that very place the holy Ghost distinguisheth between such as were borne in the house and bought with mony as between them that were by their birth of the family of those that being bought were received into his house Secondly the children of belevers be eyther members of the Church Ephe. 2. 12. and within the covenant or els without if without then are †they aliants from the comon welth of Israel strangers from the covenants of promise without Christ without hope and without God in this world for this the Apostle sets downe to be the state of them that are without but thus Christ did not esteme of infantes who sayd “ suffer litle children to come to me for of such is the kingdome “ Marc. 10 13. 14. of God nor Pau †1 Cor. 7. â—4 that sayd but now are they holy speaking of the children of belevers Concerning the pareÌ„ts of these childreÌ„ that were brought to Christ which you say cannot be proved belevers by these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. I have shewed before what I thought of them But if they â—re baptised say you Christ cannot intend baptisme vnto them Who labours to prove that Christ in blessing them did intend Baptisme vnto them This I sayd that such as are of the Kingdome of God and capable of the blessing of Christ are not to be denyed baptisme And that infantes are such I have proved from these scriptures Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. And therefore baptisme not to be denyed them 2. If the Apostles by putting back infantes presented to Christ declare playnely that infants were not to be brought to be baptised by Christ the infantes were not to be baptised by Christ nor coÌ„manded to be baptised by him But the first is true Ergo c. The assumption is denyed for if the children were not brought to be baptised how can the Apostles putting them back signifie that infants are not to be baptized the bringers of them did expresse their mind wherefore they brought them Agayne if the Apostles by putting the infants back did erre and by Christ are thereof rebuked what can you conclude from their example but this not to judge them vnworthy of Christ and of his ordinances whome he approveth receiveth The Scripture speakes not one word that they did put them back as judging them vnfit for baptisme 3. If the persons presenting Infants to be blessed and prayed for do not desire baptisme for them then they knew no such custome used by Christ to baptise them But the first is true Ergo c. Whether they knew any such custome or not it is not to the purpose Christ did as occasion was offerred he satisfyed them according to their desire 4. If Christ receiving infants praying for them blâ—ssing them doth neyther baptise them nor coÌ„maund his disciples to baptise them then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptised or els he forgat his duetie in not teaching baptisme of Infants upon so iust an occasion But Christ did neyther baptise them nor command his disciples to baptise them neyther did he forget his dutie c. Ergo. I answer the consequent followes not Christ his pleasure was not against that †GeÌ„ 17. 1â— general commandement given first to Abraham for the setting of the seale unto his covenant to all the faithful and their seed Also Christ performed as much as they intreated for at his hands and though he taught not all things at one time yet was it no forgetting of his dutie â—eing in due time he taught all things 5. They that are not actually possessed of the promises or covenant are not actually to be invested with baptisme Infants are not actually possessed in the coâ—â—nant seing they performe not the condition viz. confession of their sinnes and their faith actually Ergo c. If you mean by actually possessed such a state right or possession as the Lord of his free grace hath infeoffed his people withall by vertue of the â—en 17. 9. â—1 Act. 39. 1 Cor. 14. graunt of his covenant to Abraham I deny the minor and say that infants of beleevers are †children of the covenant and of the kingdome and actually possessed thereof As concerning the reason annexed to the minor it is answered before that the Lord requires the actuall vse of faith and repentance of them that are of yeares and not of infants And thus much for confirmation of my third reason Argument IIII. 1 Cor. 7. 14. If the children of beleeving parents be holy then are they within the covenant of Abraham and so consequently have right to the seale thereof But the first is true 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo the second Touching the former proposition I take it that none will affirme holynes in any that are not of the covenant for in that respect Israel was called an holy nation Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. and all others vncleane Act. 11. 3. and 10. 15. that were without If infants be within the covenant then cannot the seale be denyed to such seing the Lord hath joyned the promise and seale together Gen. 17. 10. which no man may or ought to separate Mat. 19. 6. What can be objected against the assumption I see not seing the Apostle playnly affirmes but now are your children holy Vnlesse it may be sayd as of some I have heard that as the vnbeleeving wife is sanctified to the husband so are the children viz to the use of their Father but this to affirme is a great abusing of the scripture For the Apostle in that place answering an obiection that the faithfull is defiled by the societie of the unfaithful proveth that the faithful husband may with good conscience use the vessel of his unfaithful wife by an Argument froÌ„ the effects namely because their children which are borne of them are accounted holy or within the promise God having sayd to all the faithful I will be thy God and the God of thy seed As for that other strange exposition that the Children of a beleeving father are no otherwise sanctified theÌ„ the unbeleeving wife is unto her husband viz to their fathers use onely that can not stand with the meaning purpose of the Apostle For so much may be sayd of an unbeleeving servant that he is for the vse of his master to do him service if children be no more holy then so then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father neither is the objectioÌ„ removed by this answer If it be further pressed that the unbeleeving wife is sayd to be holy as well as the children yet is she not within the covenaÌ„t I answer that she indeed is not holy as be her children for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant and therefore she is sayd to be sanctified to her husband the Apostle respecting their mariage which though it was contracted before eyther party beleeved yet stands firme and
that we may receive a ful reward And now unto him that is able to keep vs that we fall not to present vs faultlesse before the presence of his glorie with ioye To God onely our Saviour be glorie and Maiestie Dominion and power both now and ever Amen Richard Clifton AN ANSWER TO Mr SMYTHES Epistle to the Reader which he hath directed To every one that loveth the truth in sincerity BY these wordes it seemeth Mr Smyth would intimate that his care is to mainteyne the truth and that in sinceritie he loveth the same whereas in deed he hath destroyed the faith is become an enemy to the covenant of grace a perverter of the right wayes â—f the Lord and withall so confident in defence of his heresies that he â—â—es to challendge a combate with all the Separation belike to feare men â—ith great words and to boast with Rabsake as if his forces were invinâ—ble But what they are it wil appeare in this discourse following In the Epistle it self first Mr Smyth seemeth to excuse their mutabilitie in ReligioÌ„ saying It may be thought most strange that a man should oft times change â—s religion and it cannot be accounted a commendable qualitie in any man to make â—ny alterations c. this must needs be true and we confesse it if one condition be 〈…〉 itted that the Religion which a man changeth be the truth for otherwise to change 〈…〉 lse religion is commendable c. But Mr Smyth and his company have changed a true Religion for a â—alse and therefore that can be no commendable qualitie in them And â—uch inconstant persons as himself saith cannot escape the deserved imputation â—folly or weaknes of iudgement therein Thus out of his owne mouth proâ—ouncing senteÌ„ce against himself For that alteratioÌ„ of him his coÌ„pany â—s not froÌ„ falshood to truth but the leaving of the truth which formerly â—hey professed a taking up of error after error first calling into question whether the scriptures being translated into other tongues were not the writings of men Differenc pag. 10. Then casting the reading of them out of the worship of God affirming that there is no better warrant to bring translations of Scripture into the Church and to read them as parts and helps of worship then to bring in expositions paraphrasts and sermons vpon the Scripture seing all these are equally humane in respect of the worke equally divine in respect of the matter they handle Differ pag. 10. And for the same cause separated themselves from other Churches that did read and vse the same in their publike meetings After this they dissolved their Church which before vvas conioyned in the fellowship of the Gospel profession of the true fayth Mr. Smyth being Pastor thereof gave over his office as did also the Deacons and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptisme and taking upon them an other of mans invention bringing in an other Gospel besides that which was preached to Abraham Gen. 12 3 17. 7. c. Gal. 3 8. And now againe many of this new communion have separated themselves from the rest holding the error about the incarnation â—f this new â—aptised coÌ„â—union â—ere are reâ—ayning as â—is reported â—t above â— persons â—l the rest â—e runne in â— further â—rors of Christ An other sort are excommunicate namely M. Smyth divers with him for holding as it is reported by some that were of them that their new washed companie is no true church and that there cannot be in a church the administratioÌ„ of baptisme other ordinances of Christ without Officers contrarie to his former judgment practise writings yet resteth not but is inquiring after a new way of walking as the same persons affirme breeding more errors as is strongly suspected and by his manuscripts partly appeares Whereby it is manifest that these men can not cleare themselves of instabilitie changeablenes in Religion but are guilty of that inconstancie that is worthy reproof and damnable Further he sayth For a man of a Turke to become a Jew of a Iew a Papist of a Papist a Protestant are al commendable changes c. so that not to change religion is evil simplie therefore that we should fal from Puritanisme to Brownisme and from Brownisme to true christian baptisme is not simply evil in it self except it be proved that we have fallen from the true religion c. Here Mr. Smyth would make the world beleeve as it is the manner of al heretikes that their alterations were goings forward to further truthes and therefore commendable But if their true Christian baptisme whereof they boast prove a notable heresie as it is indeed in this Treatise is proved then his comparison holds not but rather their estate is like to those in 1 Tim. 1 19. that put away fayth a good conscience and as concerning fayth have made shipwrack And that bring in damnable heresies 2 Pet. 2. 1. c. denying the covenant of grace and the lawful use of the scriptures c. to bring upon themselves swift damnation if God give them not speedy repentance Next M. Smyth setts down the questions controverted and hereafter answered affirming that this controversie is between them and the Separation whereas he might as well have sayd betweene them and all christian churches that have been or are at this day for it is not we alone that â—ndemne these their heresies but both the ancient and moderne Churâ—es and vvriters in all ages as vvith one consent have opposed against â—em But where he pretends the publishing of this controversy to be for the â—ay of God the manifesting of the truth to our owne nation and the destruction of â—man of sinne he geveth vs to mynd how Satan hath bewitched his soule â— beleeve that such can be the effects of his heritical opinions It is the â—ollicy of the Divil to propound glorious ends to such as he seduceth as â— Evah and others teacheth his Ministers to do the like that by fayre â—attring speeches and shewes of good they might more easily deceave the â—mple And therfore seing we are forwarned that there shal be false Teachers â—mongst vs which privily shal bring in damnable heresies it behoveth vs â—o mynd the counsel of the Apostles to try the spirits 1. Ioh. 4. 1. And not â—o be caryed about with every wynd of doctrine Ephe. 4. 14. Now happely sayth Mr. Smyth some man wil wish that the controversy had 〈◊〉 with the Rabbies of the Separation and not with Mr Clyfton whome they ca 〈…〉 iate to be a weake man vnable to deale in so great a controversy wel let the Reader take notice that though it be Mr Clyftons pen yet it is not onely Mr Clyftons 〈…〉 se defâ—nce but his allegatioÌ„s Reasons are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies theÌ„â—elves And if they can say better they may now speake for by publishing answere to
