 12. and 13. 15. 18. 8. 2 Chro. 19. 8. And so the churches of the New Testament are to be governed by the Mat. 18. â—5 16. 17. â— Cor. 5. 3. 5 â— Exo. 19 6. â— Exod 22. â—1 Lev. 14 â— 11. 44 â—â—d 20. 7. â— Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 11. 16 â— Deu. 4. 20 5. 2. Psa â—0 3. 4. Deu. 14. 2. Rom. 11. â—-19 23. â— 27. ministers and Elders Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thes 5. 12. Hebr. 13 8. The censures ecclesiastical under the old Testament were admonition casting out of the Synagogue
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
which the Apostle also speaketh Rom. 11. chap. and how he conveigheth the same to the seed of beleevers then it may be sayd that God loveth the children for the fathers fake with whom the Lord had made his covenant so to love them Not for that the children shal be partakers of that covenant because of their parents fayth or because of Gods covenant made with their parents and their carnal infants but because God elected them in Christ to life invisibly c. The children of beleevers are partakers of Gods covenant because the Lord of his free gift and mercie giving it vnto their parents includeth their seed with them as before I haue proved And thus we are to respect the external dispensation thereof and of this is our question and not of the particular election and reprobation of this or that person For so all are not †Israel which are of Israel And many â—â—â— 9. 6. Mat. 20. â— 16. 25 11. â—k 13. 24. â—â— Mat. â— chap. 1. 2. 19. Act. 3. 25 to vs are visibly within the covenant which are not elected * to salvation Hypocrites will ly lurking in a visible Church which shall not be discerned until the last day yet the holy things of God are administred unto them and they of vs are to be reputed members because visibly they appeare to vs so to be And should we not then thus reckon of the children of the faithful the promise being made indefinitely to “ them and to their seed Neyther is it the carnal lyne that is beloved of God for his mercie sake but the spiritual line c. I answer God for his mercie sake loveth the line of the faithful because of his promise as I haue sayd to chose out therof eveÌ„ out of their carnal line so to call it such as he wil save by Iesus Christ And al this line of the faithful so loÌ„g as they continue in the Church to vs is holy spirituall though in Gods electioÌ„ none be holy to him but those that he hath chosen which two things you confounding make all this doctrine obscure unto your hearers But what is this to prove that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant for the carnal line descending from a beleeving auncestor Re. I do not say that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant unto vs considered according to their outward standing but this I say that Ans in an apostate Church there be though to us unknowen until they come out thence of Gods people that are descended of beleeving auncestors and are beloved and come under the covenant because God wil be found faithful in his promise †Ex. 20. shew mercy to thousands of them that love him Or if it were graunted how doth it follow that the baptism visibly receved in the Re. Antichristian false Church is true baptism sealing vp the covenant to them that the Lord converted in the false Church I answer that while they remayne in that estate they can not make this comfortable vse thereof vnto themselves but when such as be converted Ans in that false Church do separate from the same and turne to the Lord having right to the covenant they have right also to the seale and to all the holy things of God in that they are the people of God And so as the word converteth so baptism sealeth because the efficacy thereof is of God which can no more be hindered by the wickednes of man then the word could be hindered from converting them that belonged to the Lord. Lastly whereas you fetch the Title to the covenant and to baptism for infants in Re. the false Church from some ancestor beleeving 40. generations happily before according to that Exod. 20. 6. I answer three things 1. You must prove that some of our Predecessors had that actual faith and were members of true Churches and this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptisme thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant and baptisme by his carnal line 2. You must by the same reason receave by baptism if you can come by them all the infants of the Thessalonians Galatians Collossians Philippians and Churches of Asia that did sometime beleeve 3. I deny that you expound that place Exod. 20. truely for the Lord directly doth require that they vpon whom he sheweth mercy should feare him and keep his commaundements c. To the first particular I answer in that our Predecessors were all in apostasie Ans yt argueth that they descended from beleevers Apostasie must be from the faith once publikly defended And where there is a publik face of an Apostate church there was formerly a publike face of a church professing the truth from which they are fallen And even their retayning of baptisme to this day is a confirmation thereof Againe this is witnessed by them that came out of Babylon that they are descended from beleevers whose seed the Lord now remembreth in his mercy to do good unto But we are not to stand upon particulars the general estate sheweth what was the precedent estate of Antichristians neyther are we to inquire any more into the particular condition of their Predecessors or parents that come out of Babylon then they of Ierusalem did inquire into the particular estates of the forefathers of those Israelites that left the Apostate church of Ieroboam to joyne unto them For receiving in without baptisme you are answered before To your second particular I answer that the estate of them must be considered whether these be in Apostasie as Rome is or be quite fallen from the fayth and be no churches at all but as infidels that beleeve not in Iesus Christ and his word if their estate were but apostasie and that they beleeved the Scriptures worshipped God and reteyned baptisme though all these in a corrupt manner then should we do alike unto them as we do to the papists But if they were become infidâ—ls and the candelstick removed from them so that no stepps of a church remaynes amongst them then are we to receive both parents beleeving and their children into the church by baptisme as the Apostles in the like case did Accordingly for receiving the infants of the Thessalonians c. if we can come by them we hold it thus if their parents returne to the Lord and his church or if some of the faythful undertake their education as their own children In the third particular you deny that I expound the place of Exod. 20. 6. truly My words are set down before pag. 213. And my meaning was this that concerning those that ar born in an apostate church the Lord remembreth his covenant made with their forefathers that beleeved doth cal of their seed whom it pleaseth him to the knowledge of his truth fayth in Christ not regarding their immediate idolatrous and apostate Eze. 18. â— 17. â— Chro. 30. â— 11.
