the rudimentes off the VVorld vnder the carnal Testament or covenant Gallat 4.24.25 our Spirituall Church in the matter forme thereof is by Spirituall Genealogie that is the Genealogie of the Fayth of Abraham the Father of vs all vnder the Spirituall New Testament Gallat 3.7.9.14 Roman 4.10.11 Their parents in the carnall Church was carnall Abraham carnall Hagar all their carnall parents who according to the Flesh with carnall seed begate carnall Ismaell the type of the carnal Israelites our parents in our Spiritual Church is Abrah Spiritual al our Spiritual parents who by the word of God by faith begat Spiritual Isaac the type of the children of promise after whose manner we are Gal. 4 22-28 Rom. 4 19-21 Heb. 11.11.12 1. Pet. 1.23 Their ministery was a carnal ministery by carnal genealogie of the line of Aaron Sacrificing Preists our ministery is by Spiritual genealogie of the election of the true Church that is Spiritual Thus if you would compare the Type the Truth together you should easily discerne the sandy Fondation of your false Church ruinated your false baptisme quite abandoned who continue a Church by succession of a carnall line a baptisme by succession vppon the carnall Line through Popery VVhereas the true Church is onely by the Spirituall Line of Fayth true baptisme by the Spirituall succession vppon that Spirituall Line of Faythfull men confessing their Fayth their sinnes which was typed by that carnal Line of the Old Testament you therefore that introduce a carnal Line into the Church to bee baptized viz all your Children according to the Flesh that by succession fetch baptisme vppon that carnal Line through the Church of Rome into your Church following the president of the Old Testament in that carnal circumcision by succession of Genealogie doe therein vnawares make Rome a true Church your selves Schismatiques set vp Iudaisme in the New Testament so are fallen from Christ are become a new second image of the Beast never heard of before in the VVorld For such are you of the Seperation This being premised as a ground which I earnestly in treat you even in my best love vnto you al the Seperation especialy the leaders of them well to weigh ponder not to be ashamed to learne of their inferiors juniors I come to āswer the exceptions which you take at my first Argument The summe of your exception is this That seing wee are the posterity of baptized persons the Iewes Gentiles in the Apostles tymes were not so Therefore wee need not assume baptisme in our entrance into the Church which wee had in our Apostacy but wee may enter into the Church without rebaptizing as the Apostate Israelites did without recircumcising so we must not in the new Test be framed according to the paterne taught in the new Test in entering in by baptisme but according to the paterne of the old Testam the Apostate Israelites therein c. I answer divers things First I say that the New Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affaires occasions that befall in the tyme of the New Testament as the Old Testament was for the occurrences that befell vnder the Old Testament Seing Christ is as Faythful as Moses the New Testament as perfect as the Old Gal. 3.15 therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostolique constitution of Churches our constituting of them in respect of the persons to be admitted into the Church in respect of baptiting not baptising or rebaptising of them he could would have done it but seing it is not done in the New Testament but left in silence seing the New Testament of Chr. is perfect sealed with his blood you that put this difference add to the new Testament bring in a new Christ a new covenant a new Gospel a new Church new baptisme wo be to them that ad to the word Rev. 22.18 as they were accursed that added to the old Test Deut. 4.2 12.32 So much more shal they be subject to the cause that add to the new Test of Chr. Heb. 12.25 in this respect ther for your answer is insufficient Secondly I affirme that as the Holy Ghost saith the Antichristians are in condition equall to Pagans therefore as I have said they are not called Israelites or Samaritanes but Babylonians Egyptians Sodomites Gentills but the Holy Ghost knoweth what how to speak And therefore as the Babylonians Egyptians Sodomites Gentils washings were nothing no more is the baptisme of Antichristians any thing For the Holy Ghost foreseeing that the Antichristians would abolish the true baptisme of Christ by baptising infants so by admitting into the Church the carnal seed of the Flesh would disanul that Holy ordinance of baptisme so abolish the true constitution of the Church in heavenly wisdom for our instruction calleth persons Apostating from the true constitution of the Church Babylonians Egyptians Sodomites Gentils therby teaching vs that he esteemeth no otherwise of their Church or baptisme then of the Synagogues of Babylon then of the washings of Egypt then of the worship of Sodom the Pagans these comparisons will fit you well against the assemblies Temples of Antichrist and I know no reason that they thould not fitt vs aswell against your Babylonish Egyptians Sodomitish and Paganish washings of infants which which though it bee done into the name of Chr. yet is no more avayleable in the Holy Ghosts testimony then washing of Pagans Babylonians Egyptians Sodomies Children Thirdly wheras you say that repayring the Church now after the Apostacy of Antichr is a fitter speech then constituting herein do you both taxe your selves off the vse of that word constitution plainly signifie that you incline to maintain the Churches of England Rome to be true Churches wherin whither you doe not forsake your first faith turne with the dog to the vomit look you vnto it let al indifferent men judg but your writings are against you sufficient witnesses in this case Fourthly I say that the Iewes that were converted to the Faith new Testament of Chr. by Chr. Iohn the Apostles in your account were in a far better estate thē Antichr For they as you say were of the same body with the Church of the New Testament their circumcision was a seale of the new Testament as you say they were in Chr. Iesus as you say were washed I doubt not many of them into the Messias whose blood they typically saw in their manifold baptismes purifications with water al of thē had been partakers of the word Sacraments in the Chur. of the Iewes why might not they by Christ Iohn or the Apo. be admitted into the Church without baptisme if therfor Chr. Iohn the Apo. would needes baptize them so by baptisme constitute them
THE CHARACTER OF THE BEAST OR THE FALSE CONSTITVTION OF THE CHVRCH Discovered IN CERTAYNE PASSAGES BETWIXT Mr. R. CLIFTON Iohn Smyth concerning true Christian baptisme of New Creatures or New borne Babes in Christ nd false Baptisme of infants borne after the flesh Referred to two Propositions 1. That infants are not to bee Baptized 2. That Antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true Church by baptisme Revelat. 13.16 And he made all both small great rich poore free and bond to receave a mark in their right hand or in their foreheads Revelat. 14.9.10 If any man receave the mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God Revelat. 21.5 And he that sate vppon the Throne said behold make all things new Printed 160â— TO EVERY ONE THAT LOVETH THE Truth in sincerity Salutations It may be thought most straung that a man should oft tymes chandg his ReligioÌ„ it cannot be accounted a commendable quality in any man to make many alterations chandges in such weighty matters as are the cases of conscience but if constancy be commeÌ„dable in any thing it is most coÌ„mendable in the best things which is Religion it inconstancy be worthy reproof in matters of inferior estimation it is much more blameable in matters of SalvatioÌ„ In respect wherof the wisest most Religions men have been alwayes most constant in ther profession faith inconstant persons cannot escape the deserved imputatioÌ„ of folly or weaknes of judgment therein This must needs be true we confesse it if one condition be admitted that the Religon which a man chandgeth be the truth For otherwise to chandge a false Religion is commendable to retaine a false Religion is damnable For a man of a Turk to become a Iew of a Iew to become a Papist of a Papist to become a Protestant are al commendable chandges though they al of them befal one the same person in one yeere nay if it were in one month So that not to chandg Religion is evil simply therfor that we should fal from the profession of Puritanisme to Brownisme from Brownisme to true Christian baptisme is not simply evil or reprovable in it self except it be proved that we have fallen from true Religion If wee therfor being formerly deceaved in the way of Pedobaptistry now doe embrace the truth in the true Christian Apostolique baptisme Then let no maÌ„ impute this as a fault vnto vs This therfor is the question whither the baptisme of infants be lawful yea or nay whither persons baptized being infants must not renounce that false baptisme assume the true baptisme of Chr which is to be administred vppon persons confessing their faith their sinnes This being the controversy now betwixt vs the Seperation commonly called Brownists For the glory of God the manifesting of the truth to our own nation the destruction of the man of sinne wee have thought good to publish this present treatise wherin the whole cause is handled Let the indifferent reader judâ— of the whole give sentence without partiality I doubt not but he shal be constâ—ayned to give glory to God in acknowledging the error of baptising infants to have been a cheef point of Antichristianisme the very essence constitution of the false Church as is cleerly discovered in this treatise Now happily some man wil wish that the controversy had been with the Rabbyes of the Seperation not with Mr. Clifton whom thy caluÌ„niate to be a weake man vnable to deale in so great a controversy wel let the Reader take notice that although it be Mr. Cliftons pâ—n yet it is not only Mr. Cliftons cause defence but his allegations reasons are the best pâ—ea of the greatest Rabbyes themselves if they think that they can say better they may now speake for by publishing anâ—wer to their reasons we do challendg al the Seperation in special to the combat Be it knowne therfor to all the Seperation that we account them in respect of their constitution to bee as very an hâ—â—â—ot as either her Mother England or her grandmother Rome is out of whose loynes she came although once in our ignorance we have acknowledged her a true Chu yet now being better informed we revoke that our erroneous judgment protest against her aswel for her false constitution as for her false ministery worship government The true constitution of the Chu is of a new creature baptized into the Father the Sonne the holy Ghost The false constitution is of infants baptized we professe therfor that al those Churches that baptise infants are of the same false constitution al those Chu that baptize the new creature those that are made Disciples by teaching men conseâ—ing their faith their sinnes are of one true constitution therfor the Chu of the Seperation being of the same constitution with England Rome is a most vnnatural daughter to her mother England her grandmother Rome who being of the self fame genealogie generation that of the prophet being true of her as is the Mother so is the daughter she dare notwithstanding most impudently wipe her own mouth cal her mother grandmother adulteresses Hee in therfor we do acknowledg our error that we retayning the baptisme of England which gave vs our constitution did cal our mother England an harlot vppon a false ground made our Seperation from her For although it be necessary that we Seperate from England yet no man can Seperate from England as from a false Chu except he also do Seperate from the baptisme of England which giveth England her constitution whosoever doth retaine the baptisme of England doth with al retaine the constitution of England cannot without sinne cal England an harlot as we have done this we desire may be wel minded of al that Seperate froÌ„ England For if they retaine the baptisme of England viz the baptisme of infants as true baptisme they cannot Seperate from England as from a false Chu though they may Seperate for corruptions whosoever doth Seperate from England as from a false Church must needs Seperate from the baptisme of England as from false baptisme For the baptisme of England cannot be true to be retayned the Chu of England false to de rejected neither can the Chu of England possibly be false except the baptisme be false vnlesse a true constitution could be in a false Chu which is as impossible as for light to have felowship with darknes It is impossible that contraryes or contradictions should be both true so it is impossible that a false Chur. should have a true constitution or a true baptisme To say thus England hath a false constitution England hath a true baptisme is as much as to say thus England hath a true constitution England hath a true constitution which is