from a false Church except he also do separate from the baptisme of Engl. c. Wherevnto he may be answered that it wil not follow that they which separate from a Church standing in apostasie or sinne must separate from the baptism therein receaved or yet from any other of Gods ordinances there retayned We are commaunded to forsake the whordomes of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. but not to seperate from any ordinance of Christ that is found therein save onely from the polutions thereof Yea Mr. Smyth cannot deny that a Church standing in Apostasy is to be separated from when the baptism therein received if it be of such as confesse their fayth and sins is still to be retayned for such baptism sayth he iâ— true Baptism though administred by Antichristians Character p. 51. 2. Those Israelits that separated from Ieroboams Church which stood in Apostasy went to IerusaleÌ„ 2. Cor. 30. 11. did not separate froÌ„ their circumcisioÌ„ therin receaved No more are we from our baptisme as afterward is proved As for his Reason That the baptism of England cannot be true and to be reteayned and the Church of England false and to be rejected c. It is but as if he should say the circumcision of Israell cannot be true and to be reteyned and the Church of Israell false and to be rejected I speake of Israell being in Apostacy And therefore thus I answere vnto it that baptism retayned in Rome and so in all Apostate Churches is baptism and is not to be repeated as in the latter part of this Treatise is proved And seing Mr. Smyth holdeth there Character â—ag 51. may be †true baptism in an Apostate Church if they confesse their fayth doth not he crosse himself here to say neyther can the Church of England possibly be false except the baptism be false Now if true baptism may be in an apostate Church as he affirmeth then a Church may be false that is apostate not baptism by his owne reasoning Yet this man chargeth vs with contradiction vz. to say England hath a false constitution Engl. hath a true baptism We hold baptism so to be true in an apostate church as circumcisioÌ„ was in the 〈…〉 ate Church of Israel otherwise we do not affirm Now concerning 〈…〉 ptising of infants Mr. Sm. thus proceedeth saying It seemeth to vs thâ— vnreasonable heresy of all Antichristianism for considering what baptism is An 〈◊〉 is no more capable of baptism then is any vnreasonable or insensible creature â—d then addeth 3. Reasons agaynst it 1. from his owne description baptism saying baptism is not the washing with water but it is the baptism of 〈…〉 it the confession of the mouth and washing with water c. These blasphemous speeches against the ordinance of Christ bewrayeth â—f what spirit this man is Gods ordinance is a most vnreasonable heresie with â—im yea the most vnreasonable of all Antichristianisme Thus iustifying all the â—dolatries of the Papists and their detestable heresies in comparison of baâ—tising of infants Besides his odious and blasphemous comparison afâ—rming Infants no more capable of baptisme then the vnreasonable and insensible 〈…〉 ures So that in his judgement a horse yea a block may aswell be â—aptised as the children of the Church whom the Lord of his free grace 〈…〉 ceiveth together with their parents to be his by an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and therefore are holy and capable of the blessing of Christ 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. Mark 10. 16. as hereafter is sufficiently 〈…〉 ved And therefore to compare these infants with vnreasonable and insensible creatures as touching the participation of Baptisme argueth the authour of such comparisons to be void of spiritual sense and reason and more to follow the corruption of his own hart in hatred against the truth then to mind what he affirmeth Concerning his description of Baptisme and those Scriptures which he quoteth for proof thereof see them answered hereafter pag. 94. where I have shewed 1. that the baptisme of the Spirit is no part of that outward Ceremonie of baptisme that is administred by man but is the inward work of the spirit in the elect of God 2. That the confession of faith of sinns is no part of the Sacrament of Baptisme seing the confession of sinns is so often to be repeated as we transgresse against the Lord likewise of faith as we have occasion administred vnto us And therefore baptisme which is given to be the seale of Gods covenant to his Church is the baptising of the faithful and their seed with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost Mat. 3. 11. with Mat. 28. 19. of this infants are capable neyther is their baptisme folly as Mr Smyth sayth but it wil prove his fully to make mans confession a part of the Sacrament which oftentymes â— hypocrical as it was in S. Magus to shut out of Gods covenant whoâ— the Lord hath accepted And it wil prove his folly to denye baptisme to infants because they caÌ„not performe such actions as in other respects are required of the elder sort that are to be baptised who also not having traÌ„sgressed in like manner therefore need not so to confesse And it wil prove his folly to deny that an infant can be baptised with the spirit for so to say is to deny that an infant can be saved But of these things hereafter His 2. Reason is taken from Iohns baptisme framed thus Iohns baptisme was the baptisme of repentance Infants have not Repentance and therefore can not have the baptisme of Repentance To this Argument I answer thus 1. That repentance is required of such as have actually transgressed not as the proper cause of baptisme but as a necessarie fruit of fayth condition of the Gospel required of them that being of yeares are to be received into the church whether before or since Christs coming But of the infants of the faythful whether of those that are newly received into the church or of beleevers borne in the church it is not so Ergo c. 2. Repentance was not required of the infants of the Iewes before they were circumcised no more is it to be required of our infants before baptisme these two Sacraments being the same in use 3. If Baptisme of repentance be understood onely of the tyme past not of the tyme to come then is that a false exposition of Iohns baptisme For as he taught that those that came to be baptised should repent so also his baptisme did preach a continual dying to sinne or practise of repentance al our life long Rom. 6. 4. And therefore though children cannot repent of actual sinne which they are not to do they having not committed the same yet is their baptisme the baptisme of repentance seeing it preacheth continual mortification repentance to the receivers thereof which is one true use of baptisme His third
differeÌ„ce externally betweene the times of Christ promised to come and his manifestation in the flesh and accomplishment of his promise And as * we have 30. â— 8. 11 â—4 RoÌ„ 10. â— 7. 8. â—er 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 â— 1 Cor. 10 â— 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. â—â—k 1. 74. the spirituall covenant and spirit so had the faithfull vnder the law and therefore it is false to say that they had the carnall covenant and wee the spirituall typed by the carnall for although vnder the Law the Lord did traine vp his people vnder many ceremonies which were types of things to come yet did he never ordeyne any carnall covenant with a seale therof as you devise But let vs see your proofes for all these particulars First that there are two Testaments made with Abraham you alledge Gal. 4 24. saying Agar that is the old Testament and Sara that is the new both married to Abraham 2. There are two seeds Ismael of Abraham and Hagar who typed the carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah who typed the spirituall seed ver 23. 3. There are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall covenant vpon the carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seale of the spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. c. First for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnall covenant that nothing fits your purpose for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles who vrged the works of the law for iustification and taught the people that vnlesse they wer circumcised Christ could not profit them whom after he had confuted with divers reasons he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 â—â—egorie of Abraham and his two wives shadowing out there 〈◊〉 â—at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in â—atter of iustification the law ingendring bondage requiring strict â—dience without which is no salvation but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2â— 26. â—egall bondage and requireth to †RoÌ„ 10. 6â— 11. Rom. â— 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation â—o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law doth shew them â— foolish they are which by the gospel are set * Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of â—w and legall ceremonies do frustrate that freedome by subiecting â—mselves againe to the law which could never make them †Act. 13. 39. righteous â—d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman whereas all â—hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law â—eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman Now this being â—he purpose or scope of the Apostle this allegorie setting downe the diâ—â—rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament vnder the gospel or new testament concerning iustification and salvation doth â—either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham or yet that the Iewes were so vnder the lawe that also they were â—ot free by faith in Christ for if we consider the times wherein the law was given 430 yeres after the promise it will appeare that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham or yet that it did * Gal. 3 1â— disannull the covenaÌ„t to dispossesse his seed of that estate which they obtayned by that promise made vnto him And it is to be noted that aswell vnder the â—ew testament as vnder the old all they are in bondage with Hagars sonns that seek by the workes of the law to be iustified 2. I answer more particularly to your proofes whereof the two former are drawen from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first because the Apostle calls Hagar Sarah the two testaments vers 24. and both â—â—re married to Abraham therefore to Abraham were made two testaments True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments the one of the old the other of the new But the Apostle applyes them to set out thereby the different estate of them that be vnder grace from such as be vnder the lawe of works Now to Abraham was not the lawe given whereof Hagar is made a type and therefore could not have that coâ—nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision for sure I am moe covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of but 〈…〉 Heb. 8. â—3 new the one abrogated by Christ his comming the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments it may be s 〈…〉 playnely out of the text it self for speaking of the lawe he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth vnto bondage making 〈…〉 tion purposely of Sinai because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountaine whereof Hagar was a shadow ver 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace sayth but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above is free c. ver 26. 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same be sayd to be two in respect of the tymes and diverse administration thereof and then your carnall covenant cannot stand Certaynly the Lord made one eternal vnchangable covenant to his Church instructing and dispensing his benefites otherwise in the time of the Law then now he doth under the Gospel And in this respect the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament may well speak in regard of the dispensation therof as of two And so understand by the old Testament that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses the Prophets to the Fathers promising eternal life openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law threatning of the curse if they did not perform it together with that intollerable burden of legal rites yoke of Moses politie and covertly under condition of repentance fayth in the Messiah to come prefigured under types shadowes ceremonies that by this meanes the Iewes as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ And by the new Testament understaÌ„d the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ his Apostles manifestly without shadowes and legal rites promising righteousnes life to al both Iewes Gentils that shal beleeve in Christ already come And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenaÌ„t seing both these TestameÌ„ts are spiritual though some carnal things wer commaunded in the old testament Yet those makes it no more a carnall covenant then water in Baptisme bread wine in the Lords supper the receiving of them which al are carnal things do make the new Testament carnall they being given to signifie vnto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnall things vnder
the faithful and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh yea some infants circumcised should be types as the carnal seed of Abraham and other infants circuÌ„cised as well as they to wit the children of the Proselytes should be no types for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self nor you with the truth Secondly I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful Paul sayth * that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat 1 Cor. 10. â— 5. drank the same spirituall drink c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended and after the enumeration of many particulars the Apostle sayth all these through faith obteyned good report Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful if infaÌ„ts of the faithful then were they types of theÌ„selves 3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham as Isaac Iacob c. were the true children of Abraham Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh * Rom. â— 16. 17. 19 20. 23. â— coÌ„ferd wâ— Gen. 17. â— 9. 13. Joâ— 44. sonnes of the promise of life so to be reputed as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of beleeâ—ers But say you If you wil make true consequents you must reason from the type to the truth and not from the type to the type neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do c. And I answer you neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed But as for my confounding of the covenants and seales that is your bare affirmation and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham for your carnal and spirituall infants is answered before Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed then you undertake to prove the contrary saying That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands commeth in place of circumcision made with hands Collos 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11. By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promised the †Deut. 1â— 16. 30. circumcision of the hart and the hart of their seed as before is shewed and they had the grace together with the outward signe therefore your reason is insufficient and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning Towching the place of the Romaines 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced Rom. 2â— the Iewes of syn vers 17. 