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
differeÌ„ce externally betweene the times of Christ promised to come and his manifestation in the flesh and accomplishment of his promise And as * we have 30. â— 8. 11 â—4 RoÌ„ 10. â— 7. 8. â—er 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 â— 1 Cor. 10 â— 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. â—â—k 1. 74. the spirituall covenant and spirit so had the faithfull vnder the law and therefore it is false to say that they had the carnall covenant and wee the spirituall typed by the carnall for although vnder the Law the Lord did traine vp his people vnder many ceremonies which were types of things to come yet did he never ordeyne any carnall covenant with a seale therof as you devise But let vs see your proofes for all these particulars First that there are two Testaments made with Abraham you alledge Gal. 4 24. saying Agar that is the old Testament and Sara that is the new both married to Abraham 2. There are two seeds Ismael of Abraham and Hagar who typed the carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah who typed the spirituall seed ver 23. 3. There are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall covenant vpon the carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seale of the spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. c. First for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnall covenant that nothing fits your purpose for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles who vrged the works of the law for iustification and taught the people that vnlesse they wer circumcised Christ could not profit them whom after he had confuted with divers reasons he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 â—â—egorie of Abraham and his two wives shadowing out there 〈◊〉 â—at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in â—atter of iustification the law ingendring bondage requiring strict â—dience without which is no salvation but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2â— 26. â—egall bondage and requireth to †RoÌ„ 10. 6â— 11. Rom. â— 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation â—o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law doth shew them â— foolish they are which by the gospel are set * Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of â—w and legall ceremonies do frustrate that freedome by subiecting â—mselves againe to the law which could never make them †Act. 13. 39. righteous â—d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman whereas all â—hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law â—eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman Now this being â—he purpose or scope of the Apostle this allegorie setting downe the diâ—â—rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament vnder the gospel or new testament concerning iustification and salvation doth â—either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham or yet that the Iewes were so vnder the lawe that also they were â—ot free by faith in Christ for if we consider the times wherein the law was given 430 yeres after the promise it will appeare that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham or yet that it did * Gal. 3 1â— disannull the covenaÌ„t to dispossesse his seed of that estate which they obtayned by that promise made vnto him And it is to be noted that aswell vnder the â—ew testament as vnder the old all they are in bondage with Hagars sonns that seek by the workes of the law to be iustified 2. I answer more particularly to your proofes whereof the two former are drawen from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first because the Apostle calls Hagar Sarah the two testaments vers 24. and both â—â—re married to Abraham therefore to Abraham were made two testaments True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments the one of the old the other of the new But the Apostle applyes them to set out thereby the different estate of them that be vnder grace from such as be vnder the lawe of works Now to Abraham was not the lawe given whereof Hagar is made a type and therefore could not have that coâ—nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision for sure I am moe covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of but 〈…〉 Heb. 8. â—3 new the one abrogated by Christ his comming the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments it may be s 〈…〉 playnely out of the text it self for speaking of the lawe he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth vnto bondage making 〈…〉 tion purposely of Sinai because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountaine whereof Hagar was a shadow ver 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace sayth but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above is free c. ver 26. 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same be sayd to be two in respect of the tymes and diverse administration thereof and then your carnall covenant cannot stand Certaynly the Lord made one eternal vnchangable covenant to his Church instructing and dispensing his benefites otherwise in the time of the Law then now he doth under the Gospel And in this respect the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament may well speak in regard of the dispensation therof as of two And so understand by the old Testament that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses the Prophets to the Fathers promising eternal life openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law threatning of the curse if they did not perform it together with that intollerable burden of legal rites yoke of Moses politie and covertly under condition of repentance fayth in the Messiah to come prefigured under types shadowes ceremonies that by this meanes the Iewes as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ And by the new Testament understaÌ„d the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ his Apostles manifestly without shadowes and legal rites promising righteousnes life to al both Iewes Gentils that shal beleeve in Christ already come And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenaÌ„t seing both these TestameÌ„ts are spiritual though some carnal things wer commaunded in the old testament Yet those makes it no more a carnall covenant then water in Baptisme bread wine in the Lords supper the receiving of them which al are carnal things do make the new Testament carnall they being given to signifie vnto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnall things vnder
Apostles put infants back and why Christ did not command them to be baptised c. Why would you know that which is not written that the Apostles did not well in putting them back Christ his rebuking of them doth manifest What may be coniectured hath bene noted before And as foâ— Christ his not commanding them to be baptised I answer Christ performed that which they required of him the text doth not mention that they came to desire baptisme and therefore there was no cause that he should command them to be baptised Next you labour to weaken such proves as I brought from the scriptures to confirme my Argument withall saying You see by that which hath bene answered that both your maior and minor ar weak and the scriptures alledged by you do not confirme them for the place 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours that is theirs that actually beleeve and are baptized c. My major and minor are so weak that you can disprove neyther of theÌ„ As touching your answer to this scripture 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply it Cor. 3. 