satisfaction of every indifferently mynded man that â—oveth sekeâ—â— the knowledg of the truth more then the defence justification of error yet seing many things are variably alledged concerning the covenants made with Abrah his feeds concerning Abrah Fatherhood concerning circumcision which is called a seâ—le of the righteousnes of Faith I have thought God to referre these particulars to moreful discourse intertained vpon occasion with another of the Mrs. of the sepâ—ration not doubting but very shortly through Gods goodnesse that treatise also shal be published wherin the reader shal find larger instraction satisfaction câ—ncerning the forsaid particulars of the covenants or Test other matters therto aperteyning In the meane tâ—me I desire the reader to make vse of this writing to reade without prejudice or pa tiality I doubt not but that through Gods mercy much light of truth shal shine in his â—art even by this present discourse for the seperation who are the stiâ—â—est most obsâ—inate adversaries of this truth of the â— I could wish as the Tyrant wished concerning the people oâ— Rome that al their heâ—ds were joyned into one al their strength comprised into one writing that with the sword of the Spirit it might bee smiten of at once that so we might have an end of this controversy that we might not be troubled charged with the writing printing of many books Howsoever it be wee professe our readinesse to imploy our time cost for the manifestation of the truth we desire the Sep. that they wil not in craftines withdraw from the combat as hitherto they have done in the mater of the translation wors the Presbitery but we require them in the feare of the L. that seing they have suffered so much for so much truth as they professe they would not now subtily being guilty in their consciences of their dishability to defend their errors draw back pretend excuses as they do but we require them nay we chardg them yea we challendg them to the defence of their errors Loe we protest against theÌ„ to be a false Chu falsely constituted in the bap of infants their owne vnbaptized estate we protest against them to have a false wors of reading books we protest against them to have a false govern◠〈…〉 protest against them to have a false Minist of Doctor Teachers Finally wee protest against them that seing their constitution in is false therfor ther is no one ordinance of the L. true among them These things wee have published of these things we require answer For we proclaime against them as they proclaime against their owne mother England That the Seperation the yongest the fayrest daughter of Rome is an harlot For as is the mother so is the daughter Now furthermore we desire the Sepera al men that they would not impute vnto vs vntruths condemne the innocent without cause For we disclayme the errors commonly but most slaunderously imputed vnto vs we are indeed traduced by the world as Atheists by denying the old Testament the Lords day as Trayters to Magistrates in denying Magistracy as Heretiques in denying the humanity of Christ Be it knowne therefore to al men first that we deny not the Scriptures of the Old Testament but with the Apo acknowledg them to bee inspired of God that wee have a sure worde of the Prophets wherevnto wee ought to atend as vnto a light shining in a dark place that whatsoever it written aforetyme is written for our instruction that wee through patience comfort of the Scriptures might have hope that wee ought as Christ counselleth to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the men of Berza did bicause that in them wee may find everlasting life that they do testifie of Christ This wee beleeve according to these Scriptures Iohn 5.39 Act. 17.11 Roman 15 4â— 2. Timoth. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.19 yet neverthelesse wee affirme all the ordinances of the Old Testament viz The Church Ministery VVorship Government of the Old Testament to bee abolished al which were Types shadowes of Gods things to come but the body is in Christ Col. 2.14.17.20 Secondly we acknowledg that according to the president of Ch. Disciples the primitive Churches the Saints ought vpon the first day of the weeke which is caled the Lords day Revel 1.10 to assemble together to pray prophecy praise God break bread and performe other parts of Spiritual Communion for the worship of God ther owne mutual edification the preservation of true Religion piety in the Church that we might be better enabled to the forsaid dutyes we ought to Seperate our selves from the labours of our callings which might hinder vs therto that according to these Scriptures Ioh. 20.19 Act. 2.1.41.42 20.7 1. Cor. 16.1 Thirdly concerning Magistrates we acknowledg them to be the ordinance of the L. that every soule ought to be subject vnto theÌ„ that they are the ministers of God for our wealth that we ought to be subject vnto them for conscience sake that they are the ministers of God to take vengeance on them that do evil that we ought to pray for theÌ„ that are in authority that we ought not to speake evil of theÌ„ that are in dignity nor to despise government but to pay tribute tol custome c. that acording to these Scriptures Rom. 13 1-7 1. Tim. 2.2 1. Pet. 2 13-15 2. Pet. 2.10 Iud. vs 8. but of Magistrates converted to the Faith admitted into the Chu by baptisme ther may many questions be made which to answer 〈…〉 can 〈◊〉 if we would when such things fal out the L. we doubt not will direct vs into the truth concerning that mater in the meane tyme we are assured acording to the Scrip. that the Kings of the Earth shal at the length bring their glory honor to the visible Church Revel 21 24. Finally concerning the Flesh of Chr. we do beleve that Chr is the seed of Abraâ— Isaac Iacob of David according to the Prophecyes of the Scriptures that he is the Sonne of Mary his Mother made of her substance the holy Ghost over shadowing her So have other children ther bodyly substance from their parents also that Chr. is one person in two distinct natures the Godhead manhood we detestg the coÌ„trary errors our grounds of Scripture are these Gen. 22.18 26.4 28.14 Psal 13.2.11 compared with Act. 2.30 Rom. 1.3.4 Heb. 1.8 10. 2.11.14.16 Breefly to conclude let the Seperation be advertized That wheras they do so confidently through their self love self conceipt fil ther mouths with heresy heretiques as if therby they would feare babes That herein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors do not the Papists cal the Protestants heretiques cal for fire fagot do not the Protestants proclaime the Seperation Schismatiques
Heretiques judg them worthy the gibbet not the affirmation of meÌ„ without proof but the evidence of wilful obstinacy in error maketh men heretiques And let them take heed that they notwithstanding their Syrenes songs prove neâ— cages full of most ougly deformed Antichristian Heretiques Thus desiring the Seperation not to be wise in their owne eyes through pride but to become fooles that they may be made wise through humility desiring the forwardest preachers professors of the English nation wel to weigh what is the true constitution of the Church what is the subject of true Christian baptisme accordingly to measure a true a false Church I cease wishing the light love of the truth to every â—â—e that Readeth IOHN SMYTH CERTAYNE REASONS PROPOVNDED TO Mr. Rich. Clifton concerning the two propositions following 1. That infants are not to bee baptized 1. Bicause ther is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infanâ—s that were baptized by Iohn or Christs Disciples Only they that did confesse their sinnes confesse their Fayth were baptized Marc. 1.4.5 Act. 8.37 2. Bicause Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them then to baptize them Mat. 28 19. Ion 4.1 but infants cannot by doctryne become Christs Disciples so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptized 3. Bicause if infants be baptized the carnal seed is baptized so the seale of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenaÌ„t aperteyneth not Rom. 9.8 which is a profanation 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by Baptisme 1. Bicause Churches are so to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist as they were first erected by the Apostles But in the constitution of Churches the Apostles receaved in the members by baptisme go So must wee doe now 2. Bicause true baptisme is but one but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme so not that one baptisme of Christ but all members of Christ must have true baptisme 3. Bicause as the false Church is rejected the true erected the false ministery forsaken the true receaved So false worship by consequent baptisme must be renounced the true baptisme assumed Iohn Smyth Mr. Rich Clifton AN ANSWERE TO TWO ANABAPTISTICAL opinions viz. 1. That Infants are not to be baptised 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to vndertake this busines against him that was deere vnto me yet being therevnto provoked by the sending to me these two positions with certayne reasons annexed vnder the Authors owne hand I thought it my part although the vnablest of many to contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given to the Saints Iud. 3. And by the help of God to put a brieffe answere to these opinions which by the Churches in al ages have bene are condemned for heretical the practise whereof I could wil he might never have beâ—allen to any of myne owne country especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth And châ—efly vnto him to whose charge both I divers others had once purposed to have committed our soules had he not besydes these broached some former opinions both erronious offensive whereby the truth for which we suffer is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked many hindered in our owne country that shall heare thereof of whom wee had great hope that they would have walked in the same fayth with vs. Not withstanding for as much as I am informed that the author hath promised vpon the sight of his errors to confesse the same I do the more willingly take vpon me this labour praying the Lord to give a good issue to his glory for hiâ— mercyes sake Amen Now I wil come to