24. they might object what doth our circumcision nothing profit us that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles yea sayth he if thou keep the law els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision vers 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law before circumcision transgressing the law vers 26 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites the inward and outward circumcision sheweth who is a true Iew not before men but before God viz he that is one within wherein is no guyle And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation which is not onely outward but of the hart this is the Apostles meaning and not to teach that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh c. as you affirm That other place Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the â—2 11. former for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel in this verse he denyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh which was specially urged seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge seal and witnes of our inward renuing or regeneration therefore having baptisme to confirme these graces vnto them need not the use of outward circumcision And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught â—â—e 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes by nature corrupt but also after an especiall manner strangers without God c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise which is the spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Ephe. 1. 13. 14. Although circumcision was set in the flesh yet was it not a seale of the flesh but of the * spirituall covenant and the holy spirit of promise succeedes RoÌ„ 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them that heavenly covenant of salvation as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly as in Abraham Isaac Iacob and the rest yea the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision for they being converted were after circumcised Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “ assured by the â—om 4. â— 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision you quote Ephes 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes because they were called by the same gospel which they imbraced by fayth and sealed up by the same spirit which is the earnest of our inheritance And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision Againe the spirit being invisible is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant Further you say I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new teâ—stament though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal I say therefore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament spiritual and yet visible and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water as Peter
the covenant * For if the root be holy so Rom. 11. â— Gen. 17. 7 â— 11. 12. â—at 28. 19 are the branches And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant through the free grace and large promise of God so have they †to the seal thereof which is administred by the commandement of God according to the outward dispensation of his covenant and not after his secret election according to which election neyther all the carnall infants of Abraham or all the seed of the faithfull or yet all that make * 1 Io. â— visible profession of their faith and stand members of true Churches are under the covenant save onely the elect But thus to vnderstand to be vnder the actuall possession of it as it is proper onely to the true children of Abraham so the certaine knowledge thereof †2 Tim 19. belongs onely to God And thus you see the majors consequent in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow Your second is this If Baptisme doth not succeed circumcision then Baptisme doth not perteyne to carnall infants But Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision because the seale of the spirit is correspondent to the typicall seale of the flesh and Baptisme with water is onely the manifestation of the seale Ergo c. The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true for though baptisme should not succeed circumcision yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God But I deny the minor and do affirme that Baptisme doth succeed circumcision as I have formerly proved The reason of your assumption is also before disproved for the spirit as you vnderstand it for our confession is not correspondent to circumcision seing infants are excluded Your third is this If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants then by your proportion baptisme doth not seale up the everlasting covenant to the faithful their carnal infants But circumcisioÌ„ did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants Ergo c. The Assumption is false being rightly vnderstood viz in respect of their outward standing and the contrarie is proved before to wit that circumcision did seale up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed Gen. 17. 7. c. Your fourth is this If beleeving Parents do not stand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants then though they be baptised themselves yet their children shall not But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants for no man is the father of the faithfull as Abraham was and he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnall infants Ergo c. For conveighing of the everlasting covenant this is that which we say that it is conveighed to the children by the free grace and disposing of the Lord who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their seed And although the beleeving parents stand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations yet stand they in Abrahams rowme in this that as * God did conveigh his everlasting covenant by Abraham beleeving â— 17. 7 â— 2. 39 â— 7. 14 â— 11. 9. to his seed so dooth the Lord conveigh †his covenant to the children of beleevers for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their seed and thus entred Abrahams carnall seed as you call them into the everlasting covenat as before is proved And be it that all their seed are not within Gods election yet leaving secret things to the Lord we are to beleeve the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely and not to put difference before the time that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham Amongest them that confesse Iesus Christ and “ are members â—oh 2. of the visible Church many depart away yet we account them childreÌ„ of the covenant vntill their hypocrisie be discovered and so in like manner are we to esteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy vntill the coÌ„trary â—or 7. appeare Your fift argument is this If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham but onely occupy the place of carnal children then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized yet the infants shall not which cannot beleeve actually But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham seing the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Joh. â— 39. which infants cannot do Ergo c. First it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onely occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderstand it for they are also the †children â—ct 3. 32 â—at â— of the covenant and of the “ kingdome Secondly the consequent of the major according to the true meaning of the termes therein used is also denyed the contrary is proved before viz that infants are to be baptised though they have not the actuall use of fayth To the minor I answer that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the Act. 2. 29 â—t 29. â— 15. true children of Abraham for to * them is the promise and in that respect children of Abraham as hath been sayd Your reason drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children is not truely gathered from that scripture for Christ there proveth that the Iewes living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be seing they did not the deeds of Abraham and he speaketh to men of yeares of whom the practise of â—â—ith is required Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires â—o such works is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes 3. 6. that because children cannot work therefore they must not eat And such is â—our absurd reasoning from this place Now when children of beleevers do come to yeares to manifest their infidelitie by their works we are accordingly to iudge of them after the example of Christ and not before Thus much to your five reasons whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptised Argument III. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive But the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts are of the kingdom of God Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptisme seing they are capable of it
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
it was sett upon the male it did type out Christ that promised seed through whom our corruption is purged as before is observed And if circumcision be such a type as you here afferme how can you exclude children under the new Test they are Christs and in the covenant †Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7. capable of the spirit or nevv berth therefore to be sealed If it be obiected that before the law there was no seal appointed I say hereby it appeareth that to be under the covenant was not the cause of â—ytle to the seal but the expresse commandement of God c. But to be under the covenant after the seal was thereunto annexed is sufficient cause of tytle to the seal except you vvil disjoyn those things that God hath coupled together In the next place you ansvver to the Assumption of my Argument vvher first you desire of me to expound unto you vvhat is this holynes vvhich the Apostle mentioneth 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I say under the covenant then you demand vvhat it is to be under the covenant and so you proceed from question to question as if you could not find out a direct ansvvere vvithout such interrogatories To your first demaund I ansvvered before shewed that this holynes in 1 Cor. 7. 14 is in respect of the covenant that children of the believing fathers are called holy by the Apost Then what it is to be under the covenant happely you wil say to be iustified by the imputatioÌ„ of the righteousnes of C. righteousnes Although thus to answer be true yet is it not al that vve are to ansvver to this demande For to be under the covenant is to be considered 2. maÌ„ner of vvayes 1. according to the L. solemne dispensatioÌ„ of his covenant vvith his people their admittance thereinto after vvhich manner it vvas made vvith Abraham and his seed And thus the covenant vvas established to * Gen 17. 21. Act. 39. Deuâ— 15. them that vvere unborne at the tyme of the promise making being then in the loynes of Abraham Secondly men are sayd to be under the covenant after a more special and hidden manner And so al the elect whether known by the confession of their fayth or lying hidden 〈◊〉 â—om 4. 4. â—at 8. 12. â—zo 14. 6. Rom. 11. â—-2â— Esa 29. 13 Luk. 13. â—-27 â—at 8. 12. in the confused assemblies of the world are within the cov of salvatioÌ„ but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within who is without some wee may judge to be within in respect of their outward standing which in the Lords sight are without and some without whom the Lord accepteth but after that external and solemn making and receiving of the covenant of life we are to repute †al that makes profession of their fayth with their seed to be under the covenant and * branches of the olive tree until they fal away And of these that are thus under the covenant there be many “ hypocrites which are not partakers of salvation in Christ Then I demand which of these three viz. to be holy to be under the covenant to have Christs righteousnes imputed is first in nature happely you wil say first they are under the covenant secondly iustified 3. sanctified or holy I perceive you would draw us by your supposed answer from that generall holynes apperteyning to the whole church of God by reason of the covenant of salvation made with them to the sincere holynes of perticular persons which is not found to be in al that are visible members of the ch Heb. 4. 1. â— Rom. 11. â—0 For this we say that a people that are entred covenant with God are in regard thereof holy because they are separate from the world unto God and so are to be esteemed of us as they to whome is promised Christ with al his blessings whereof they are partakers if by †unbeleef they hinder not themselves of that holynes of the olive whereinto they were planted in this sense are we to understand that place of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. Then I proceed and demand when do Infants come under the covenant when they are conceyved or when they are born or when the parents are converted being born already It wil be answered that Infants begotten of faythful parents come under the covenant in their conception and such as are borne come under the covenant when their parentes are regenerate Hereby it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children by generation by filial relation Thus I answer as formerly I have done that the covenant belonges to the parents and their seed through the free grace gift of God the Lord binding himself by promise to be God to the faythful and to their children which though they be borne according to the course of nature are in the covenant yet is their so being within it not by vertue of their carnal berth simply considered but by vertue of Gods promise Indeed this we say to be borne of beleeving parents is a declaration of the childrens being in Gods covenant that they come under the covenant when their “ Act. â— 14. 15. 33â— parents do * first beleev whether they be borne already or to be borne I mean such parents as were before strangers to the covenant Hereunto adde if it be true that some say that children under the goverment of the faythful also are under the covenant that the covenant is conveighed also by pupilship â— adoption so of servants under beleeving masters c. God making his covenant with beleevers includeth their families as in Gen. 17. 7. with verse 9 13. where the Lord establishing his covenant with Abraham included his whole houshould borne in his howse or bought with money for he commanded al to be circumcised So Zacheus manifesting his fayth and repentance Christ sayd †Luk. 1â— 8. 9. this day is salvation come unto this howse see also Act. 16. 30 31 33. and Ier. 31. 1. And thus do we affirme hereof according to the scriptures You say Why may not at the infants borne under one king if his subiects be al his servants â—d vassals be by that relation brought under the covenant and so be accounted iustifyed and sanctified God hath established his covenant to the beleevers and their seed not to a king and his subjects and therefore this relation wil not stand with the condition of the covenant The relation of a King and a subiect is as neer as the relation of a master and a servant or an adopted child The relation of a king and subjects be it never so near maketh not tâ— the purpose seing we are to mynd with whom God maketh his covenant who tyeth not himself to civil relations but freely accepteth the beleever and his family and further then this relation the scripture doth not warrant us to apply Gods covenant And then I demaund say you seeing the
relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal then any relation of adoption or servitude why the wife shal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage happely it wil be sayd that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted because of her unbeleef and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of fayth It is true that neyther the wife nor servants if they refuse can be admitted because of their unbeleef but the case is not alike of men and women growen to years as of infants borne in the church the former eyther consent or refuse actually infants do not refuse and therefore being the seed of the saythful are to be admitted to Baptisme But it wil be sayd that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed onely I say it was made by your confession with him and his adopted infants c. We say as the scripture teacheth us that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed the faythful their children Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby the whole family of the faythful if they refused nor as before is proved And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant and those that are further off why shal not these that are nearer as his wife I have answered before her unbeleef hinders her to be one flesh makes them not one in the covenant which is by grace not by mariage But you wil say because infants do not refuse the covenant they may be admitted to baptisme c. but wives refusing may not I further insist that as infants do not resist so they do not consent and that al the children servants and wives that do not resist may be admitted though they cannot make declaration of their fayth c. c. We do not make the infants not refusing the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant but the Lords dispensation and coÌ„mandement in children there can be neither actual coÌ„sent or resisting the one of which Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3 1. â—am 2. 18. â—2 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares who also are to †live by their own fayth also * confession is of such required so is it not of infants Then I say there is no reason why fayth and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification c. more then of an other except God be an accepter of persons To this I have answered before and again do answer that there is one and the same way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers they receiving the covenant after the same maÌ„ner that he did beleeving that God is their God and the God of their seed Also fayth and repentance is required not onely of such as are of yeares and to enter into the Lords covenant but of al that are in the covenant they being the condition thereof on our part to be performed continually and therefore we must know that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise and not any act of theirs fayth receiveth grace but causeth it not and repentance is the fruit thereof required of every one as they are of understanding And further the covenant is onely with Abraham and his seed not with adopted children c. and therefore fayth and repentance must necessarily be had and so â—y cannot be baptised til they shew their fayth c. I have proved already that God in saying I wil establish my covenant beâ—en me and thee and thy seed included Abrahams family or els shew unto â—e wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision if they â—ere not with him in the covenant Agayn fayth and repentance is required of the elder sort not of infants Ergo c. As for partaking of the covenant actually how children are thereof capable I have proved oft ynough and therefore it needs no further answer And whereas it may be justly objected against you that if infants be denyed to be within the covenant they cannot be saved you labour to remove this exception saying we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be â—verted but leave the secret of them to the Lord Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or against your opinions is the condition of infants such a secret that God hath not manifested his wil concerning them Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants when he was to circumcise them Gen. 17. 12. And doth not †Mar. 10. 14. Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them manifest unto us how we ought to account of the infants of beleevers The prophet Malachy sayth * Mal. 2. 1. did not he make one seeking a seed of God Act. 2. 39. the promise is to children as Peter there witnesseth and Ier. 31 1. God promiseth to be the God of al the families of Israel and children are a part of the familie 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy Now if God had given you eyes these scriptures †Gen. 17 c. Deuâ— 29. 10. 15. might teach you that the state of the childreÌ„ of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend Moses shewed the state of children under the old T. you say “ Caracter pag. 6. 3. the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of al affaires c. as the old How is it then that the state of children is now more secrete then formerly it was Thus you might see your speeches contradictory if your right eye were not blynded Secondly I desire you to prove unto me by scripture that in this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes signifieth true sanctification c. And I desire you to prove unto me that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified you keep not to the state of the questioÌ„ that place is to be understood of the general holines pertayning to the â— every meÌ„ber thereof in respect of the covenant your demand is of Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded and is to be understood of the general face of that church which was called holy because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people in Exod. 32. 9. 33. 3. the Lord cals them a stifnecked people in regard of personal sinnes which he found to be in some of them not in all the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part whereof they repenting the Lord forgave them The personal sinns of some meÌ„bers do not disposses the face of the church of holynes â—he labouring to reforme such faulty members Concerning the holynes of children of the unbeleeving wife before is shewed Finally you say God hath sayd to al the faythful I wil be thy God and the God
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
not that onely they that beleeved were baptised but that they preached to al that were in his howse and waâ— baptised with al that were his Next you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants the former is this The Apostles practise is our instruction but the Apostle in baptising howsholds First Preached to all that were in the family and then they beleeving were baptised Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised This argument might have bene granted had not the conclusion contayned more then the former propositions viz. this word onely which ought to have bene placed in the one of them and if in the assumption then were it false to say that onely they that beleeved were baptised and â—o more the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before And it is to be further observed that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church Your other Argument is this That which the Apostles practised in one family they practised in all families that they baptised But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. c. This argument also may be granted and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants except your heretical collection which I deny And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this the rest of my argumeÌ„ts OF THE TESTIMONIE OF THE fathers concerning the baptising of infants HErevnto I will adioyne some testimonies of the fathers not to prove that children ought to be baptised which is to be done is by the scriptures already proved but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches Augustine as I find alledged writing to Ierome epist 28. sayth Cyprian not making any new decree but firmely observing the faith of the Church iudged with his fellow Bishops that as soone as one was borne he might lawfully be baptised See Cyprian epist to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. 24. sayth that the baptisme of infants was not derived from the authoritie of man neither of counsels but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles Ciril vpon Lev. Cha 8. approveth the baptisme of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptisme Origine vpon the Rom. sayth that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum 3. sayth that baptisme agreeth to everie age to every condition of life to all men if thou hast an infant it is sanctified from his infancy yea from the finger ends it is consecrated After he sayth some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne what shal we baptise those he answers yea verily Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha 11. Speaking of baptisme sayth neyther old man nor Proselyte nor infant is to be excepted because every age is guilty of sinne and therefore stands need of the Sacrament These many other of the fathers do beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the lawfulnes of the baptising of infants Mr. Smyth And for conclusion you produce the fathers I say that the producing of fathers who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies shall availe you nothing in your cause and you that deny the testimonie of fathers contrary to the Scriptures how can you with any colour produce fathers against vs in case contrary to the Scriptures c. R. Clifton I plead not for the errors of the fathers but for the truthes which they held according to the Scriptures And where you charge them to hold pleÌ„tie of antichristian heresies you tax them very deeply and you that so censure others had need to judge your selfe otherwise the Lord wil find out a sentence against you Also I desire you to shew where I produce the testimonie of the fathers contrary to the Scriptures you are growen to be very careles what you affirm For my producing of the fathers against you I do not recall that I have done seing theire testimonie is the truth who shew the practise of their times according to the Scriptures I know the device of your producing of fathers viz. 1. to set a glosse vpon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy c. what would you answere would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt tymes c. even so say I to you c. Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptising of infants antichristiaÌ„ heresy †Esay 5. wo to him that speaks evil of good 2 with sinne in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a glosse vpon my antichristian heresy c. for were it a falseshod that I defend as I know it is not yet know you that my soule is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf It is one thing to produce the testimony of the fathers witnessing the truth according to the scripture another for the defence of errors the latter we reiect you take vp but the former we approve and you condemne And although we are not to build our fayth vpon the fathers yet for matter of fact done in their tymes we may give credit to their report and so theire testimonie serves to prove something namely to shew the practise of their tymes to which end I did alledge them and that is not to confesse that they prove nothing as you charge me And say Remember that and let al men take notice that you produce testimonies that you say prove nothing And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers forsooth to shew the practise of ancient Churches But all these Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession c. Yea Sir I do produce them to shew the practise of Auncient Churches whose testimonies is not so lightly reiected save of you and such like that condemne all Churches for antichristian except such heritical Synagoges as your owne is As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred yeares after Christ albeit some devises of men crept in and as they grew elder so increased yet that they were Antichristian where have you my confession it is strange that you dare affirme such untruthes And for anticihrstiaÌ„ antiquitie vniversality I could wish you were as free froÌ„ Anabaptistical novelitie as I am froÌ„ approving of any error or superstito eythâ—â—oâ— the antiquitie or universalitie of it the truth we defeÌ„d needs no such Popish propps but yet antiquitie when the thing is found to be true that is ancient is not lightly to be regarded seing the truth is