21 â—2 onely to them that actually beleeve which the text sayth not the Apostles meaning in this place is that all such helpes as the Lord Iesus hath appointed for the benefit of his people are theirs whether they be men of yeares or infants for he speakes to the whol Church inclusively whereof the children are members †as hath bene proved But you say I must prove Mat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 â— that infants have the use of all I have answered that they are to have the use of so many of Gods ordinances as they in regard of their yeares and knowledge are able to partake of But not satisfyed herewith you demand further saying Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of salvation c. I answer that all the members of the Church are capable and partakers Eph. 5. 25 â—6 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12. of all the meanes of their * salvation which is Iesus Christ yea children †els can they not be saved But as concerning the outward ordinances of the Church as the ministerie of the word Sacraments and such like though they be necessarie in their due place yet the use of them is not at all tymes and of all persons required the Israelites borne in the wildernes were not circumcised by the space of fortye yeares neyther was the Passeover commanded to infantes to offer sacrifice or the like though †Dâ—â— 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. â— Mar. 10. these were necessarily required of them that were growne to yeares so that tyme and age doth priveledge some from the practise of those things which otherwise they are bound to observe The next Scripture is Rom. 9. 4. wherein you except against the Kom 9. word appertayneth and say It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning â—f the Apostle For your excepting against the word appertayneth saying it is â— into the text you seeme to contend before you be provoked I onely quoâ—ed that place of Rom. 9. 4. and did not set downe the wordes And therefore to strive about a word added in the translation is to strive against your owne shadow I defend no words added whereby the text is misconstrued But although no verbe be expressed in the original yet gramatical coÌ„struction requires some verbe to be vnderstood as this verbe is or appertainâ—th or some such like and if is be vnderstood it is the same in sense with appertayneth But you say Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnall Israelites were actually within the covenent of grace c. Paul intends to set downe the dignitie and prerogative of the people which he had chosen to him selfe to be his inheritance and to shew that Gods word is true although Israel be cast of he performeth his promise to so many of them as he had chosen in his secrete counsel And this is all that the Apostle intendeth To your carnal covenant and to the offer of the spiritual I have answered before Lastly whereas I did affirme that infants vnder the Gospel were as capable of baptisme as children vnder the lawe you answer That baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Testament as Circumcision was the seale of the old Testament and that infantes of the old Testament were capable absolutely seing that to be circumcised there was nothing requyred but a foreskin apt to be cut of but to baptisme in the new Testament there is required actual fayth repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47. That †pag. 37. Baptisme is the seale of the new Testament is proved before also that circumcisioÌ„ was * pag. 12. a seale of the same spiritual covenaÌ„t to the Israelites and that our infants are as capable of baptisme as the Iewes were of circumcision your reasons alledged to the contrary are of no force for the difference you put between the two sacraments of circumcision and baptisme is but a florish for as the profession of actual fayth and repentance is â—zra 6. 21. â—ter 8. 17. required of all them that are of yeares to baptisme so †was it of the proselytes to circumcision And if you would compare Infants with Infants and men of yeares with such like then shall you see that there is no more required of our infantes that are to be baptised then of the children of the Iewes and proselites nor lesse looked for of men of yeares vnder the old Testament then now vnder the new As for the scriptures that you alledg they witnes what is required of the elder sort to be received into the visible Church and not of infants Out of this your answer you collect 5 arguments against Paedobaptistry the first is this They that are not members of the visible Church have no title to the holy things of God and therefore are vncapable of them and so of baptisme Infantes of the faythful are not actually members of the visible Church for these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of these infantes were beleeving Iewes or if they were beleevers their infantes were already baptized with their parents according to your doctrine and so Christ cannot intend baptisme to appertayne to them but the rest of the ordinances Ergo c. I deny the minor the reason proves it not do affirm that the infants of the faythful are meÌ„bers of the same Church with their pareÌ„ts have right to the holy things therof as may thus be shewed first AbrahaÌ„s house was a visible Church of God the infantes of Abraham and of his servantes are Gen. 17. â—2 sayd to “ be born in his house wherevpon I conclude that they were part of Abrahams family for in
confirme Their * Deu. 2â— 10 13. “ Gal. 3. â— coâ—enant was to be the Lords people is the same that we are entred into els could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise through fayth if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed Also Peter affirmes it to be the same Act. 2. 39. If then the Lord required of Israel true holynes and made no other coâ—enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people but that everlasting covenant and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Testament true holynes of the members and communion in the covenant and Gospel then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this but even the same with the church under the new Test I speak of the substance of this covenant and not of the outward administration thereof which was divers wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption Heb. 10 â— In the former Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle sheweth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect because they were yearly renued proveth also that Christs sacrifice is one and perpetual here it must be minded that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their coÌ„stitution no spiritual promise but onely carnal typical things Heb. 9 â—â— 23. In that other scripture Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed between the legal sacrifices and purifyings the purging of synne by the blood of Iesus Christ between the old Testament and the new c and so shewing how the truth answereth unto the type concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sinnes of many by the sacrifice of himself And this is that which the Apostle intendeth and not to shevv that the constitution of the old church vvas the tipe of the constitution of the nevv 3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected â— produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Testâ—â— Iustification and fayth and sanctification and repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament Heb 9. 9. Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo c. Deut. 29. â— Ier. 13. â— â— Luk. 1. â— 74. 1 pet â—â— 9. 10. â— 2. 12. â— 22. Gen. 17. 7 â—om 4. 11 â—a 26. â— Heb. 4. 2 â— 11. 30. â— Cor. 10. 3 â— Ezech. 18 â— 32. Ioel. â— 3. â—b 9. 9. â—â— 2. 