answere the positions with the reasons thereof first concerning the former which is this Iohn Smyth A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truths viz 1. That infants are not to be baptised 2. That Antichristians coÌ„verted are to be admitted into the true church by baptisme These two truthes are by you Sir in your answer intituled Anabaptistical which reproach I do no more account of theÌ„ you doe of the imputatioÌ„ of Brownisme nor then Paul did of Heresy but rather as Paul professed himself joyful in susteyning that blasphemy for the truth you rejoyce in that you for the truthes you professe are calumniated with such vndeserved imputations even so doe I blesse God that I am accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christ his truth but know you Siâ— for your humiliation that your reproach shal light vppon your owne head that Christ his truth are by you evil spoken of In your preface you avouch that you are provoked to write I mervayle you should so speak seing your conscience telleth you that you did make the first request or motion to Mrs. By water I could doe no lesse then I did for if I had refused the motion it would have bene thought that I distrusted the cause whereas you alledg Iud. 3. for justifying your course in answering I say you pervert the Scripture for although you are to contend for the mayntenance of the faith which was once given to the Saynts yet you are neyther to plead for Baal but to lett him plead for himself neyther are you to contend for defence of Antichristian errors but rather as you have in a very good degree rased the Temple of Antichrist even so you should now proceed to vndermine the very foundation to blow it wholly vp at once which is done by entertayning the baptisme of Christ to be administred vppon persons confessing their sinnes confessing their faith neyther will it help you to say that these two truths have bene condemned for heresy by the churches in al ages for if the Apostles age aford contrary to the succeeding ages I say that which is most auncient is the truth you know that many of your truths wherto you are come have bene condemned for heriticall in as many ages as these truths which I defend Againe whereas you affirme that by the broaching of these opinions some former erroneous offensive the truth is like more to be blasphemed therfore you could wish that wee your comtrymen frends had never fallen into them I answer that although I shal not rejoyce that any truth be evil spoken of yet if it shall fal out by occasion of publishing the truth that wicked men blaspheme let them know that Christ is a rock of offence a stone to stumble at if any be hindered from the truth by publishing the truth it wil be their corruption sin the truth or the publishing of the truth is not in fault but if you feare hereby that your Antichristian Church wil fal to the ground I say it is
so true holines that is Faith repentance was not required to the mēbers or matter of the Church of the old Testament 3. Thirdly that which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected or produced by the walking or communion of the Church off the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the Church of the Old Testament Iustification Faith Sanctification repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the Church of the Old Testament Heb. 9.9 Gal. 2.15.16 Ergo justification Faith Sanctification repentance were not required to the constitution of the Church of the old Testament so by consequent the members of the Church of the Old Testament were not truly holy in their constitution 4. That which brought not perfection life to the members presupposed not Fayth repentance to the members and so not reall or true holynes But the Old Testament the Law the obedience of the Law brought not perfection life to the members of the Church of the old Testament Heb. 7.19 Gal. 3.21 Ergo The Old Testament or the Law or the Church of the old Testament did not presuppose Fayth Repentance or true Holynes in the members 5. That which was a Schoolmr only to teach Christ did not presuppose that the Schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Faith repentance The law or old Testament was a Schoolmr only to teach Chr Gal. 3.14 Rom. 10.3.4 Ergo The Law or Old Testament did not presuppose that the Schollers had learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Fayth and Repentance 6. That which was hidden kept secreat was a Mystery not revealed the members of the Church of the old Testament in their constitution were not indued withal Faith or obedience to the gospel was a mistery not revealed but kept secreat from the beginning Gal. 3.23 Rom. 16.25 Ergo The members of the Church of the Old Testament were not indued with Fayth or obedience to the gospel in their constitution 7. Ther is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Rom. 8.1 Ther is condemnation to them that are vnder the Law Gal. 3.10 For it is the Ministery of death or condemnation 2. Cor. 3.7 Ergo The Law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ or they that are vnder the Law are not in Christ so the members of the church of the old Testament were not truly holy Finally the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes Galatians concerning justification by Faith in Christ without the workes of the Law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth Teaching that seing the vtmost obedience of the Law did not effect or produce justification therfor of necessity it followeth that the Law or old Testament did not presuppose it or true holines in the members therof For it had been a vanity to have given them a Law which should not or could not preserve produce that which was in them in ther first constitution wherfor I doe bouldly defend against all men that the Church of the Old Testament in the matter or constitution of it was not really Holy but only Typically therfor the members therof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or sanctified or in actual possession of that everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it in that typical Testament given to Abraham afterward assumed written amplified by Moses Ioh. 7 19-23 compared with Heb. 8.8.9 Having sufficiently confirmed this truth I returne in particular to answer your objections saying stil that the nation of the Iewes was holy not truly but typically that their holines was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trayned vp or Schooled to Christ being by all the ceremonial law old Testament or carnal commaundement as it were by so many meanes consecrated or dedicated to that holy cad purpose which was tiped shadowed by those figures similitudes of heavenly things Therfor as the word sanctifying or hallowying is vsually taken in the old Testamēt for the setting of any thing apart to a holy vse so were the people of Israel holy even an holy natiō above al the nations of the Earth See Exod. 19.10.14.15 Iob. 1.5 Deu. 14 1-4 compared with Act. 21.28 for the place which you aledg Ex. 19.6 to prove the Israelites an holy nation I say that either the meaning is that they were typically holy trayned vp to holines or that they by attayning the end of the law should attayne true holines in Christ So that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holines of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham So that though infants be vnder offer of the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ yet shal not baptisme be administred vppon them as your consequent doth import bicause that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually feased vppon that external covenant therefore none in the New Testament shal be baptized but those that are actually possessed of the covenant of the New Testament but the actual possession of the promise is by obedience to the Faith For by Faith saith the Apostle Gal. 3.14 we receave the promise of the Spirit we receave the Spirit by the hearing of Faith preached Gal. 3.2 Faith cometh by hearing of the word preached Rom. 10.17 Secondly I answer concerning the consequent of your Majors consequent that it shal not follow that bicause children are vnder the covenant as you suppose but we deny that therfor they thal have the outward signe or seale therof for you know vnder the law the females were actually vnder the covenant of the old Testamēt yet were not signed with the seale before the law was given al that were actualy vnder the covenant vntil the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seale therof if you say in opposition to the circumcision of the female that she was vncapable of it I answer the L. had abundance of Spirit if it had been his wil that al vnder the covenant should be pertakers of the signe or the seale therof he could in wisdom would vndoubtedly have appointed such an external signe or seale that might have bene administred vppon al vnder the covenant but seing the L. chose out the male only for circumcision the by he purposed to teach in a type that only the male that is one that is in Christ shal be sealed with the Spirit of promise vnder the new Test But if you say in oposition to that before the Law that ther was no seale or signe appointed by God for them vnder the covenant bicause the L. thought it not meet or needful I say that herby it apeareth that to be vnder the covenāt was not
of the Flesh Rom. 9.7 Gal. 4.23 are not actually vnder the possession of the everlasting New Testament therefore baptisme which you call the seale can not bee administred vppon them the place Act. 2.39 hath oâ— tymes receeved Answere Mr. Rich. Clifton The Second Position 1. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme Answere As the former position denyed the baptising of infants so doth this annihillate that baptisme which wee have received in the Apostate Church establisheth rebaptisation this also I wil shew to be an error by proving the contrary then answere the reasons herevnto annexed That the baptisme administred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptisme not to be reiterated thus I prove it If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented no more doth the Apostacy of our fore Elders so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented But the first is true 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21 els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierushalem have eaten the Passeover seing no vncircumcised might eate therof Ergo the second If it be objected that the Apostacy is not alike then let it be shewed that the Apostacy vnder Antichrist did make a nullity of baptisme not the Apostacy of Israell of circumcision For Israell played the harlot soo deepely that the Lord denyed her to bee his wise or him selfe to bee her Husband Hos 2.2 Iohn Smyth And thus having shewed the vanity of your answeres to my reasons against pedobaptiestery â— let vs come to your answer made to my second position which is this 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme The first thing that in your Answer you intend to prove is that the baptisme administred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is not to be reiterated And for this purpose you produce 6. Arguments Your first Argument is framed thus If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented no more doth the Apostacy of our forefathers so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented But the first is true 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21 Ergo the second I Answer that the Apostacy of Antichrist is deeper then the Apostacy of Israell for first Antichristians are not called Israelites but BabyloniaÌ„s Egyptians Sodomites Gentils in the Revelation wherby the holy Spirit of wisdom giveth vs to conceave that he doth account the Apostacy of Antichrist equal to Paganisme it self yea to the very worst kind of Paganisme Secondly I declare plainly the differences betwixt the Apostacy of Antichrist Israel in this that Israels Apostacy did not destroy the true constitution of the chur But Antichrists Apostacy did rase the true Apostolique constitution For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or Proselites circumcised Gen. â—7 10-14 Exod. 12.48.49 so long as they retayned circumcision in the Land of Canaan they retayned a true constitution though their Apostacy was never so great in the worship ministery Government as is to be seen Hos 4.6.8.12 therfor Abijah doth not chardg the Israelites with a false constitution but declareth vnto them their false Government 2 Chron. 