John and the Apostles Ergo. c. R. Clyfton First the Major of your former Sillogisme is not necessarily true your selfe confesseth †that every consequent necessarily deduced from the scripture is as wel Parallels â—g 71. and as truely the word of truth as that which is in playne termes expressed c. and therefore you ought to have added nor ground of the scripture or such like 2. The minor I deny and haue proved that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants Your second Syllogisme may be granted save that the conclusion seemes to entend more then the propositions viz in these words are the persons to be baptised as yf onely such not infants as can confesse their faith are to be baptised which I deny Before you proceed to confirme your argument you labour first to remove my answer saying Although a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevaile yet I say the Lord can not leave vs in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainely and faithfully with vs c. You graunt a necessarie consequence in all cases shall prevaile why not in this particular Your reason is seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old c. and Moses hath set downe distinctly and plainly the persons with their qualifications to be circumcised c. either Christ hath as plainely and fully set downe these particulars or els the new testament is not so playne as the old 1. By this your reason you iniure God his word who leaft the Iewes in the books of Moses onely to consequences towching that great point of the resurrection which yet Christ accounted sufficient and against the Sadduces drewe his Argument to prove the resurrection out of Exodus 3. 6. where no such thing is expressely mentioned and so by your doctrine he dealt not plainely and faithfully Also every other argument that he or the Apostles used upon a necessarie consequence can not stand with the open face of the gospel thus far doâ—h your reason exteÌ„d but I wil come to your particular whereof you would have it understood viz that Christ can not deale faithfully if for the baptising of infants he hath not as playnely described the ordinance of baptisme the persons with all other circumstances c. Do you thinke that if Christ have not set downe every circumstance about baptisme that he is therefore unfaythful what think you of his describing of the other Sacrament where is it set downe so playnely that wemen shal be partakers thereof there is no mention that any woman was present at Christs administration of his last supper where is the tyme so described for the administration thereof as was for the Passeover must Christ for this be accused to have dealt not so faithfully as Moses had our Saviour any need to teach or write otherwise then he hath done about the sacraments seing it is the same covenant under the Gospel that was sealed to the old Church and a commaundement given for the sealing thereof unrepealed that which was to be chaunged concerning the outward ceremonie Christ hath plainely set it downe with direction for for the administration thereof And that which was needful for Moses in describing circumcision was not so necessarie for Christ in describing of baptisme because circumcision was to be administred onely to the males but baptisme to both sexes circumcision on the 8. day baptisme is tyed to no strict time and therefore the particular description of these circuÌ„stances might wel be omitted and no unfaithful dealing in Christ As for the minding of it to be administred to infants there was no use of any such particular direction seing the Lord had once ordeyned to seal his covenant to the faithful their seed renueth the same in a general maner under the Gospel which may suffice to all that are sober minded For it had bene easily said go teach c. baptise them if they have any infants baptise them c. It is not for man to prescribe wisedome how to speak things are taught plainly inough if God give men eares to heare But say that Christ Iohn and the Apostles leaveth direction for this meane matter onely by dark far fetched probable coniectures consequence from the old testameÌ„t whiâ—h was onely typical c. and hath not left evident grounds for it expressly in all the foresaid pâ—rticulars c. is to say that Christ is not so faithful in his office propheticall as Moses was c. For these things which we defend are playne enough and no darke or farfetched coniectures except to such whose eies the Lord hath blinded Concerning our Reasons drawen from the writings of the old Testament we do herein follow the exaÌ„ple of Christ his Apostles who did confirme and prove that doctrin which they preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets Paul sayth †that he witnessed to smal and great saying no other things then Act. 26. those which Mâ—ses and the Prophets did say should come notwithstanding I have also confirmed this doctrine of baptisiing of infaÌ„ts from the new TestameÌ„t In that you say the old Testament was onely typical you must explaine your meaning for although some things were * typical vnder the old TestameÌ„t Heb. 10. 8. 13. â— 9. 1-9 â—l 2. 16. 17 Gal 4. 24. â—5 yet other things were Moral as the Moral †law which was a parte of it preaching prayer and other spiritual parts of worship which were commaÌ„ded vnder the old Testament Agayne That Christ hath left vndeniable groundes in the Scriptures for the baptising of infants before is shewed Moreover seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp and preached obscurely in the old Testament and types thereof it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrection c. but now that the new Testament being written c. why should we be sent to obscurities and coniectural consâ—quentes c. Because the bookes of the new Testament were not written Christ and the Apostle might reason froÌ„ obscurities coniecturall coÌ„sequents out of the old TestameÌ„t do you thus argue indeed was Christs reasoning obscure for the resurrection do you thinke the Saduces would have bene soner perswaded if the new Testament had bene written and Christ had reasoned from it no more then you wil be perswaded to beleeve the baptising of infants for al the reasons we bring frome the same He that wil not beleeve Moses and the prophets wil not beleeve the Apostles Agayne I deny that to reason from the Scriptures of the old Testament is to reason from obscurities the Apostles have made all things cleere and manifest Ephe. 3. 5-9 whose writings do further us to the vnderstanding of the prophets Christ himselfe sends vs to search those Scriptures Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter â— Pet. 1. â— sayth †yee do wel if you take heed to the word of the Prophets as before is observed Besides
the Trinitie of persones vnitie of essence in the Godhead is proved by playne wordes 1. John 5. 7. c. That the Trinitie is proved by this scripture and by divers other places I deny not yet in these expresse words That there be 3. persons in one Godhead is not so set down in this place or in any other Nether is found to be in those playn words though the same thing may be concluded out of the Scriptures But I did instance these to shew that every thing is not set down in so playn and expresse words as you would bear us in hand Finally I say shew me any necessarie consequence for baptising of Infants out of the old Test. or the new and I yeeld This I have done already but for your yeelding it is not in your owne power but in †Phi. 2. â— God that must shew mercy and give grace which I pray the Lord to give you Amen Yet a reason or two I wil here adde unto my former to prove that infants of beleevers are within the covenant from Gal. 3. 29. thus I reason Whosoever are Christs are Abrahams seed within the covenant The children of beleevers are Christs Therefore Abrahams seed with in the covenant and so consequently have right to baptisme the seal thereof The Assumption is thus proved Children be eyther Christs or els they * Act. 4. cannot be saved But they “ Mar. â— 13. 14. may be saved Ergo c. 2. The infants of beleevers are eyther of the church †Eph. 1. 2. 23. which is the body of Christ or without If within then are they of the covenant and Christ is theirs for he * Esa Eph. â— 25 -27. 2. 18. 22. is given for and to his Church and is the saviour of it and so being of the church baptisme must belong unto them But if children be without the covenant then are they “ Eph. 2. 1 without God without hope and without promise of salvation and so their estate as hethen and the children of beleevers no more holy then the children of infidels though Paul witnesseth the contrary But I desire it may well be observed that you are driven to consequents for this matter and secondly that the Gospell of Christ is for babes Matth. 11. 25. c. What except you against a necessary consequence is not that maÌ„ner of reasoning lawful did not Christ so reason as before is shewed you your self do †Paraleâ—â— pag. 71. Caract p. 33. justifie it I know if you had such consequents for the baptising of your self you would make them go for currant as indeed they ought But I do not onely reason a consequentibus but set down the expresse †commandement of God for the sealing of yong and old and the example 〈◊〉 17. â— 13. of the Apostle baptising whole families 2. That the Gospel is for babes I graunt and that in Mat. 11. 25. is applyed to men of yeares which are lowly and meek but you must know that the most simple persons as you speak are capable of the mysteries Cor. 13. 12. Heb 11. 14. 6 13. 2 Pet. 4. of the Gospel but in * part and every man hath his tyme of groweth therin and needeth to be instructed that he “ may increase in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ And though the Gospel be playne yet we attayn to the knowledge of it by degrees your self wil confesse this at least your many alterations do testifie thus much against your self and therefore the most simple is not so capable thereof as you pretend Lastly for my consequences which you cal mere hallucinations Sophismes I justifie them against your best arguments how well you have disproved them let the good Reader judg Your second Answer and exception is that if want of special precept and example barr children from baptisme it shal also barre women from the Lords supper I deny it for in playn termes it is sayd 1 Cor. 11. 28. let Anthropos viz. eyther man or woman eat after examination Gal. 3. 28. there is neither male nor female in Christ c. 1 Cor. 12. 13. we have been all made to drink into one spirit and Dorcas is a disciple Act. 9. 36. and the disciples met together together to break bread Act. 20. 7. c. That women are to be partakers of the Lords supper is no question but whether there be commandement or example expressely nameing women that you have not shewed from these scriptures Concerning 1 Cor. 11. 28. there is a word of the common gender but the Apostle sayth not in plaine termes thus let every woman examine her self and so eat seing the word anthropos may be applyed to the man and is sometimes restrayned to man onely as in Matth. 19. 3. is it lawfull for Anthropos to put away his wife and Hebr. 5. 1. and every high Priest is taken ex anthropon And in reproving of their abuse the Apostle useth words of the masculine gender also the words joyned with Anthropos 1 Cor. 11. 28. are of the masculine gender let a man examine himself cauton for he that eateth esthion c this compared with Christs institution where onely men were present though women were in the citie shâ—weth this testimonie not to be so plain as you pretend Neither do the rest of your scriptures prove your desire As for Dorcas being a disciple is no expresse example the women of the Iewes were Moses disciples yet were it not true to reason that therefore they were circumcised As for Gal. 3. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 13. they speak of the spiritual union in Christ and spiritual grassing into his body by the spirit and baptisme but neither of them sayth let women partake of the Lords supper I reason for the plaine termes otherwise I deny not that arguments may be drawn froÌ„ these scriptures to prove that women are to receive the Lords Supper Your 3. Answer and exception followeth wherein you do affirme that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants c. to these I have already answered in the sixt and seventh reasons going before And there also may you receve satisfaction to that you have answered but yet to one objection concerning the commandement once given of the sealing of infants I answer say you besides that baptisme is not the seal of the new Testament but the spirit and that circumcision was not the seal of the everlasting covenant c. So though it were granted that infants of the old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in Christ which I peremptorilie deny yet seing the tyme of circumcision is expired therefore infants are not to be sealed by baptisme To al this it is answered “ pag. 12 37. 38. before that circumcision as also baptisme are seales of the covenant of salvation and though the tyme of circuÌ„cising be expired yet is not the
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
meaning better then you do For Paul speaketh of Abrahams justification by fayth Rom. 4. 3. 11. asketh how fayth was imputed unto him when he was circumcised or uncircumcised ver 10. answereth when he was uncircumcised Then preventing a double objection that might be made thus 1. If Abraham received the righteousnâ—s of faith when he was uncircumcised then his example seemes to belong to them that are uncircumcised No sayth the Apostle for he received circumcision 2. It might be objected yet it seemeth that he received circumcision in vayn seing he had received the righteousnes of fayth before no sayth Paul for he received it as a seal for the confirmation of his fayth which he had in his uncircumcision Then he expresseth the cause both of Abrahams justification by fayth when he was uncircumcised and also that being justified by fayth he received circumcision viz. that he might be the father of al that beleeve being uncircumcised that righteousnes might be imputed unto them also And the father of circumcision not unto them onely which are of the circumcision but also unto them that walk in the steps of the fayth of our father Abraham c. this is the Apostles meaning Now whereas you affirme that circumcision upon Abraham was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcised that beleeve I desire this may be proved according as you mean For the Apostle sayth it not but thus he received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of the fayth which he had for how could Abrahams circumcision that was applied to his particular person seal up justification to us not to himself seeing a seal is a particular applying of the covenant to the partie that is partaker thereof By this your exposition you make Abrahams circumcision to differ from the circumcision of his seed of which difference the Lord spake not a word in the institution thereof nor in any other place Yet you say the righteousnes of fayth is not sealed up to Abrahams particular person but to the uncircumcised that beleeve Which doctrine is very strange that Abrahams circumcision shal seal that to others those uncircumcised not to himself being circumcised you must therefore bring better proofe hereof els your confident affirmation wil be accepted as the facing out of an error As for the coÌ„mon acceptatioÌ„ translation of Rom. 4. 