15 The assumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before for the members of that church might have and had fayth repentance justification sanctification seeing the †Lord was their God in that standing he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ therfore it must follow that they were partakers of fayth justification c. in that their coÌ„munion Again as the covenant was geven to Abraham so was “ it to his seed but to Abraham it was geven †for justification therefore to his seed I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test Also I have proved * before that God required of the Israelites “ fayth and repentance and that they did repent beleev so consequently justification sanctification were effected accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof and required in the constitutioÌ„ Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument yet this I will further add that the Apostle having described the partes of the Tabernacle c. in ver 9. sheweth the use of those things to be a figure for the present preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ in whom they beleeved the same to be fulfilled And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh were such as by Moses were given to that church long after the constitution thereof In that other scripture Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reasons not about the constitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether justification was required therein but having to deal against the false teachers that taught the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law affirmeth the contrary in these two verses saying we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law but by the fayth of Jesus Ch. c. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by fayth without works doth not deny the church before the coÌ„ming of Christ to be justified by fayth but teacheth that both that church and this under the Gospel were saved not by works but by the free promise of God in Christ received by fayth And thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire 4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members presupposed not â—â—th and repentance to the members and so not real or true holynes But the old Test â—e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the â—hurch of the old Test Heb 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. c. First concerning the major The old Testament though it brought not perfection yet did it require fayth in Christ to come 2. Touching your â—inor first I require what you mean by the old Testament whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator if the former then is your minor false for those books conteyn as wel Gospel as law the promise made unto the fathers in Christ to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance aswell before Christs incarnation as since But iâ— you â—ind it †Rom. â— Heb. 10. of the law onely administration of Moses it is true that perfection and life came not by the law nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law but withal you must know that the Iewes were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ as * pa. 23. ◠“ Gen. 3. â— 12. 3. â— 17. 7. 21. Esa 1. â— 7. 14. â— 9. 6 GeÌ„ â— 10. Numâ— 24. 17. Gâ— 3. 8. 14 before is proved 3 For the church of the old Testament it could bring or publish life to the members thereof seing it had the promises “ of the Gospel and so presupposed fayth repentance true holynes as you speak To the scriptures first to Heb. 7. 19. I answer that the law indeed maketh nothing perfect nor could give lyfe but I have told you againe and
meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not Neyther wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlasting covenant for berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance but a covenant that continueth his proper tyme. c. I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting tyme as in these places Psal 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal 145. 13. Esa 45. 17. and so in divers other places Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting vid videlicet to be God to Abraham and his seed after him and therfore gnolam must needs be understood for ever unles you wil say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tymâ— for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words I am the God of thy father the God of Abraham c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant And though gnolam do sometymes signifie a tyme that hath an end as it doth in the type â—t it noteth tyme everlasting in the truth of those types and therefore â—s Canaan called an everlasting possession Gen. 17. 8. But be it granted say you that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. â— the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ what then â— it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful whether Iewes or Genâ— beleeving actually as Abraham the father did therfore it is made with the faithâ—â—an c. and with his children begotten of his bodie c. I denie it utterly Yes it †Act. 2. 3â— wil and must follow els are not the faithful partakers of Abraâ—ms covenant for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed and the beleeâ—ers onely to themselves then is it not the same neither in the giving nor â—â—iving thereof as before is proved And if you graunt Abrahams inâ—â—s as Isaac c. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant â—ade with him in Christ for to deny it by any colour of scripture you â—an not then must the same account be made of al other infants of beleeâ—ers seing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed â—â— the same fayth that Abraham did to him and his Because the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz. Christ or the 〈…〉 al beleevers The words of the Apostle are these * Gal. 3. 1â— but to thy seed as of one which is Christ Some understand by seed the church Christ mistically as 1 Cor. 12. 12. gaâ—hered of Iewes and Gentiles which grow together in one body in Christ of the seed of Abraham as ver 18. According to which exposition both â—ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise â—ade unto them that are partakers of salvation yea infants els are * Eph. 5. 2â— 26. they â—ot sanctified by Christs death But if by seed be understood the redeeming â—eed which is C. it is he in whoÌ„ both the elder people infants ar blessed But you to prove that by one onely actuall beleevers is to be minded â—edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted that Paul intendes not to shew â—hat none are in Christ save onely actual beleevers for that were to conâ—mne al infants but he speaking to the church and such of them as were â—apable of instruction and having exhorted them not to faynt because of â—is troubles prayeth the Lord that they may be strengthned with his spirit that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith that is bring forth the fruits of the spirit testifiing their fayth and so continue constant Now it is to be observed that RoÌ„ 8. 9. 11 â— Joh. 3. 24. Christ dwelleth in al his by his spirit and thereby joyneth them unto him and so in infants els are they †Rom. 8. 9. not Christs this should you have minded as wel as the other and haue knowen that actuall beleeving and the practise of other Christian duties is the work of the spirit as the act of reasoning is of the soule in the elder sort required of them and not of infants as oft inough hath bene shewed But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle you thus obiect 1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one seed the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten which is an other seed c. then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many and that is directly against the Apastle Gal. 3. 16. I answer that the covenant is made with the faithful and their seed as of one kind God of his free grace estating the beleevers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life both of them becomming * spiritual or Rom. 7. 4. â—ct 2. 39. â—zech 16. â— 21. â—sal 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. â—phe 2. 