13. vs 8. Their false ministery vs 9. Their false worship vs 8. declareth the true government ministery worship of Iudah But it is manifest that Antichrist hath not only set vp a false Government of Prelacy a false ministery of Preisthood a false worship of reading but also hath set vp a false constitution of the Church For whereas the true Apostolique constitution was of baptized Disciples that confessed their Faith then sinns he hath foysted in a false matter of the Church viz infants persons vnbaptized so a false forme for infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole oâ—â—â—d man or Pagan neitheâ— can they expresse any more repentance oâ— Faith then such persons doe seing the true forme of the Church is a covenant betwixt God the Faithful made in baptisme in which Christ is visibly put on that infants cannot receave the covenant which is only done by actual visible Faith nor cannot seale back vnto the Lord that hee is true Ioh. 3.33 as God sealeth vnto them his truth by his Spirit Eph. 1.13 For the covenant is this I wil be their God 2. Cor. 6.16 they shal be al taught of God Ioh. 6.45 shal al know God from the least vnto the greatest Heb. 8.11 the covenant is this I wil be their Father 2. Cor. 6 18. wee shal be his sonnes calling him Father by the Spirit wherby we are sealed Gal. 4.6 Hence it followeth that the Church of Antichrist being constituted of a false matter viz infants vncapable of baptisme of a false sonne viz infants vnable to enter into the New Testament by sealing back the covenant vnto the Lord consenting vnto the contract therefore they can have no title to Christ or any of his ordinances but are as pagans or Gentils in the Lords account Circumcision therfor in the Israelites Apostacy was true circumcision bicause it was performed vppon carnal Israelites or Proselytes the eigth day but baptisme in Popery is false baptisme so in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing being administred vppon infants a subject that God never appointed to baptisme a subject that is as vncapable of baptisme as an infidel a mad man a naturall foâ—le or any other subject that cannot confesse their Faith or sinnes or be made Disciples by destruction Thirdly I declare that Israel was the true Church of God or a member or part of the true Church of God though infinitely corrupt aswel as Iudah in the dayes of her Apostacy see Ezechiel 3. toto Ezech. 16. toto Ezech. 20 28-31 therfor if Iudah retayned true circumcision in her Apostacy when the L. calleth her a harlot Ezech. 16.35 the Apostacy of Iudah is worse in the L. account then that of Israel Ezech. 16 47-53 Surely the circumcision of Israel was also true Israel a true part of the Church as wel as Indah for the bil of divorce which some plead was given to Israel by Hosea Hos 2.2 I say that was after the passeover of Hezechiah which was in the first yeer of his raigne 2. Chron. 29.3.17 30.2 the bil of divorce was given the sixth yeer of his raigne 2. King 17.23 compared with 2. King 18.10 yet neverthelesse Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophesied of the bil of divorce to be given Hos 4.6.8.12 when the bil of divorce was given divers of Israel I doubt not kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme
retained circumcision came vp yeerly to Ierusalem even til the dayes of Iosiah 2. Chron. 35.18 compared with 2. Chron. 34 6.7.3-33 So that hereby it is most manifest that no manner of sinne made the Church of the old Testament a false Church so long as they retayned circumcision in the Land of Canaan yea if they retayned circumcision though in BabyloÌ„ wherevppoÌ„ I am perswaded that if the Papucy or England or the Greek Churches did only baptise men confessing their Faith their sinnes into Chr the Sonne of God or into the Trinity though they retayned their false ministery worship Government other ther abhominations yet the baptisme was true not to be repeated as their circumcision was good notwithstanding al their abhominations horrible Idolatryes fearful Apostacy in Israel Mr. Rich. Clifton Babylon in Chaldea which was a type of Spiritual Babylon Apoc. 18.2 though they did abuse profan the vessels of the L. Dan. 5.3 yet did not that make a nullity of them that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lor. but were brought vp with them of the captivity that came vp from Babel to Ierusalem Ezra 1.11 Even so although Spiritual Babylon have profaned the Holy things of God as baptisme the rest yet remaine they stil Gods ordinances to al them that come out of her Apoc. 18.4 returne to the celestial Ierusalem as these vessels of the howse of the L. need not to be new cast bicause of Babels polluting them no more is baptisme to be reiterated to the people of God bicause it passed thorow the polluted hands of the Papists If it bee objected that they that administred baptisme in Babylon were Idolaters had no calling therto I answere That they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters so standing in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods holy ordinances that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nullity therof the circumcising of Moses Sonne by his mother Zippora Exod. 4.25 doth plainly teach For as the Lord makes effectual his word to his people though comming vnto them by the hands of a false ministery so doth he baptisme to al that bee his though administred by them that have not a Lawful calling thervnto The sin of the minister makes not a nullity either of the word or Sacraments els thould the efficacy of the word Sacraments depend vpon him that administreth theÌ„ which is not so for both have their effect from the Lord. If againe it be objected that baptisme was not administred in the Apostate Chur. of Antichrist to a fit subject I answer that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receave baptisme as the infants of Israell in the dayes of Ieroboam Ahab were to receave circumcision Seing the covenant of Abraham after the comming of Christ belonged as properly to the Gentils Gal. 3.14 as before it did to the Israelites Iohn Smyth Your second argument followeth which is this in effect As the Babilonians abuse of the vessels of the L. howse did not make a nullity of them but they were vsed after the captivity Ezra 1.11 so the Antichristian abuse of baptisme cannot disanul it but it may bee retayned when men come to the Fayth it needeth not to be reiterated no more then the vessels of the howse of the Lord be new cast I answer many things First this arg is an excellent arg for the retayning of idoll Temples the worship government ministery of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England if it be said they were never apointed by God so sayâ— that baptisme of theirs was never apointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist Secondly I answer that the vessels of the Lords howse were his owne ordinaÌ„ces therfor need not to be new cast but the baptisme of Antichr is not the L. owne ordinance who never ordeyned it for you must distinguish them thus The vessels of the L. howse were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the L. apointement but the baptisme of the L. is a compound or concrete ordinance or action limited in certaine essential particulars not being a substance but an accident in definition now if Antic had retained the essential parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated no more then the vessels of the L house need to be new cast after the abuse of the Babilonians but seing baptisme in popery Antichristianisme is not the L. ordinance in the definition of it but Antich invention Therefor though the vessels of the L. howse may be retayned yet baptisme may not That baptisme is Antichr invention in the definition of it I manifest thus The matter of baptisme the forme of baptisme is invented by Antich go it is an invention of antichrist in the definition The matter of antichristian baptisme is a carnal infant The forme is washing one into the covenant that cannot consent to the covenant or baptising without a contract sealing the covenaÌ„ts on both parts for the L. doth not seale to the infant and the infant cannot seale to the Lord As I have manifested already in the answer to the former argum of yours Therefore the baptisme of antichr is in the definition of it the meer devise of antichr For the Scripture describeth true baptisme which is the Lords owne ordinance thus The matter must bee one that confesseth his Fayth his sinnes one that is regenerate borne againe The forme must bee a voluntary delivering vp of the party baptized into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Spirit by washing with water Mat. 28.19 Mat. 3.6 Iohn â— 1 Act. 2.41 8.36.37 compared with Roman 6.17 Mat. 28. 20. 18.20 Gal. 3.27 Roman 6 2-6 VVherein ther must be a mutual consent of both persons contracting together that this is so the forme of baptisme retayned in popery yet teacheth plainly wher they say Credis Credo Abrenuntiâ—s abrenuntio which other persons speak for the infant that cannot speak therby declaring that ther must needs bee a mutual contract of both the parties contracting This ordinance of the L. therfor is abolished both in the matter forme an other straunge invention of man is in the rome therof substituted which is not the L. therfor a nullity as if the Babylonians should have framed a Temple altar arck or candlestick after their devise given them to the people of the Iewes they could not have retayned them vsed them to VVorship God withall So cannot true Christians retayne Antichristian baptisme which is devised in the definition of it Thirdly I answer that if the Antichristians had baptized persons confessing their sinnes their Faith into the name of the Sonne of God the Trinity it had then been true baptisme though in the hands of the Antichristians as the vessels of the L. howse in the