11. which you say is the mother of this heresie it is confirmed in these words but unto them also that walk in the stepps of the fayth of our father AbrahaÌ„ when he was uncircumcised which makes it plaine that the Apostle understood by the righteousnes of fayth Abrahams righteousnes which he by fayth apprehended and which was sealed up unto him by circumcision Againe al the persons of Abrahams familie were not circumcised because of Abrahams fayth but the males onely the males being assumed as types for to teach them figuratively the male Christ So many of Abrahams familie were circumcised as the Lord commanded to the women it was not injoyned and though Christ was typed out in the circumcision of the male yet as it was a sacrament it sealed unto them the righteousnes of fayth and therefore in Genes 17. 10. it is called the covenant because it was a signe thereof sealing unto them remission of sinns and regeneration by fayth in Christ to come And the femalâ—s were uncircumcised c. to signifie that those that had not the male Christ in them were not fit to be members of the Church of the new Testamentment 1. The females were not accounted as uncircumcised seing they were comprehended under the males and so distinguished from the uncircumcised Gentiles Genes 34. 14. Deut. 7 3. Esa 3 16. 2 I confesse that such as are not in Christ are no fit members of the church but this seemes not the reason why women were not partakers of this sacrament but rather to teach that salvation should come by the male but this alegorising proves nothing Further you say as it was with Abraham and his familie in Circumcision so was it with Lidia c. it is not so I shew the difference in divers particulers 1 They of Abrahams familie were circumcised upon particular precept c. 2. They that â—ere males onely were circumcised c. 3. They that were circumcised of Abrahams familie were al the males being of yeares though never so lewd c. 4. As fayth did not intitle the female to circumcision and as infidelitie did not deprive the male of circumcision so fayth did intitle the female to baptisme in the familie of the Gaylor and â—f Lidia c. To these pretended differences I answer 1. that the precept of sealing the covenant to Abraham is not reapealed onely the ceremonie is changed and that Christ hath given * a coÌ„maundement for the administring 〈◊〉 28. of the signe as the preaching of the covenant to all nations and by vertue hereof were the families of the Gaylor and Lydia baptised and so it was with Lydia and her family as it was with Abraham and his household els was she not the daughter of Abra. entring into Gods covenaÌ„t she hers as Abraham and his entred in seing the holy Ghost saith that the housholdes were baptised without limitation it belongs to you to prove that the children in these families were exempted or els that children are not of the family or els we may not restreyne the Apostles words contrary to the tenure of the first giving of the covenant which was sealed to yonge and old For your first difference I deny that coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to be a particular precept to Abraham and his house alone it was also to all beleevers of the Gentiles and their children and so was it a generall precept to the whole Church for the sealing of the covenant though circumcision was proper to the former Church as baptism is to the church of the new testament and so there needed no particular precept for baptising of infants they being coÌ„prehended under the general For the 2. difference that the â—males onely were to be circumcised I answer this was according to the Lords dispensation then to set his signe on the males now on both sexes but neither then nor now to restraine it from infants Concerning your 3. difference I ask you where the scripture sayth that any wicked persons were circumcised in Abrahams familie Dare you condemne that house which the Lord doth iustifie see Gen. 18. 19. where the Lord saith I know that he wil commaund his sonnes and his household after him that they keep the way of the Lord c. and that infants being males in Abrahams house were circumcised you can not deny for the commandement is that every man child be circumcised and Abraham did so Gen. 17. 12 23. And therefore you must prove that the children in Lydiaes the Gaylors families were not baptised els you shew no difference For your 4. difference it stands upon an unequal
thereof and purpose of the holy Ghost who intendeth to discover the hypocrisie of vaine professors and to shew who are true sonnes of God viz. such as by a godly conversation declare their fayth to be unfeighned I denye that infants are carnal because they shew not their fayth by their works Those whom the scripture so calleth are they that â—om 8. â— 8. †walk after the flesh and do the deeds thereof which Infants nether do nor can do wanting actual power of doing good or evil The former scripture that you alleadge to prove infants carnal is Rom. 7. 14. The Apostle sayth of himself I am carnall and so you conclude â—â—m 7. 14. thence that al that naturally discended of Abraham and so of the faithfull are carnal and so to be reputed of us and consâ—quently without the covenant Paul when he thus sayd of himself I am carnal was regenerate And if you cal children carnal in that sense it hinders not but they may be spiritual seed as he was The Apostle cals himself carnal in respect of his natural corruption and carnal infirmities wherewith he was compassed neither was he wholly carnal but in part †Rom. 7. spiritual And here is to be noted that carnal is opposed to spirituall in one and the same person and is found to be in al that professe fayth and are regenerate yet doth it not debarre them eyther of the covenant or of baptisme A like Answer may be given concerning 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians 1 Cor. 3â— are called carnal because of their infirmities and carnal works as enrying strife c. vers 3. c. Infants cannot in this sense be called carnal therefore this scripture also is unfitly applyed unto them And here it is to be noted that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptised are called carnal whereby we may see how impertinently this scripture is alleadged You say also that you cal children carnal as in opposition to the spiritual seed that one seed of Abraham Gal. 3. 16. I have sayd that carnal as the Apostle opposeth yt to spirituall is our corrupt nature that * lusteth against the spirit and is found in the faythfull Gal. 5. 17 Rom. 7. 2 Now to oppose the infants of beleevers to spiritual seed is no opposition for such infants in regard of the covenant are spiritual though by nature they are carnal Concerning Rom. 9 8. see page 63. The Apostle proving God to be Rom. 9 8 faythful sheweth withal that though the promise was made indefinitely to al the Israelites yet al that were carnally begotten of Israel were not true Israelites save onely such as were the children of the promise verse 7. 9. but he intendeth not to oppose all the seed of Abraham naturally begotten to the childreÌ„ of the promise for then should Isaac be opposed against himself for he was both the natural seed of Abraham and a child of the promise but this he teacheth that although many be reputed the sonns of God in regard of the promise which is made indefinitely to all the seed of Abraham and to al that are called to be members of the visible church yet al of those in the account of God are not children of the promise seing many hypocrites are found to be in the outward visibilitie of the Church to whom the Lord shall say * Luk. 13. 25. 27. I know you not whence ye are c. Touching Gal. 4. 23. it hath been handled before pag. 14. Thus I will here answere to your obiection out of it viz. that Paul doth not intend Gal. 3. 2â— to make an opposition betwene the natural seed of Abraham and the heires of promise but opposeth against the false doctrine of such as vrgeth circumcision and the workes of the law to be necessary to iustification and after divers reasons against this error he illustrateth his purpose by an allegorie which shadoweth forth two sorts of children borne of two Testaments as Ismael Isaac were of two mothers the one sort that should seek after righteousnes by the law but they were no better theÌ„ Ismael no heires of the promise but in bondage vnder the law The other should seeke after righteousnes by Christ and these are of the covenant of grace as Isaak was of the freewoman which are heires and free indeed and this appeares to be the Apostles meaning by that which followes in the Allegory as also by vers 21. And so it is to be noted that to be borne after the flesh typed out by Ismael is to be without the covenant under the bondage of the law which was given in Sinai signifying that all such as seek for iustification by the law are as they that take up their habitation in the wildernes and never enter into the land of promise â—eb 7. 16. The next Scripture is Heb. 7. 16. where the commandement is called carnall so children borne of theire parents say you naturally are carnal c. see this place expounded pag. 68. by carnal commaundement the Apostle means that law that coÌ„maunded the ordinatioÌ„ of the Preists under the old testament which stood in fraile and transitorie things as in Aarons consecration c. Also this commaundement or ordination of the Leviticall Preists may be called carnal compared with the ordination of Christ â—sa 61. 1. 〈◊〉 45. 7. which was without all * external ceremonies and not simply for in other respects it may be counted spiritual as all Gods ordinances are whether under the old or new testament and so this scripture rightly vnderstood maketh nothing to your purpose And towching childreÌ„ you should observe that as it is true that naturally children are carnall so is it true also that the children of the faithful borne under the covenaunt are by grace spirituall Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually sease upon any infant of the Iewes in deed and in truth and the place Act. 2. 39. doth not prove that it did for the place is to be understood of the offer of Christ and the new testament to all the carnal Iewes and their children c. and therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed For this point for the exposition of this scriptur see p. 19. where also is answer to that which is here obiected for by this scripture it is playn that the promise apperteyned to the Iewes their infants into which they their childâ—eÌ„ had entred when God made his covenaÌ„t with Abra his seed for theÌ„ were they in his loynes And upoÌ„ this grouÌ„d the Apostle exhorts theÌ„ to be baptised not saying the promise is now offred but thus the promise is to you that is made or given to you and your children as the Apostle explayneth the same Gal. 3 16. 17. 18. Act. 26. 6. And to as many
in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods holy ordinances And that the wanting of a lawfull calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nullitie thereof the circumcising of Moses sonne by his mother Zippora Exo. 4. 25. doth playnly teach For as the Lord makes effectuall his word to his people though coming vnto them by the hands of a false Ministery so doth he baptisme to al that be his though administered by them that have not a lawful calling therevnto The sin of the Minister makes not a nullitie eyther of the word or Sacraments els should the efficacy of the word anâ—â—acraments depend vpon him that administreth them which is noâ— so for both have their effect from the Lord Esay 55. 11 If agayne it be obiected that baptisâ—e was not administred in the Apostate Church of Antichrist to a fit subiect I answere that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the tyme of Ieroboam Ahab were to receave circumcision seing the covenant of Abraham after the coming of Christ belonged as properly to the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. as before it did to the Israelites Mr Smyth I answere many things 1. this Argument is an excellent argument for the retayning Ans of idol Temples the worship government ministerie of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England c. Rich Clifton This Argument is not so excellent for idol Temples c. as you pretend Re. For how can you reason from the ordinances of God to iustify the devises of men wil it follow that because the vessels of the Lord his sacraments and ordinances though polluted in apostaticall Churches or by the profane Babylonians may be restored to the right use for which God ordeyned them therefore so to reason justifies the inventions of men devised to religious vses you may shew your wit in composing of your Argument But with all you answer That baptisme of theirs was never appointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist Antichrist devised no new baptisme but polluted the Lords ordinance ordayned by God 2. I answer that the vessels of the Lords house were his owne ordinances therfore An. need not to be new cast But the baptisme of Antichrist is not the Lords owne ordinance c. Baptisme reteyned in the Churches of Antichrist is as much the Lords Re. ordinance as the vessels of the Temple were in Babylon and therefore nedes no more to be new cast then they But you distinguishe betwene the vessels of the Lords house and baptisme thus That they were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the Lords appointment but the baptisme of the Lord is a compound or concreete ordinance limitted in certayn essential p 〈…〉 lars not being a substance but an accident in definition Now if Antichrist hâ—â— reteyned the essentiall parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated c but â— is salse â— neither â—tter nor â—â—e â— invenâ— by Anâ—rist but â—ng the or â—ancâ— of â—d were â—uted seing baptisme in Poperie is not the Lords ordinance but Antichrists invention * the matter and forme being invented by Antichrist the matter being a carnal infant the forme washing one into the covenant and cannot consent to the covenant or baptising without a contract and sealing to the covenant c. Here you confesse that if the essentiall partes of baptisme be reteyned in Popery it is not to be repeated But you make question about the parts affirming that both matter and forme of baptisme in Popery is invented by Antichrist you saye so but proves it not Concerning the matter it is before shewed that infants are capable of baptisme not as they be natural and borne in sinne but as they are the seed of the faithful therefore being the †children of God and of the “ covenant are not in that respect carnal matter but spiritual As for the forme which you say is the washing of one into the covenant which cannot consent I answere that the forme â—zech 16 â— 21. Act. 2. 