14 â— holy seed and sonnes of God by vertue thereof and not two contrarie seedes as you would pretend and therefore the Apostle is not contrarie to that we affirme for as he sayth the seed is one so say we whether Christ our Saviour be thereby understood or the Churches united into †one or all beleevers who together with their children are after a spiritual maner the sonnes of God Therefore that one seed is of persons actually beleeving c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actually infants do not beleeve actually Ergo c. Your conclusion ariseth from false premisses which are answered before to the former Proposition of this argument I answer that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeve but in no place of the scripture is added of them onely that actually beleeve which you do insinuate therefore there lyeth deceipt in your proposition God promised his blessing to Abrahams seed which coÌ„prehends his infants “ to blesse the house of Israel not only the elder sort That promise of blessing the families GeÌ„ 12. 3. 28. Ps 115. â—2 14. Act. 31. 25. Esa 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth childreÌ„ for they ar of the family Againe Abrahams covenant was onely to Abrahams one seed that is to all beleevers Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo c. This Argument is the same in effect with the former the maior in your understanding is false the faithful and their children in respect of the covenant are but of one seed Children though they cannot actually beleeve yet are they accounted of the beleevers and partakers of the promise with their parents Again They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham Infants cannot do the works of Abraham Ergo c. The Proposition is false in your understanding Paul saith if any would not â—â—k he should not eate 2 Thes
Lactantius whom you also cyte are generall of yong old whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number but proves not your desire his words you set downe thus Candiduâ— egreditur nitidis exerâ—itus undis atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort Concerning Lodovicus Vives vpon August de Civit. Dei cap. 27. if â—dovicus â—ves floâ—â— anno â—4â— â—â—d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his â—â— as did â—â— Erasm he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him seing he is but a late writer I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth certainly froÌ„ that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name Lastly you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes to say That in Pauls time it was not received that infants should be baptised Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth and therefore being of so late time what is his witnes against so many fathers testifying the contrarie Thus in alledging of him and the rest you shew the weaknes of your cause that have not one auncient father directly to vvitnes with you but are driven to call them to vvitnes that in this thing vvere of contrary judgment to your selfe REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the coÌ„trarye the first of them is this 1. Reason Because there is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their faith were baptised Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. Answer 1. This reasoÌ„ being brought into form wil bewray the weaknes therof for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a speciall comandement or example in the practise of Iohn or Christs Disciples for the baptising of infants yet it may not withstaÌ„ding be lawfull to baptise them namely if by sound coÌ„sequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warraÌ„t froÌ„ the exaÌ„ple of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by Argument necessarily drawen from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expresâ—ly mentioned and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament though wee can not shew any playne precept or example yet may upon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead that the son is Homousius that is of the same substance with the father now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture And many such like 2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence because they are within the covenaÌ„t and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested I wil thirdly answer vnto it 3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants Commandement I say Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents the same lawe of sealing the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be changed except the lawemaker do repeal it or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof which must be shewed or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia her household Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers 33. both which seming to be great housholds it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist meÌ„tioÌ„ them not But the exceptioÌ„ is that only such as did coÌ„fesse their sins confesse their fayth were baptised CoÌ„cerning Iohn he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the waye of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confesse their sins he baptised but did Iohn refuse their children if they broughâ— them to him but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them no more say I is there that they were offered unto him There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised and yet it were too bold a part and no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptised All things that Iohn did nor that Christ did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof And therefore to gather an Argument from hence because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn therefore they ought not to be baptised is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country now in iourney homeward therefore not like that he should have his children with him specially in such a tedious iourney not knowing of this accident M. Smyth Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants to the first argument you say if it be brought into forme it wil bewray the weaknes of it wel I wil bring it into forme c. That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example Ergo. c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus That which hath precept and example must be practised Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ
John and the Apostles Ergo. c. R. Clyfton First the Major of your former Sillogisme is not necessarily true your selfe confesseth †that every consequent necessarily deduced from the scripture is as wel Parallels â—g 71. and as truely the word of truth as that which is in playne termes expressed c. and therefore you ought to have added nor ground of the scripture or such like 2. The minor I deny and haue proved that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants Your second Syllogisme may be granted save that the conclusion seemes to entend more then the propositions viz in these words are the persons to be baptised as yf onely such not infants as can confesse their faith are to be baptised which I deny Before you proceed to confirme your argument you labour first to remove my answer saying Although a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevaile yet I say the Lord can not leave vs in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainely and faithfully with vs c. You graunt a necessarie consequence in all cases shall prevaile why not in this particular Your reason is seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old c. and Moses hath set downe distinctly and plainly the persons with their qualifications to be circumcised c. either Christ hath as plainely and fully set downe these particulars or els the new testament is not so playne as the old 1. By this your reason you iniure God his word who leaft the Iewes in the books of Moses onely to consequences towching that great point of the resurrection which yet Christ accounted sufficient and against the Sadduces drewe his Argument to prove the resurrection out of Exodus 3. 