God through Popery yet in the Popish Churches ther is no true Church Ministery VVorship or Government nor true Baptisme but all false and Antichristian and so to bee rejected and the truth to bee assumed out of the Scriptures and so this argument off yours is answered Mr. Rich. Clifton If antichrist be not the author of baptisme but of some humane devises annexed vnto in the administration thereof then are wee not to plucke vp the wheaâ—e with the â—ares Mat. 13.29 And to cast away that which is Christs with Antichr but to Seperate from that which is mans invention stil to retayne that which is of God But to baptise with water into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holy Ghost Mat. 28.19 is from heaven not from Antichrist Ergo we ought not to cast it away but those traditions where with Antichrist hath polluted it as for exaÌ„ple King Iosias before him K. Ezechias when both the Land Temple were poluted 2. King 21.7 23.7 did not pul downe the Temple but appointed the Priests to clense it who did so brought out al the vncleanes that they had found in the howse of God 2. Chro. 29.16.17.18 34.8 For in reformacion of things difference must be put betwene those things wherof God is the Author such as are devised by man The former is to be purged from all profanation the things still to bee retayned the other to bee quyte abolished This rule in all reformation off Religion ought to bee followed Iohn Smyth The fifth Argument followeth which is this in effect We must not pluck vp the wheate with the tares Mat. 13.29 nor cast away that which is Christs when we cast away that which is Antichrists But to Baptize with VVater into the Name of the Trinity is Christs not Antichrists Ergo wee ought not to cast that away but only the traditions of Antichrist So did Iosiah Hezechiah 2. King 21.7 23.4 2. Chron. 29 16-18 34.8 not pul downe the Temple but clense it c. that wherof God is the Author must be kept the corruption or pollution put away that wherof man is the Author is quite to be abolished This is your reason I answer That as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple the Iewes built it againe So when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Temple the true Church then must we build it vp againe when Antichrist hath destroyed the true baptisme then must we reare it vp againe Wherfor seing as is shewed befor Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme of Chr. in the definition or in the matter forme therof hath reared a baptisme of his owne it must therfor be abolished as when we do renounce the false Church or Ministery wee do not renounce that which is true in the false Church or Ministery but onely the falsehood so in rejecting the false baptisme of Antichr we do not renounce that which is true in it as to wash with water into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost but onely the falsehood And yet as when wee retayne the truth in a false Church or Ministery wee reject the Falsehood in them both erect both a new true Church Ministery So when wee retayne the truth of a false baptisme wee reject the Falsehood erect a true new baptisme this is evident if you consider it wel Againe seing in the false baptisme church ministery the corruptions are essential the truth only accidental truth falsehood are so intermingled as we can not divide them asunder assuming the one leaving the other but we must needes in renouncing the essential corruptions reserve the accidental truths iterate or repeate the accidental truthes if we wil have the essential truth which Antichrist had abolished Therfor necessarily we must for having true baptisme repeate washing in to the name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost which are but accidentals for a Turck so washed is not baptized once onely wash a new borne babe in Christ into the truth which is true essentiall baptisme which Antichrist had abolished which wee onely restore nothing els so your argument is answered Mr. Rich. Clifton As God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham his seed Gen. 17.7 which through the malice of Sathan al his instruments shal never be cut of so hath he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the Law gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the Faithful And therfor the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were pertakers in the Apostate Church devising a new do bring in a new covenant a new gospel taking vppon them to baptize themselves without warrant from the word For I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptize himself without special commaundement from God as Abrah had for circumcision Gen. 17.9 or Iohn for baptisme Marc. 1.3 nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4.2 Mat. 3.6 Act. 8.38 9.18 10-48 If it be sayd the tymes bee extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby wee may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the word to informe vs in any thing that wee ought to doe Iohn Smyth Your 6. argument is thus much in effect That seing the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is everlasting Genes 17.7 cannot by the malice of Sathan bee cut of no more can the malice of Sathan abolish the seales of that covenant vnder the Law or gospel viz circumcision baptisme I answer by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16.18 framed thus If the gates of Hel 〈◊〉 never pervaile against the Church then ther hath alwayes been a true Church Antichrist could never make the church false so you of the Seperation have sinned most shamefully in calling the Church of Antichrist false Verum primum Ergo secundum If my argument be not good against you of the Seperation for erecting a new Church no more is yours good against vs for erecting new baptisme This is to answer as they say regerendo But I answer more properly solvendo thus That the covenant is said to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existence in the world in an established Church but in respect of the stability firmenes of it in regard of Sathans malice which should not so abolish it that it should never bee recovered againe For otherwise the Church went into the wildernes Revel 12.14 al natioÌ„s were made drunck with the cup of the fornication of the whore of Babylon Revel 18. â— ther was no true Church in the depth of Antichristianisme so no true baptisme for can any thing be true in a false Church but the Scriptures the truthes conteyned therein I deny therfor that the covenant Church
or baptisme was visible alwayes For it was invisible when the Chuâ—ch went into the wildernes therfor as you when ther was not a true Church in the world took vppon you to set vp a true Church as you say but wee say a false Church renouncing the Church of Antichr yet wil not bee said to bring in a new covenant a new Gospel for you in your false conceitednes wil reject them for heretiques if ther bee any that dare say so of you forsooth So the anabaptists as you cal them doe not set vp a new covenant Gospel though they set vp a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had overthrowne whereas you say they have no warrant to baptisme themselves I say as much as you have to set vp a true Church yea fully as much For if a true Church may bee erected which is the most noble ordinance of the New Testament then much more baptisme if a true Church can not bee erected without baptisme for baptisme is the visible forme of the Church as Disciples are the matter Mat. 28.19 Iohn 4.1 Then seing you confesse that a true Church may bee erected you cannot deny though you doe deny it in opposing the truth that baptisme may also bee recovered seing when all Christs visible ordinances are lost eyther men must recover them againe or must let them alone if they let them alone til extraordinary men come with miracles tongs as the Apostles did then men are same lists for that is their opinion or if they must recover them men must beginne so to doe then two men joyning together may make a Church as you say Why may they not baptize seing they cannot conjoyne into Christ but by baptisme Mat. 28.19 compared with Mat. 18.10 Gallat â— 27 but it is evident that all Christs Commaundements must bee obeyed Ergo this commaundement of having vsing the communion of the Church Ministery VVorship Gouernment those Holy meanes of Salvation which the Lord of his mercy hath given vs with his covenant commaunded vs to vse therefore if all the commaundements of God must bee obeyed then this of baptisme this warrant is sufficient for assuming baptisme Now for baptising a mans self ther is as good warrant as for a man Churching himself For two men singly are no Church joyntly they are a Church they both of them put a Church vppon themselves so may two men put baptisme vppon themselves For as both those persons vnchurched yet have powre to assume the Church each of them for himself with others in communion So each of them vnbaptized hath powre to assume baptisme for himself with others in communion And as Abraham Iohn Baptist all the Proselites afâ—â—r Abrahams example Exod. 12.48 did administer the Sacrament vppon themselves So may any man raised vp after the Apostacy of Antichrist in the recovering of the Church by baptisme administer it vppon himself in communion with others So wee see the Lords Supper is administred to a mans self in communion with others so is Prayer Prophesy Praysing of God vttered for a mans self aswel as for others And as in the Old Testament every man that was vncleane washed himself every Preist going to Sacrifice washed himselfe in the Laver at the dore of the Tabernacle of the congregation which was a type of baptisme the dore of the Church Tit. 2.5 Every Mr. of a Family administred the Passeover to himself all of his Family The Preist dayly Sacrificed for himself and others a man cannot baptise others into the Church himself being out of the Church Therefore it is Lawfull for a man to baptize himself together with others in communion this warrant is a plerophory for the practise of that which is done by vs Thus are your 6. weake reasons answered Mr. Rich. Clifton Thus having set downe some reasons to prove that Apostates or Antichristians converted are not to be rebaptized let vs come to the examination of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first wherof is this 1. Bicause Churches are to bee constituted now after the defection of Antichrist as they were first erected by the Apostles But in the constitution off Churches the Apostles receaved in the members by baptisme Ergo so must wee doe now Answere 1. The estate condition of people now is not alike to the estate of the Gentiles or Iewes in the Apostles tymes they differ in divers respects First all the people then both of Iewes Gentiles never had bene themselves nor were ever of the posterity of those that had bene members of the Church of Christ vnder the gospel seing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches but we are now the posterity of such parents as were members of the Chu planted by the Apo. els could we not have Apostated Secondly that people which the Apo. gathered in to Churches were never baptized baptisme comming in the steed of circumcision being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant it was fit that they which beleved became the seed of AbrahaÌ„ should so enter into the covenaÌ„t they their seed as he his seed entred that is as he his were receaved in by circumcision So they thers should be receved in by baptisme Act. 2.38.41 8.38 but we are a people that are already baptized the seed of theÌ„ that wer baptized had receved the gospel although through Antichr deceaveablenes both we they were tainted with many corruptions yet had they or might have in that Apostacy so we also so much faith as thereby both we they might become the people of God Apoc. 18.4 And concerning the constitution of the Churches here it is to be noted that the constitution of Churches set downe by the Apostles was by the immediate directioÌ„ of the Holy Ghost so serveth for a continual rule of establishing Churches to the 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 3.11 But the constituting of Chur. now after the defection of Antich may more properly be called a repayring then a constituting of Churches which through Apostacy have bene ruinated or a gathering together of the dispersed hepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches the pateâ—ne 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 so it wil not follow as it is alledged that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessarily must be by baptisme as in the pâ—imitive tyme it was except onely of such persons as have not bene baptized before And herein I take it lyeth the deceyte of this arg that it putteth no difference between the people of God comming out of Babylon them that came to the faith from amongst the Gentils
equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an Apostate Church the other no Church The one partaker of the word Sacram though with much coruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neither at all the one professing Christ Teaching many truths of God so many as the elect therby might come to faith Apoc. 18.4 The other neither professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God wherby any might be converted to Christ become Gods people in the estate of Gentilisme And thus having made plaine the different estate of the first planted Churches ours in Apostacy I answere fi st That Churches now are to be constituted if repairing be not a fitter speâ—ch as in the Apostles tymes that al such as are receaâ—ed in as members being vnbaptized must be receaved in by baptisme but for such as were baptized in Apostate Chuâ—che their repentance is sufficient without rebaptisatioÌ„ as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vppon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were receaved of the Church without any new circumcision therfore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Chr. not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could doe no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptized but if they had met with any that before had bene baptized into the name of Chr. as they that receaved the baptisme of Iohn as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptized them theâ—for the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptized Iohn Smyth The next thing in your answer is a solution of the arguments brought by mee to prove the truth viz. That Antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true Church by baptisme This truth of the Lords I have proved vnto you by three reasons The first â—hereof may bee framed thus So are Churches to be restored or constituted after the defection of Antichr as they were erected by the Apostles at the first But the Churches were at the first erected by baptisme in their primitive institution by Iohn Chr. the Apostles Ergo so are they now to be restored therfor the members are to be receaved in by baptisme as they were then As in the former point for baptising of infants you were compelled to runne to the old Testament from thence to fetch the cheef corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new Testam of Chr. the true constitution Apostolique of the Church of the new Testament set vs againe to Schoole to Moses as if Chr. had not beeÌ„ faithful enough to teach vs his new Test but we must go learne the new Test of the old Testament Chr. of Moses The Gospel of the Law And first I would know why we may not aswel with the Papists Prelates goe fetch one high Preist from Moses a sacrificing Preisthood from Moses succession in the ministery from Moses a succession in the Church from Moses as a succession in baptisme from Moses in effect you do fetch a succession of the Church from Rome For in fetching a succession of baptisme from Rome which is the forme of the Church in fetching a succession of the matter of the Church which is the seed of the parents baptized you of necessity make the Church of Rome a true Church For if infants of the Church of Româ— have true title to baptisme by reason of the Faith of some of their auncesters oâ— forfathers that were Faithful then are they the true visible matter of the Church if by reason of that title to baptisme they receave true baptisme in substance as you say in the Church of Rome then they have the true visible forme of the Church for they that have the true matter forme of a true Church vppon them are the true Chuâ—â—â— so are the infants of the Church of Rome a true visible Church in the constitution essential causes therof so as in the old Testament the Church came by succession of genealogie in respect wherof they made so much account of genealogies carnal Philip. 3 3-5 1. Timoth. 1.4 So in the New Testament the Church commeth by succession of carnal Genealogie through the Church of Rome to our dayes then as the matter of the Church viz infants descending of baptized parents is by Genealogie the forme of the church viz baptisme vppon these infants is by descent therfor the Church is by succession I demaund why may not the ministery be by descent succession aswel as the Church then why is not the Church of Rome or England a true Church the ministery of the Church of Rome or England a true Ministery so why may not you returne back againe into England take vp your former ministery renounce your Schisme which you have made so I heare that some are mynded to doe truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retaine the Church Ministery of England as to retaine the baptisme when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of EnglaÌ„d I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church ministery of England I wil confesse I have been a Schismatique returne acknowledg my error but bicause I know the ministery Church of England is false therfor it must needes be that the baptisme which is the forme of the Church is false essentially therefore having Seperated justly from the Church Ministery of England for the falsehood of them I must needes also Seperate from the baptisme which is false for the Church is false bicause baptisme the forme of the Church is false if baptisme the forme of the Church of England be true the Church of England is true also You are to know therefore so I wish you all the Seperation to mynd it well the Lord give you eyes to see harts to vnderstand that all the old Testament was carnal taken from the Elementes of the VVorld thereby to type out to teach them heavenly things therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs in the New Testament a Spiritual Church The matter of their Church was a carnall Israelite the matter of the Church of the New Testament is a true Israelite in whom ther is no guile The forme of their Church was carnall circumcision a carnal seale Genes 17 10-14 The forme of the Church of the New Testament is the circumcision of the hart a new Creature the Holy Spirit of promise whereby wee are sealed which is manifested by confession baptisme in water Act. 10.47 Ephes 1.13 Gallat 3.27 6.15 Iohn 3.5 Matth. 3.6 Roman 10.9 Act. 8.36.37 Their carnall Church in the matter forme came by carnall Genealogie so they all of them were gendred vnto bondage vnder
into the new Testament that had all these perogatives in your judgment much more wil they have vs to constitute Antichr converted into the true Church by baptisme neither can you say without great indignity to the L. ordinances in the old Test that they were inferior to the baptisme of Antichrist Againe you wil needes have this to be a great priviledg to the antichr to be the carnal seed of them that hath somtyme been members of the Church of Chr. in the new Testament therfor you say that in ther parents or auncestors they had title to baptisme I deny that ever the English nation of any one of our predecessors were of the Faith of Chr. shew it if you can but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came put vppon vs her false baptisme therfor although the Roma might plead this yet England cannot plead it so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing our case is simply Paganish Further you say that the repentance of Apostate Churches is sufficient for their admittance into the true Church without rebaptization as repentance was for Israel without recircumcision I deny it for the Churches of Antichr are false the Church of the Israelites was not false The Churches of Antichr were false bicause they consisted of the carnal seed baptized which was not that one seed vnto which the promise was made that is the Faithful The Church of the Israelites was true bicause it did consist of the carnal seed carnally circumcised which was the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament For otherwise if Israel had been false bicause of their Apostacy Idolatry then Iudah was as false who had in wickednes justified Samaria Sodom Ezech. 16.51 but indeed they were neither of them false so long as they circumcised the males of 8. dayes old but the Churches of Antichr growing false by baptising the carnal seed which was not the true seed of Abrahams faith therefore are to bee baptized when they come to the truth cannot have Israels Apostacy for the president wherefore an Edomite or Israelite comming to bee a proselite of the Iewes Church that had omitted circumcision is a true President of the Antichristian Apostacy For as they omitting the circumcision of the males though of the Posterity of Abraham yet being Proselites were entered into the Iewes Church by circumcision So is it in the Apostacy of Antichrist with the Proselytes of Antichristianisme for so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the Faith admitted into the true Church the Israelites were not so Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have receaved vs into the Church vppon repentance without baptisme I answer if such an example had been left vs wee would then have rested satisfied but seing the Apo. have left no such example nor precept therfor you are yet in your Apostacy having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are stil vnseperated do stil retaine the mark of the beast are subject to the woe that the aungel threatneth to persons so marked Mr. Rich. Clifton Now let vs come to the second reason which is this 2. Bicause true baptisme is but one but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme so not that one baptisme of Chr. but al the members of Chr. must have true Baptisme Answere 2. Ther is but one Faith one baptisme Eph. 4 4. therefore is it sufficient to bee once baptized as it was to bee once circumcised Secondly That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt doe also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme what then must it follow that now such as are baptized must bee rebaptized els cannot bee members of a visible Church I deny it doe further answere 1. That the baptisme which wee receaved in the Apostate Church is no more Antichrists then the word that wee receaved therein For Antichrist did never ordaine a new kynd of baptisme but did onely pollute with his inventions the Holy ordinance of Chr therefore if this baptisme that wee have receaved be called the baptisme of Antichr that is to affirme an vntruth seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Chr. who commaunded his Apo. to baptize al nations with water in the name of the Father of the Sonne of the Holy Ghost the same baptisme for substance is stil retayned in the Apostate churches none other Secondly this baptisme may also in some respect bee called true baptisme as before I have noted in my fift reason against rebaptization For 1. it hath Chr. for the Author 2. it hath the true matter outward signe or element which is water 3. the true forme of administring the same which is baptising into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the Holy Ghost al which is practised in the Popish Church neither is any baptized into the name or faith of Antich but vnto the faith possession of Christ therfor our baptisme is the baptisme of Chr. to vs that repent true baptisme so consequently not to be reiterated Iohn Smyth In the next place you make answer to my second arg which may be framed thus Al the members of Chr. must have that one true baptisme of Chr. taught in the new Testament The baptisme of antich is not that one true baptisme taught by Chr. in the new Testament Ergo The members of Christ must not have the baptisme of Antichrist but must take the true baptisme of Christ when they come into the true Church The summe of your answer is That the baptisme we receaved in the false Chur. is not Antichr but Christs I make answer that seing infants are baptized which is the false matter of baptisme seing in them ther is not the question of a good conscience vnto God 1. Pet. 3.21 Nor the hast sprinckled from an evil conscience Heb. 10 22. which is the forme Seing they cannot expresse credis Credo Abrenuntias Abrenuncio which is the forme of baptisme even the mutual contract betwixt God the party baptized expressed visibly in confession therfor the baptisme is not Chr. but Antichrists not from heaven but of man al that you object in this particular is already sufficiently taken away in answer to your 4. reason whither I translated that which is heer answered by you vppon occasion ther intertayned Mr. Rich. Clifton The third reason Bicause as the false Church is rejected the true erected the false ministery forsaken the true received so false worship by consequence baptisme must be renounced the true baptisme assumed Answere First I graunt that we ought to Seperate from al false or apostate Chur. Apo. 18.4 to adjoyne our selves to a true Chu reformed according to the paterne of the Apostles 2. also every false ministery is to