39 â—3 25. of baptisme doth not any more stand in the Actual consent of the parties baptised then the forme of circumcision did consist in the assenting of the party circuÌ„cised for there is alike reasoÌ„ of the form of these two sacrameÌ„ts and therefore as infants of the Iewes were circumcised notwithstanding by reason of their age they could not consent to that action So infants of beleevers may be baptised especially seing they are but patients in this Mat. 2â— Action This is the Lords ordinance to †baptise the beleever and his seed with water into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost And of this are infants capable As for sealing to the covenant it is already proved that the Lord sealeth his covenant to infants And for their sealing to the Lord they do as much as at that age is required or was required of the infants of the Iewes circumcised Nether is there baptisme without a coÌ„tract for the Lord hath made his covenant with the faithfull and their seed For the Scripture describeth true baptisme thus The matter must be one that confesseth his faith and his sinns one that is regenerate and borne againe The form must be a voluntary deliveraÌ„ce vp of the party baptised into the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost by washing with water Mat. 28. 19. and 3. 6. Joh. 4. 1. Act. 2. 14. and 8. 36. 27. with Rom. 6. â—-6 where there must be a mutual confent of both persons contracting together And that this is so the forme of baptisme retayned in Popery yet teacheth c. That the matter of baptisme as you terme it or subject must necessarily be one alwayes that confesseth his fayth and synnes al that you have said Re. hitherto hath not proved it the scripture sayth it not and the contrary is confirmed before viz. that infants are to be baptised although they can not make actual profession of their fayth to us they are partakers of remission of synns and regeneration seing they are in the covenant 2. Concerning the forme of baptisme I confesse it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water into the name of the Father c. but your voluntarie deliverance up of the partie baptised to make that action a part of the forme of baptisme al the scriptures you cyte proves it not we confesse that such as are of yeares must voluntarily offer up themselves to be baptised and so were they that were to be circumcised notwithstanding the infants that could not do this were also circuÌ„cised so must our infants be baptised The Lord sayd to his Ministers baptise but sayd not let every one that is baptised offer himself voluntarily thereunto as he doth in the Lords supper say take eat c. it is otherwise in baptisme wherein the baptised are not ageÌ„ts but onely patients
then might the infants of Apostats in Antichristianisme do so and this is all that I sayd not iustifying the standing of the one or of the other III. Argument IF the word of God passing through the false Ministery of Anchrist was of force to convert Gods elect in Babilon Then is baptisme passing likewise through theire false ministery of force to seale vp Gods covenant vnto them and so consequently not to be iterated But the first is true Apoc. 18. 4. for in babylon were Gods people converted other ordinary Ministery was there none but that false Ministery of the Papists and therefore it is apparant that God made thereby his word effectuall to al them that beleeved Ergo c. If it be obiected that if God should convert his people by an AntichristiaÌ„ Ministery it were to give ApprobatioÌ„ to a false Ministery and to teach that men might lawfully vse it which is absurd I answere for vs to vse a false Ministery is vnlawfull but it is no more absurd or yet any approbation of a false Ministery for God to worke thereby the good of his owne people then it was his approving of the evil service of Iosephs brethren selling him into Egypt because he vsed their Ministery for the saving of Iacob and his houshold for God can worke good by an evil instrument If it be stil vrged that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptise I say no more had the Iewes to put Christ to death yet was his suffering avaylable to save al that beleeve and so is the Sacrament to al Gods people avaylable to seale vp salvation vnto them Mr. Smyth I answer First the word converteth none visibly vnto me particulerly knowen so Ans can Baptisme seale vp none visibly vnto me c. Rich. Clyfton Although Gods people continuing in Babylon cannot so welbe discerned Rep. yet by their coming thensce they manifest to me particulerly that there they were converted by the word and so appeare visibly vnto me to belong vnto God and to be children of the covenant As for the tyme before we take no publike notice of theire secreete estate before God nor can do †Deut. â— 29. for the things revealed belong vnto vs. Further you say The marke of the Beast is vndoubtedly baptisme whereby they are initiated into Antichrist and receive his mark as Christs servants in baptisme receive his seale upon them c. Oh how fearful a thing is it to blaspheme baptisme is the ordinance of God though it was polluted by Antichrist you may as wel say the word of God is the marke of the beast for Antichrist did pollute it also as you formerly have confessed Your mark of the beast reacheth verie farr even to the Apostles tymes as the Auncients have witnessed of the baptisme of Infants And if this was the mark of the beast then was the mark before the beast which is absurd to affirme for can the beast before it be in esse make â— both great and smale to receive a †mark in their right hand or in 〈◊〉 13. â— their forehead And that this baptising of infants was before the beast was we have shewed out of the scriptures and it may appear out of Origine Tertullian and others that speak of infants baptisme to be in practise in the church before their tyme as in the former part of this writing is observed And it appeares both by the * Revelation And that of the Rev. 13. â— 10. 11. â— 17. Apostle in 2 Thes 2 3. that the man of synne arose not to this height and power to make small and great to receive his marke until there came a departing first And seeing this marke of Antichrist was such as smale and great rich and poor free and bound did receive it can not be the baptising of infants For then onely the smale should be sayd to receive it And therefore the marke must be such a one as shall agree to all persons “ great and smale rich and poor bound and free and be received of them Rev. 13. â—6 Rev. 14. 9. in that condition and state And it must be such a marke as they that worship the beast and his image shal receive by a †willing and actual consent the which can not be applyed to infants for neither can they worship the beast or give voluntarie consent to receive his marke in their hands or foreheads An. 2. Antichrists baptisme false as I have sayd in the definition is none of Gods ordinance no not in the hands of the most faythful Minister but Gods word is the Lords ordinance though in the mouth of the most vile Iudas or Antichristian yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000. heresies The same Lord that gave his word to his church ordeyned also baptisme 〈◊〉 to be therein Indeed if baptisme had been devised by Antichrist or any man els it were not to be reputed for true baptisme at al but that baptisme which is fouÌ„d to be in the AntichristiaÌ„ assemblies is not Antichrists the contrarie is proved before Answ So that in this respect alâ—â— it followes not that Gods word may convert in popery therefore Antichrists baptisme may seal c. It wil follow that as the word in Poperie so baptisme in that Apostasie retayned since the primitive coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of the church of Rome in the Apostles dayes as the word in poperie may coÌ„vert so baptisme may seal theÌ„ that are Christs being converted for God can as wel blesse the one as the other Gods word doth convert in BabiloÌ„ yet is not the promise any more annexed to that outward ministerie of Antichrist then that blessing * Gen. 1. bring forth fruit and multiplie is by Gods ordinance tyed to unlawful conjunctioÌ„s but it pleaseth the L. by the ministerie of his word ordinaÌ„ce to effect his own work in al such as shal be saved though through the haÌ„ds of apostates 3. You say If Antichrist had retayned the Lords true baptisme c. viz. Answ that he had baptised persons confessing their sinnes and fayth in the Trinitie it should not have been repeated But seeing he intendeth in baptisme to sett an indelible caracter upon them which is the marke of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth c. hence I conclude that hee hath sett upp his owne idoll of abhomination and cast the LORDS holy ordinance away c. Ergo his baptisme is anullitie or rather a seal of perdition c. Your self by your heresie setts up an idol of abhomination and casts away Rep. the Lords holy ordinance of sealing his covenant to his people their seed And here againe you destroy one of your reasons which you brought against the baptising of infants which was * Caracteâ— pag. 52. because they were members of a false church for you confesse that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their
without this washing with water into the name of the Father c. it cannot be baptisme And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptised may be called an accident as al such formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced yet to baptisme it selfe I meane to the external ceremony it is no accident or adiunct but is of the very essence and being thereof and without which it cannot be baptisme And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident I do not conceive otherwise then as before I have observed in respect of the party baptised els might the ceremony of baptisme be for substance without this washing with water into the name of the Trinitie But whether it be of the essence of baptisme or an accident look with what warrant you do repeate it For suppose I should graunt as much as you desire that this forme of washing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptisme yet the Lord having coÌ„maunded that accident to be but once vsed without repeating how can you iustifie the iterating of such accidentall truthes as you call them for if it were of God in that baptisme administred in Popery as you confesse then can you not repeat it Therefore your iterating of it argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord And so you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptisme as you pretend to do UI. Argument AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sathan and all his instruments shal never be cut of So he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the law Gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the faithful And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were partakers in the Apostate Church and devising a new do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking vpon them to baptise themselves without al warrant from the word for I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptise him selfe without special coÌ„maundement froÌ„ God as Abraham had for circumcision Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptisme Mark 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be sayd the tymes be extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby we may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the world to informe vs in every thing that we ought to do Mr Smyth I answere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus Ans If the gates of Hel shal never prevayl against the Church then there hath alwayes bene aâ—rue Church and antichrist could never make the Church false and so you of the sepâ—ration have sinned most shamefully in callinge the Church of antichrist false verum â—rimum Ergo secundum Rich. Clyfton First I deny that your Argument is of like nature neither wil your false Re. relating of my words give you this advantage for it is one thing to say that God hath preserved the seales of his covenant and an other to say that these seales cannot be abolished through the malice of Sathan I know the outward seales and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Sathan if the Lord would have permitted it For as Antichrist Sathans instrument hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to abolish them out of the church As the worship Ministerie Government Censures c. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptisme and if God had not otherwise disposed could have foysted in a new forme of baptisme in the roome of it 2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16 18. that there should alwayes continue a true visible church upon the earth which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt for the Scripture †2 Thes 3. 7. Reâ— 13. 11 â— 18. 4. speaketh to the contrarie But the promise of Christ to his church is this that the gates of Hell shal not prevaile against it that is against his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Christ this promise the Lord performeth to everie true visible Church so long as they cleave unto him continue faythful and to his invisible for ever even in the very dayes of Apostasie Sathan did not prevaile against the elect of God The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in al the tyme of Antichrist as even Reâ—nerius the Popes Inquisitor acknowledgeth whose Testimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true understanding yet doth it not follow that that church from which we did separate was that true church or yet that this true church was alwayes visible But I come to your second answer which is more properly as you say solvendo That the covenant is sayd to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existance Answ in the world in an established church but in respect of the stabilitie of it in regard of Sathans inalice c. This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not for Rep. I did not intend in saying the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Sathan that there was alwayes a true visible church walking in all the commandements of God but this I mynded and do say that the covenaÌ„t of God could never be cut off through the malice of Sathan but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes yea through the great Apostasie of Antichrist You say There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme and so no true baptisme Ans This consequent will not follow for though the church of Antichrist was no true church yet everie thing therein was not so for the Scriptures though by them abused even in that Church were the true word of God â—ep and so baptisme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned though corruptly administred I deny that the covenant Church or baptisme was visible alwayes An. â—epl Baptisme which was appointed to be a seal of Gods covenant hath ever since the first institution of it been visible that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasie And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen wher is no apparance of Christianitie for in them remaynes some kind of visibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or lesse accordingly as they are more or lesse corrupted For if all visibilitie should cease they should cease to be called Apostate and indeed become no churches And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footsteps of that image of God wherein he was first created so in