6. where no such thing is expressely mentioned and so by your doctrine he dealt not plainely and faithfully Also every other argument that he or the Apostles used upon a necessarie consequence can not stand with the open face of the gospel thus far doâ—h your reason exteÌ„d but I wil come to your particular whereof you would have it understood viz that Christ can not deale faithfully if for the baptising of infants he hath not as playnely described the ordinance of baptisme the persons with all other circumstances c. Do you thinke that if Christ have not set downe every circumstance about baptisme that he is therefore unfaythful what think you of his describing of the other Sacrament where is it set downe so playnely that wemen shal be partakers thereof there is no mention that any woman was present at Christs administration of his last supper where is the tyme so described for the administration thereof as was for the Passeover must Christ for this be accused to have dealt not so faithfully as Moses had our Saviour any need to teach or write otherwise then he hath done about the sacraments seing it is the same covenant under the Gospel that was sealed to the old Church and a commaundement given for the sealing thereof unrepealed that which was to be chaunged concerning the outward ceremonie Christ hath plainely set it downe with direction for for the administration thereof And that which was needful for Moses in describing circumcision was not so necessarie for Christ in describing of baptisme because circumcision was to be administred onely to the males but baptisme to both sexes circumcision on the 8. day baptisme is tyed to no strict time and therefore the particular description of these circuÌ„stances might wel be omitted and no unfaithful dealing in Christ As for the minding of it to be administred to infants there was no use of any such particular direction seing the Lord had once ordeyned to seal his covenant to the faithful their seed renueth the same in a general maner under the Gospel which may suffice to all that are sober minded For it had bene easily said go teach c. baptise them if they have any infants baptise them c. It is not for man to prescribe wisedome how to speak things are taught plainly inough if God give men eares to heare But say that Christ Iohn and the Apostles leaveth direction for this meane matter onely by dark far fetched probable coniectures consequence from the old testameÌ„t whiâ—h was onely typical c. and hath not left evident grounds for it expressly in all the foresaid pâ—rticulars c. is to say that Christ is not so faithful in his office propheticall as Moses was c. For these things which we defend are playne enough and no darke or farfetched coniectures except to such whose eies the Lord hath blinded Concerning our Reasons drawen from the writings of the old Testament we do herein follow the exaÌ„ple of Christ his Apostles who did confirme and prove that doctrin which they preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets Paul sayth †that he witnessed to smal and great saying no other things then Act. 26. those which Mâ—ses and the Prophets did say should come notwithstanding I have also confirmed this doctrine of baptisiing of infaÌ„ts from the new TestameÌ„t In that you say the old Testament was onely typical you must explaine your meaning for although some things were * typical vnder the old TestameÌ„t Heb. 10. 8. 13. â— 9. 1-9 â—l 2. 16. 17 Gal 4. 24. â—5 yet other things were Moral as the Moral †law which was a parte of it preaching prayer and other spiritual parts of worship which were commaÌ„ded vnder the old Testament Agayne That Christ hath left vndeniable groundes in the Scriptures for the baptising of infants before is shewed Moreover seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp and preached obscurely in the old Testament and types thereof it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrection c. but now that the new Testament being written c. why should we be sent to obscurities and coniectural consâ—quentes c. Because the bookes of the new Testament were not written Christ and the Apostle might reason froÌ„ obscurities coniecturall coÌ„sequents out of the old TestameÌ„t do you thus argue indeed was Christs reasoning obscure for the resurrection do you thinke the Saduces would have bene soner perswaded if the new Testament had bene written and Christ had reasoned from it no more then you wil be perswaded to beleeve the baptising of infants for al the reasons we bring frome the same He that wil not beleeve Moses and the prophets wil not beleeve the Apostles Agayne I deny that to reason from the Scriptures of the old Testament is to reason from obscurities the Apostles have made all things cleere and manifest Ephe. 3. 5-9 whose writings do further us to the vnderstanding of the prophets Christ himselfe sends vs to search those Scriptures Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter â— Pet. 1. â— sayth †yee do wel if you take heed to the word of the Prophets as before is observed Besides
in force to the faithful and their seed Rom. 9. 6. 8. 15. 11 1. 2-5 2. Christ speaketh to such of the Iewes as by their works did shew themselves to be of the Divil he intendeth not to teach that this was the constitution state of the whol Church under the old Testament as much as Christ sayd to these Iewes may be sayd to us under the Gospel as of those Antichristians whereof Iohn speaketh 1. Iohn 2. 19. and therefore all that you have sayd proves nothing for the question in hand Againe to prove the Disciples to be baptised you cite Ioh. 4. 1. 1. 35. 40. I answere in the latter place is no mention of baptisme and in the former it is sayd that Iesus baptised moe disciples then Iohn which in verse 2. is explaned that he did not baptise but his disciples shewing that Christ baptised disciples by the hands of his disciples So I think they were baptised of Iohn as Christ was but I wil not contend there about And for that you answer concerning the Eunuch that some mention should have bene made eyther of Philip or of the Eunuch towching his children It is nothing that you say for what occasion was there to speak of his children And it is for you to prove that the Eunuch had children seing he was one as it is like that was made chast by man Mat. 19. 12. the rather because in regard of his honour and auctoritie he was called Cheiffe governour as also in respect of his country an Ethiopian Act. 8. 27. see Esa 56. 3. 4. 5. Now to your second reason The 2. reason against baptising of infants answered R. Clifton But having thus discovered the weaknes of this first reason let vs come to the next which is this Reason 2. Because Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptise them Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 4. 1. But infants can not by doctrine become Christs disciples and so can not by the rule of Christ be baptised Answer 1. The Apostles were indede commanded to make Disciples and to call vnto the faith and felowship of the Gospel not onely the Iewes but the Gentiles throughout the world and gave them power to preach the Gospel which before had bene preached to AbrahaÌ„ Gal. 3. 8. And to baptise all that did receive it And this we grant that fayth must go before baptisme in al such as are to be made Disciples and brought into the covenant of God So went fayth before circumcision Abraham first beleeved after was circumcised And likewise must al they which with AbrahaÌ„ enter into Gods covenant first beleeve and then be baptised as the Eunuch Act. 8. 37. Lydia Act. 16. 