be forsaken Mat. 7.15.2 Io. 10. gal 1.8 the true ministers of God to be received Ier. 3.14.15 So did the faithful in Israel forsake the false Preists set vp by IeroboaÌ„ returned to the Preists of the L to IerusaleÌ„ 2. Chro. 30.11.3 it is our duty likewise to renounce al false wor. 2. Cor. 6 14-17 Esa 30.22 to worship the L as he taught vs in his word thus far do I approve of this reason but the consequence I must deny viz that bicause false worship is to be renounced therfor baptisme also For 1. we are to consider in that baptisme receaved in apostate Churches two things first that which is of God therin 2. that which is of man that which is of God is the substance of baptisme as before is observed viz the same matter forme that the L. instituted likewyse the same end which is the profession of the faith of Christ this is not false worship so consequently not to be renounced Againe that which in the administration of baptisme is devised by man are those vnwarrantable ceremonies of crossing breathing annoynting c. these are to bee renounced as vaine worship Mat. 15.4 Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men not with their pollutions to be renounced for if polution might warrant men to cast away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have bene brought againe to Ierusa nor yet the TeÌ„ple it selfe that was so greatly profaned in the dayes of the Idolatrous Kings have any more bene vsed as a place of worsh. to the L. Secondly I answer that we have receaved a true baptisme in the apostate Chu as the people of God did circumcision amongst the ten trybes therfor we may no more renounce it assume a new then they that returned to Ierus 2. Chro. 30.11 might renounce theire câ—rcumcision be recircumcised It is objected of some that this comparison houlds not for Israel was a true Chu therfor their circumcision was true but Apostate Churches have nothing true neither are the members therof capable either of the covenant or seale in that standing it is not true baptisme to such This objection in part I have answered before now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their Apostacy were not a true Church but false seing they Seperated from Ierus the true only Chu in the world erected a new Church comunioÌ„ amongst theÌ„selves joyning together in a false wor. vnder a false ministery 1. King 12 30-33.20 18.19 â—1 so became an harlot Hos 2.2 Secondly in the apostate Chur. ther be some things true in the substance as the word baptisme though corupted in the administration therof by false ministers humane devises Thirdly the members of an apostate Chu are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of such a Chur. Secondly as they are the seed posterity of their forfathers which receaved the covenant for themselves for their seed though in regard of the former estate they have nether right to baptisme or the covenaÌ„t for the holy things of God belongs not properly to false Chu nor to the members therof considered in that estate yet even to such members considered apart from such standing as they are the seed of their forfathers so are they capable of the covenant Sacra the same is avayleable to them vppon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their Fathers sakes Rom. 11.28 this apeareth in that he saith come out of her my people Apo. 18.4 to such it cannot be denyed but that to them belongs the covenant yea whyles they are in Spirituall Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea bondage hinders not Cods grace But some may reply that they whose Fathers were Idolaters vnbeleevers cold have no right to the covenant to be baptized through the Faith of their Fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not only vpon their immediate parents but title therto descends vnto them from their auncestors Exo. 20. if wee respect herein Gods mercy even as mens inheritance doe from their former Fathers neither do the members of an Apostate Church cast of al profession of faith for such beleve the Scriptures in Ch. c. though with al they professe divers errors worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an Apostate Chu had forfathers that beleved I answere it cannot 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 therfor it must needs follow that their forfathers were belevers had receaved the covenant And thus have I breifly answered these two Anabaptistical positions with theire reasons as the Lor. hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could better performe it further I do intreate that the truth which I contend for may not through my weake defence beare any reproche but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written both he they that so practise may seriously consider of that which is done glorify God by their repentance March 14. 1608. Rich. Clifton Iohn Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last argument which may bee framed into this forme As the false Church ministery are rejected the contrary true Church ministery assumed So the false worship so by consequent the false baptisme must be renounced the true baptisme assumed Verum primum Ergo secundum The summe of your answer is that we must renounce indeed the false Church ministery worship yet may retaine the baptisme receaved in the false Church which you say is true in author matter forme end Though corrupt in circumstance as oyling crossing breathing c. repenting of those coruptions not casting away the true substance with the corrupted circumstances devised by man annexed therto c. Although al that is mentioned heer is already taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe some thing for further cleering of the point First I deny the popish baptisme to be true in the 4. causes therof as you affirme 1. The L. never instituted that infantâ—â—hould be baptized 2. he never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptized 3. he never instituted that the carnal seed of the faithfull should be baptized Therfor seing infants that are not the seed of the faithful but the seed of Babylonians are baptized by Antich the matter of
baptisme is false â— the L. never appointed that the party should be baptized without his owne confession conseÌ„t to the contract that the L. maketh in baptisme therfor the Apo. Peter saith that in baptisme ther is the question of a good conscience into God Paull saith that when the body is washed with pure water the hart must be sprinckled from an evil conscience 1. Pet. 3.21 Heb. 10.22 therfor infants are baptized which cannot Stipulate or contract themselves vnto the L. therfor the L. doth not contract with them for Chr. the husband of the Church wil not contract in marriage with a bride or a spowse that is vnder age Gal. 4 1-4.3 the L. did never appoint that baptisme should seale vp his new Testament to infants or that infants should by his baptisme be admitted into the body of Antich into the Church ministery worship government of Antich or that his baptisme should set a character indelible vpon parties baptized or should give grace ex opere operato al which or most of which are done in Antich baptisme but the end of Chr. baptisme is to manifest visibly that the partie confessing his faith sinnes is sealed by the Spirit vnto the day of redemption that he hath visibly put on Chr. that he is mortified crucified dead buryed risen againe ascended with Chr. Rom. 6 1-6 Col. 2.12 Gal. 3.27 Col. 3 1-5 these are the true ends of baptisme instituted by Chr. Seing therfor the matter forme end of baptisme in the false Church is from man even from Antich the for the L. is not the author of this baptisme but the baptisme is antic wholy although he vseth the words In nomine Patris Filij Sp. Sancti amen as the papists do in sprinckling holy water in baptising their bels as conjurers do in their charmes yet this cannot make true baptisme but rather is a most notable profanatioÌ„ of the holy Scripture even as it is profaned in ther Sermons dayly worship performed by them I affirme therfor againe againe that the baptisme receaved in the false Church is none of the L. ordinance but antichr devise essentially corrupted in matter forme end or vse therfor wholly to be rejected with the oynting breathing crossing c. Heer you endevour to prove that Israel was a false Church bicause it Seperated from Iudah bicause they joyned together in a new Church communion vnder a false ministery worship became a harlot wherto I answer that so was Iudah a false Ch when they worshipped Idols vnder every greeÌ„ tree in the high places if you so vnderstand a false Church viz meetings or companyes of men assembled together in a wrong place to a wrong worship vnder a wrong Preisthood I yeeld Israel so to be a false Church but I deny that to be the true definition of a false Chu for a false Church is contrary to a true Church now a true Church is descerned in the true causes essential so a false Church is known by the want of those true causes essential the true essential causes of the Chu of the old Test was the posterity of Abrah or proselytes circumcised the want of these things only made a false Chur So long as the Israelites retained circumcision they were the true carnal constituted Church of the old Test Israel Iudah are called harlots not for that they were a false Church but for the worshipping of God in Idols as before the calves at Dan Bethel or the Idols in Iudah this is plaine enough in the History So that I coÌ„clude against you that Israel was no false Church in the constitutioÌ„ but had a true matter forme viz circuÌ„cised Israelites though vnder a false ministery worship government as I have already shewed in the former treatise Lastly you bring vs in a double respect or consideration of members of the Chur. of Antich 1. as they are members of those false Chu 2. as they are the children of beleeving progenitors who receaved the covenant for themselves their posterity in 〈◊〉 first respect they are not vnder the covenaÌ„t or seale therof in the second respect they are vnder both for the Fathers sake Rom. 11.28 so their repentance shal serve their turne when they come