posteriety of such parents as were members of the Church planted by the Apostles els could we not have Apostated 2. That people which the Apostles gathered into Churches were never baptised And baptisme coming in steed of circumcision and being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant it was fit that they which beleeved and became the seed of Abrah should so enter in to covenaÌ„t they their seed as he his seed entered that is as he his were received in by circuÌ„cision so they theirs should be receved in by baptisme Act. 2. 38. 41. 8. 38. But we are a people that ar already baptised the seed of them that were baptised had received the Gospel And although through Antichrists deceaveablenes both we and they were taynted with many corruptions yet had they or might have in that Apostasie and so we also so much faith as thereby both we and they might become the people of God Apoc 18. 4. And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches here it is to be noted that the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the imediate directioÌ„ of the H. Ghost And so serveth for a coÌ„tinual rule of establishing Churches to th' end of the world which forme or frame layed downe by them no man hath power to alter or change 1. Cor. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 6. 14. But the constituting of Churches now after the defection of Antichrist maâ—â— more properly be called a repayring then a constituting of Churches which through Apostacy have bene ruinated or a gathering together of the dispersed sheepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches the patterne whereof is shewed vnto vs in the word For as before hath bene noted our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches And so it wil not follow as is aledged that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessaryly must be by baptisme as in the primitive tyme it was except onely of such persons as have not bene baptised before And herein I take it lieth the deceat of this Argument that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming ouâ— of Babylon and them that came to the fayth from amongst the Gentiles equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an apostate Church the other no Church the one partaker of the word sacraments though with much corruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neyther at all the one professing Christ teaching many truthes of God so many as the elect thereby might coÌ„e to faith Apo 18. 4. The other neyther professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God whereby any might be converted to Christ and become Gods people in that estate of Gentilisme And thus having made playne the different estate of the first planted Churches and ours in Apostacy I answere 1. That Churches now are to be constituted if repayring be not a fitter speach as in the Apostles tymes that all such as are received in as meÌ„bers being vnbaptised must be received in by baptisme but for such as were baptised in Apostate Churches their repentance is sufficient without rebaptization as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vpon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were received of the Church without any new circumcision And therefore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Christ and not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could do no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptised but if they had mett with any that before had bene baptised into the name of Christ as they that received the baptisme of Iohn and as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptised them And therefore the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptised Mr Smyth As in the former point for baptising of infants you are compelled to runne to the old Testament and from thence to fetch the cheif corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new testament of Christ c. and set vs againe to schoole to Moses as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach vs his new Testament but we must go learne the new Testament of the old Testament Christ of Moses the Gospel of the law c. Rich Clifton Before you come to answer my exception against your reason you prefix Answ as it were for a ground certayn thinges which you intreat me and al the Seperation especeally the leaders wel to weigh and ponder and not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors In which your great observation 1. you charge me to be compelled to runne to the old Testament c. What my answere is to this your reason shal be iustified Now where you except about the former point for baptising of infants against my running to the old TestameÌ„t to fetch my cheif corner stone c. If I have done evil herein beare witnes of it but if I have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles who proved that which they taught by the Scriptures of the old Testament why impute you this unto me to disgrace search these * Mat. â— 23. 2. â— 15. 28. 3. 22. â— 32. Joh. 23. 5. 3â— Luk. 24. 2â— Act. 2. 2â— 3. 22. 4 25. 26. 18. 28. Roâ— 4 3 6. 7. 9. â— 11 with dâ—vers otheâ— places quoted in the margent and see if the things of the new testament were not proved out of the old Yet notwithstanding I have used other reasons from the Scriptures of the new Testament to prove the baptising of infants as in my answer is to be seen But my corner stone as you please to call it fetched from the old testament is so ponderous as you can not remove it Concerning the forsaking of the new Testament it is not I but your self Mr Smyth that sinns therin by casting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of salvation And as towching the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Christ himself set us to schoole to learne of them the things †Ioh. 5. 39 that are witten of him and yet this you fault in me as if it were not lawful to prove doctrines and ordinances of the new Testament out of Moses Characteâ— pag. 44. the Prophets But I pray you Sir that findes fault to be set againe to the schoole to Moses why say you “ we must attayne to and learne all that the school-Maister of the old testament could teach vs. Do not you herein set us to school to Moses But it seemes you are past Moses teaching I would wish you were not past Christs also The old Testament is not so abrogated that withal the †writings of Moses and of the 2 Tim. 3. â— 17. Pet. 1. 9. 21. Prophets cease to be in force
of the Israelites was not false The churches of Antichrist were false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised which was not that one seed unto the which the promise was made that is the faythful c. I have shewed before how wel you agree with your self concerning the Ans church of Israel which here you say was nor false and yet have published to the contrarie As for your grounds or reasons of the trunes of the Israelitish church and falsenes of Antichrists whatsoever you can plead for the one the like may be alledged for the other If Israel in her defection be accounted a true church then must Rome also in her Apostasie Certayn it is that both are to be esteemed Apostatical Churches and this is that which we testifie And towching Israel if the carnall circumcision alone of the Israelites had ben the sufficient coÌ„stitution of that church to keep it free from being Apostate they continuing it why should the Lord bidde tel her †Hos 2. â— that she was not his wife nor he her husband Or did the * 2 Chro. 13. 14. Priests and Levites wel to leave their suburbes and possessions to leave that church to goe to Iuda and Ierusalem but hereof before 2. For the matter of the Antichristian churches which you say was false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised I answer that they were not therefore false or Apostatical because infants were baptised whose baptisme is proved lawful already but for that they brake covenant with God forsoke their first love as now you do and followed strange lovers “ Rev. 17. 2-6 16. â— 18. 2. 3. 9 24. shed the bloud of the Saincts were a cage of every unclean and hatefull bird c. and these are the sinnes which they are charged with but never is it imputed to them for sinne their baptising of Infants Wherefore an Edomite or Ismaelite coming to be a proselyte of the Iewes Church Rep. that had omitted circumcision is a true president of the Antichristian Apostasie c. This is against your self for if they were uncircumcised they ought to Answ be received into the Iewes Church by circuÌ„cision And so if any be unbaptised they ought now to be received into the ch by baptism But tel me if an Edomite or Ismalite having circuÌ„cisioÌ„ becoÌ„ing a proselyte was recircuÌ„cised Now if the Edomites Ismalites turning to the fayth eyther were uncircumcised or being before circumcised were not recircuÌ„cised what is this to the purpose to prove that Antichristians must be rebaptised You adde also so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church Why say you not rather the Proselytes were types of the Gentiles that under the Gospel are converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church As for their being types of Antichristians you know there is a great difference seeing the Proselytes were uncircumcised afore their convertion but the Antichrists are baptised already But if this be your thought that Proselytes their entrance into the Iewish Church were types of Antichristians converted and admitted into the true Church then I trust you wil that the thing typed be answerable to the type But you know when a Gentile or Edomite was coÌ„verted to the profession of the Iewes and became a proselyte he vvas received 〈◊〉 12. into the church of the old Testament vvith his familie and †al his males must be circumcised as vvel as himself Why admit you not that the Proselytes of Antichristianisme as you call them should enter into the church with their children according to the type propouÌ„ded by your self Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have received us into the Church without baptisme I answer if such an example had been left us we would then have rested satisfied but seeing the Apostles have left no such example or precept therefore you are stil in your Apostasie having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are still unseparated do still retayne the mark of the beast and are subiect to the woe that the Angel threatneth to persons so marked Example is left of such as vvere circumcised in the Apostasie of Israel were not circumcised againe when they came to the church of Iudah and â—s this is written for our learning RoÌ„ 15 4. That baptisme is but †one not to be iterated the scripture teacheth no precept nor example for rebaptising And therefore we may not forsake our baptisme howsoever you cal â—ph 4. 5. or esteem it seeing we know it is not to be repeated but upon our repentance it sealeth unto us the covenant of salvation is effectual for the confirming of our fayth As for Apostacy whether we stand therein or no let it be tryed by the word we know you an unequal judge that hath apostated from the fayth And for the marke of the beast and the woe that followes we know it is due to them to whom it belongs And if this marke were the baptising of infants as you say it is then the Angel should threaten the woe to such as keep the commandements of God and fayth of Iesus which is directly contrarie to the Angels speech intendement But it were good for you to take heed lest while you shoot of such thundering peeces against others they do indeed recoyle upon your selves Of M. Smyths second Reason for Anabaptisme of elder people R. Clyfton Now let us come to the 2. Reason which is this 2. Because true baptisme is but one but the Baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme and so not that one baptisme of Christ But al the members of Christ must have true baptisme Answer 1. There is but one fayth and one baptisme Eph. 4. 4. and therefore it is sufficient to be once baptised as it was to be once circumcised 2. That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt and do also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme and what then must it follow that now such as are baptised must be rebaptised els cannot be members of a visible church I deny it and do further answer 1. That the baptisme which we received in the Apostate church is no more Antichrists then the word that we received therein For Antichrist did never ordeyn a new kind of baptisme but did onely pollute with his inventions that holy ordinance of Christ And therfore if this baptisme that we have received be called the baptisme of Antichrist it is to affirme an untruth seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Christ who commanded his Apostles to baptise all nations with water in the name of the Father and of the Sonne of the H. Ghost Mat. 28. 19. And the same baptism for substaÌ„ce is stil reteyned in the Apostate churches and none other 2. This baptisme may in
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