15. the Keeper of the prison verse 33. but when such have receved the fayth then are their infants and houshold capable also of baptisme as Abrahams family was of circumcision he beleeved the promises Gen. 17. therefore it is written that when God opened the hart of Lidia that shee did attend to the word that Paule preached and beleved not onely she herselfe but all her household were baptised and yet is there no mentioÌ„ of the fayth of any of them save of Lidias onely And so the Keeper beleeving all that appertayned vnto him were baptised And this is proportionable to the example of Abraham whose fayth we find sufficient to interest all his in the covenant and make them capable of the seale 2. Christ taketh the same course in giving out his commission to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to bringe the Gentiles into Gods covenant that the Lord tooke with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the father of many nations c. he did not first command him to be circumcised but preached to him the Gospel or covenant and he beleeving was circumcised and his houshold So here is a commandement first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ and for baptising such as beleeved with their families for it is included in this commandement els had not the Apostle baptised the families of Lidia and of the Keper as before is observed And it is wel to be minded that there is no mention made of the faith of any in the familie of Lidia save of Lidias onely for it is not sayd all in the house that beleeved were baptised which had bene necessary if this commandement of Christ should be expounded after the mind of the Anabaptists 3. If children shal be excluded from baptisme because they can not be made Disciples by teaching and so beleeve then by as good reason may they be excluded froÌ„ salvation for he that sayth he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved sayth also he that beleeveth not shal be damned Mar. 16. 16. if therfore want of fayth be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme then likewise the want of faith is sufficient to exclude them from salvation If the former be held to be the meaning of Christ then must also the latter be graunted a thought whereof is to be abhord Lastly generall rules must be taken with their sense and meaning It is a generall rule given by the Apostle 2 Thes 3 10. that if any would not work he should not eate Yet if any should gather froÌ„ hence that the impotent infants should not eat because they do not work this were to offer violence to wrest the Apostles doctrin So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples and baptising them now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme because they cannot receive instruction which is intended onely of them that are capable thereof is to diminish the commandement of Christ alike as he that should say infants can not beleeve and therefore cannot be saved Againe it can never be the true meaning of a scripture when it is so expounded that the exposition contradicteth other scriptures or any sound conclusioÌ„ gathered out of the Scriptures as this exposition of the Anabaptists doth upon this place of Mat. 28. 19. as my former reasons for the baptising of infants do playnely manifest Mr Smyth Next followeth your answer to my 2. Reason which reason of mine is framed thus They that can not by teaching be made Christs disciples ought not to be baptised Infants by teaching can not be made disciples Ergo c. Your answer to this Argument of myne consisteth in 4. particulars c. to the first particular of your answer I say that you erre mistaking the Scripture for AbrahaÌ„s faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessarie antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or patterne of iustâ—fication And circumcision in Abraham was not a seal of his iustification or of the everlasting covenant of God c. R. Clifton I answer 1. to the former proposition of your argument that it is false for infants of
beleevers may and ought to be baptised though they can not by teaching be made disciples 2. to that you answere to my first particular thus I reply That of Abraham his circumcision of the Church of the old Testament I haue spoken before this now I wil adde further that AbrahaÌ„ was an * Iosh 2â— 3. idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church As for his faith it was not onely a president or example to others but was also necessarie for him self as the scripture teacheth he beleeved the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes And being thus iustifyed he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousnes of faith by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemne covenant of the Lord to become his peculiar people and to haue him to be their God which at that time the Lord made with him so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood And where you say that Circumcision was not a seal of Abrahams iustification c. you give the holy Ghost the lye which testifieth the contrary Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason that he was sealed by the spirit long before it is nothing to the purpose for the spirit was no external seal as circumcision was The spirit sealeth inwardly and is proper onely to the elect yea to all Gods people in Babilon and so is no visible signe of of Gods promises given to the Church visible whereof our dispute is And here remember by the way that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit and so was under the new Testament as also others had Esa 63. 11. Psa 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4 39. that being the pledge and earnest of the sowles of al the faythfull in al ages of the love of God in Christ But Abrahams iustification in uncircumcision was a type of the iustification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised And Abrahams circumcision after his iustification sealed him up to be the father of all the beleevers circumcised That Abrahams justification was an example to al that should be justified both of the Iewes and Gentiles I graunt viz. that as he was justified by fayth so should al others that beleeve be likewise justified But as concerning Abrahams circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father Rom. 4. 11 â— 13. of al beleevers circumcised the Apostle sayth thus * Abraham received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of fayth which he had when he was uncircumcised c. that he should be the father of al that beleeve not being circumcised c. and the father of circumcision c. In which words I observe 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousnes of fayth yea of Abrahams 2 that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised beleeving And the father of al the circumcised his posteritie the Israelites and so was father of both sorts of people and of the parents and children 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised he meaneth Mat. 15. â— Act. 25. Rom. â— 4 5. of his spiritual fatherhood in regard of the “ covenant 4. He is called the father of circumcision not onely of beleevers circumcised as you say but of their infants also seeing they were circumcised and in this you deceive your hearers by perswading them that Abraham was the father onely of beleevers circumcised not of their seed whereas Paul sayth he was father of the circumcision And so circumcision had a triple vse one general two special â— Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a patterne of al the beleevers in uncircumcision c. 2. Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a paterne to al beleevers in circumcision c. The general use of Abrahams circumâ—…cumcision was common with him to Ismael and al the persons of his familie and al the carnal Israelites viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. You labour by your new devised distinctions to obscure the truth and to shut out of the covenant of grace the infants of the faythful otherwise â—e affirme that both beleeving Iewes and Gentiles are justified and †Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20. live by their fayth and that the one and the other have but * Rom-4 3. 24. 2 one way of justification as they have but one Christ and one covenant of salvation And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham so was it given to have the same use to al that were circumcised viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by “ Rom. 3. 2â— his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Concerning that general use of circumcision as you terme it to be common with Abraham and to Ismael and to al the persons of his familie c. is true but the use viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. you must prove for God had not then given the law or old Testament It was the covenant in Christ that was sealed by circumcision and not the law or covenant of works And whereas it was the Apostles purpose to shew that †Rom. 4â— c. Abraham was not justified by works he hath not proved it but confirmed it by this your distinction of circumcision if Abraham received it to seal him up to the old Testament to the observation of the law Now for the place of Rom. 4. 11. which I am assured you wil ground your assertion upon I say it is both falsly translated expounded for tes en acrâ—bustia is usually translated which Abraham had when he was uncircumcised and this I say is a false translation for this is the true translation viz. which is or was or shal be in the uncircumcision meaning that circumcision upon Abraham c. was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcision that beleeve and the end of his circumcision is the fatherhood of the faythful Here you pick a quarrel against the translation before it was alleadged and so it pleaseth you to set downe an other with your own exposition to this scripture Rom. 4. 11. and by your glosse corrupts the text You 〈◊〉 4. 11. fault the Translator for saying which he had c. and you put in which is or was or shal be The text is which in the uncircumcision the verbe being omitted Now I ask you what warrant you havâ— more for your addition then the Translator had for his the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain that the Translator saw his
as the Lord God should call meaning to the Gentiles which should beleeve and to their seed Therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed c. To this I haue answered that childrē of beleevers though carnal by nature yet are they spirituall in regard of the covenant and in this respect to hold them the children of Abraham though they can not shew forth the fruites of faith which are required of the elder sort Why then they are damned wil you say God forbid do you cendemne all the men that are not of our saith and yet they are neerer to condemnation in the iudgement of the scripture to you then infants for Christ sayth he that beleeveth not shal be condēned c. It is wel that you detest the condēnatiō of infants if they be not condēned then are they saved if they saved then are they under the covenāt of grace in Iesus Christ Towching others of yeres according as the scripture sheweth their estate to be unto vs so must we judge but secret things belong not unto us the salvation or condemnation of this or that particular person is a secret nay wee are not able certainely to determine thereof amongst such as be external members of the Church because many that haue not on their * Ma◠11-1◠mariage garment may thrust in with the guests the †Ma◠1. c. five foolish virgins had lampes as wel as the wise But this is not the question we reason concerning the dispensation of Gods covenant in respect of us which we affirme according to the “ Gen. 17◠Act. 2. 3◠scripture to be given to the children as wel as to the parents And you deny it and therefore by your opinion in respect of us no hope can in deed be had of the salvation of any infant nay the infants of Turks and infidels wil be in as good estate as the children of beleevers for if infants be without the covenant as you affirm if we wil speak according to the scripture we must hold thē * Eph. 2. ◠without Christ and alianes from the common wealth of Israel without hope and without God in the world and standing dying in this estate to be as Turks infidels dying in the state of condemnation But you not able to shift of this Arg. loth to confesse the truth do say that the Scripture teacheth nothing concerning their final estate except it be the salvation of them al. If it teach the salvation of them al then I hope it teacheth that they are in Christ and within the covenant Christ teacheth that the kingdome of heaven is of such The final estate of many professors of the fayth being of yeares is a secret to us the scripture doth not open unto us the particular election of this or that man but teacheth with whom God hath made his covenant to esteeme them as of his covenant untill the contrarie appear by their falling away Rom. 11. 20. And thus having explayned your own meaning of your former Argument you proceed to examine my Answer saying Now according to your exposition I should intend because it is not discerned which children are the spiritual seed which the carnal therefore both of them must be deprived of baptisme least by giving baptisme which you falsely call a seal to al it should be prophaned to the carnal seed Wel suppose this were my meaning what then If this were your meaning then my collection must follow for my calling baptisme a seal I have proved that which I affirme of baptisme p. 37. 38. You except against this exposition two things one that the spirituall seed should be iniured by denying baptisme unto it for the carnal seeds sake And I reply by giving baptisme to al indifferently we should iniure baptisme it is to be administred onely upon them that confesse their fayth and sinnes and are made disciples c. Your Answer stands in begging the question I say it is no more an injurie to baptisme to be indifferently administred to al them to whom the covenant is indefinitely given as it is to the seed of the faythfull then it was before for circumcision or is now when hypocrites are baptised For we can not be sayd to prophane the sacrament by administring it to them that appear to us to be within the Lords covenant as both hypocrites infants until they break off An other thing you except is that this reason should availe against circumcision seeing the males of eight dayes old could not be discerned to be the spiritual seed And I insist that it was not then needfull that then they should be discerned to be the spiritual seed for that carnal seal of that carnal covenant it was ynough for investing of them with that carnal and typical seal that they were the carnal typical seed and that they were Israelites or proselyts c. Your answer stands upon a false ground confuted before I have proved pag. 12. 13. that circumcision is a holy seal of the covenant in Christ and that your carnal covenant is a devise of your owne And where you call the Isralites the carnall and typical seed I have answered and do again say that though they may be called carnal in respect of their natural generation or in regard of the infirmities hanging upon them or some of them termed carnal in respect of their evil works yet the bodie of the Israelites considered as they were a body and children of the covenant were a spiritual seed and holy And it was needful that they should be so els had not †Rom. 9 5. Psal ◠16. 21. the holy things of God belonged unto them or they pleased God in their slanding And shew me that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised but to be a male But in the new Testament it is taught 1. that Christ the male must be in us and 2. that there must be circumcision of the hart 3. that wee must attayn to learn al that the schoolmaster of the old Testament could teach us before we can be baptised I answer that the Lord required as much of them that were to be circumcised as of them that are to be baptised of the infants both of the Iewes and Christians God requires onely that they be the seed of the faithful but for such as were of yeares and without the church as under the Gospel they are to turne from sinne and professe their fayth in Iesus Christ that require baptisme so likewise before Christ was the case of Abraham himself such of the Gentiles as would be circumcised were to * Exo. 1◠48. Este◠17. Esra ◠21. Ac◠27. renounce their hethenish and idolatrous worship and to professe the true God of Israel and his religion In Ester it is sayd many became Iewes that is addicted themselves to the religion of the Iewes which is to celebrate or
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
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