to the true Church without rebaptising I aÌ„swer divers things first I do not deny but that meÌ„ may be coÌ„sidered two waies visibly as members of Antich body invisibly as aperteyning to the L. election that is the meaning of the A p. Rom. 11.28 but I deny that hence it foloweth that when they come from their invisible being in Ch. to a visible being in the true visible Chu they shal enter in any way but by the dore which is baptisme For wheras you intimate that a man being invisibly elect beloved of God invisibly having thâ—se to the covenant holy things of God may therevppon first visibly enter into the false Chu by false baptisme then vppon his repentance come to the true Chu enter therinto not by baptisme but that the dore of Antich Chur. shal open him the way into Chr. Church long before he come into Chr. Church wheras I say you intimate vnto vs so much you do herby teach contrary to our Saviour Chr. who saith that we must goe in by the dore not climb vp by the window that wee must first bee taught made Disc theÌ„ baptized into Chr. but you in the Kingdom of Antic are first baptized falsely then made Disciples flat contrary to Christs commaundem Secondly I say that no man is vnder the covenant or vnder baptisme for the pareÌ„ts sake that is not the meaning of the Ap. Ro. 11.28 but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise God made to Abrah Isaac Iacob in respect of Chr not for that the children shal be pertakers of that covenant bicause of their parents faith or bicause of Gods covenant made with the parents ther carnal infants but bicause the L. elected them predestinated them in Chr. to life salvation invisibly therfor I do confidently deny you are never able to prove that the carnal infants are actually possessed of the everlasting covenant God made with Abrah for their parents sakes do you indeed think that God loveth any man for an other mans sake or do you think that God loveth not al men of his meer mercy or for Chr. sake neither is it the carnal line that is beloved of God for his mercy sake or for Chr sake but it is the Spiritual line of Abrah the faithful onely elect that are beloved for the â—â—hers that is for the covenant made with Abrah Isaac Iacob our Fathers in the faith so it is true that God loveth men in the false Chu of An. for Abrah Isaac Iacob that is for his
nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptized or els hee forgatt his duty in not Teaching baptisme off infants vppon so just an occasion But Christ receaving infants praying for them blessing them doth neyther baptize them nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them neyther did forgett his duty in not teaching baptisme of infants occasioned Ergo Christs pleasure was and is that infants should not be baptized 5. They that are not actualy possessed of the promises or covenant are not actually to be invested with baptisme Infants are not actually possessed with the covenant Seing they performe not the condition viz confession of their sinnes their Fayth actually Ergo infants are not to be invested with baptisme This shal suffice for answer of your third argument Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 7.14 Iff the children of beleeving parents be holy then are they with in the covenant off Abraham and so consequently have ryght to the seale thereoff But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second Touching the former proposition I take it that none wil affirme holines in any that are not of the covenant for in that respect Israel was called a holy nation Exo. 19.6.1 Pet. 2.9 al others vncleane Act. 11.3 10.15 that were without Iff infants be within the covenant then can not the seal be denyed to such seing the Lo. hath joyned the promise seale together Gen. 17.10 which no man may or ought to Seperate Mat. 19.6 What can be objected against the assumption I see not seing the Apostle plainly affirmes but now are your children holy Vnlesse it may be said as of some I have heard that as the vnbeleeving wyfe is sanctified to the husband so are the children viz to the vse of their Father but this to affirme is a great abusing of the Scripture For the Apostle in that place answering an objection that the Faithful is defiled by the society of the vnfaithful proveth that the faithful husbād may with good conscience vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wife by an argument from the effects namely bicause their children which are borne of them are accounted holy or within the promise God having said to al the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed As for that other straunge exposition that the Children of a beleeving Father are no otherwise sanctified then the vnbeleeving wife is vnto her husband viz to their Fathers vse only that cannot stand with the meaning purpose of the Apost For so much may be said of an vnbeleeving servāt 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 objection removed by this answer If it bee further pressed that the vnbeleving wife is said to be holy as wel as the children yet is she not within the covenant I answer that she indeed is not holy as be her children for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant therfor she is said to be sanctified in her husband the Apostle respecting their mariage which though it was contracted before either party beleeved yet stands firme not dissolved when either of them is called to the Faith so that the beleeving husband may lawfully vse her as his wife if she be content to dwel with him 1. Cor. 7.12 Now the children cannot be sanctified or Seperate to such vse to their Father as the wise is to her husband And therfor are the children called holy bicause they are the seed of a beleeving Father Iohn Smyth Your sourth argument is from 1. Cor. 7.14 thus If the Children of beleeving parents be holy then are they within the covenāt of Abraham so consequently have right to the seale therof But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second I answer First denying your majors consequent Seing that al the nation of the Iewes were holy yet not within the covenant of Abraham I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ that they were not al within that covenant is plaine Rom. 9.6 al they are not Israel which are of Israel vs. 7. neyther are they al Children bicause they are the seed of Abraham vs. 12. God revealed that the Elder should serve the yonger Act. 7.51 yee have alwayes resisted the holy ghost as your foreFathers have done so do you if it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secreat election not of mans knowledg I answer the vs. 12. is plaine of that which was revealed vnto the Church yet Esaw was holy circumcized when he was borne being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ for proof of this point that the whole Church of the Iewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it I vse these reasons 1. First The condition or obedience of the matter or members of the New Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members off the old Testament Faith repentance is the condition obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament Marc. 1.15 Ergo Faith repentance is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament The reason of the major is evident seing that as the ministery worship government of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the ministery worship government of the new Testament is so the constitution viz the matter Forme of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the constitution that is the matter forme of the new Testament is Seing therfor that the ministery worship government of the old Testament was carnal the constitutiō must also be carnal Therfor the matter forme must be carnal Therfor Faith repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament but only a carnal holines viz The circumcision of the foreskinne whereby the carnal forme that is the carnal covenant or commaundement was induced vpon them wherto they were tyed in obedience Heb. 7.16 Gal. 5.3 2. Secondly The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self True is nature reason The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. The constitution or the matter forme of the church of the new Testament is the truth c. Heb. 10.1 9.19.23 Ergo The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament that is the members covenant is not the truth that is the members are not truly holy but ceremonialy holy the covenant is not the everlasting covenant but the typical carnal covenant or commaundement
but stil you build vppon a false fondacion as you see assuming that which is the question viz That baptisme in popery is the Lords Thirdly I answer againe that if Antichrist had reteyned the L. true baptisme as I have described true I say in the definition viz That he had baptized persons confessing their sinnes faith into the Trinity or into Iesus Christ it should not have been repeated but seing he intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible character vpon them which is the mark of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth another promising answering for them Credo Abrenuntio which the party baptized should himself performe hence I conclude that he hath set vp his owne idol of abhomination cast the L. holy ordinance away having essentialy destroyed the primitive Apostolique baptisme go his baptisme is a nullity or rather a seale of perdition to them that retaine it The amplification which you bring to this Argument I omit as a thing not denyed but yeelded vnto that God can work by a false Ministery evil instruments bad meanes but hence it wil not follow that we may retaine the mark of the beast no more then we may retaine the ministery of Antichrist the Church of Antichrist the Government of Antichrist Mr. Rich. Clifton Those Holy things which God by his mercifull providence hath preserved for his people through the hands of profane persons are not to be rejected for the Authors sake Ezra 1.11 But the Scriptures baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake If it be objected against the minor it is not true baptisme but false that is administred in the assemblies of Antichr I answer though it may be said to be false in regard of some humane devises vsed in the administration thereof yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter forme Author therof which causeth it to have a true being Iohn Smyth Your fourth Argument followeth which is this These Holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people though the hands of profane persons are not to be rejected for the Authors sake Ezra 1.11 But the Scriptures baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake The minor you prove thus saying the baptisme though false in respect of humane devises vsed in the ministration therof yet is true in respect of the matter forme Author therof in your answer to my second Arg. you say the author of baptisme in the Kingdom of Antichr is Chr. the matter water the forme washing with water into the Trinity I answer directely that if it could bee proved that baptisme in the Kingdome of Antichrist is appointed by Christ that water is the true matter of baptisme the true forme is washing into the Trinity I would yeeld vnto you but this you have not proved I have already proved the contrary but yet to deale somthing more fully in this point which is the mayne pillar cheef corner Stone of the fondacion I say 1. VVater is not the matter of baptisme but onely the instrument of baptisme For as fire is the instrument of burning so is VVater of washing the matter of burning is the fewel that is burnt So the matter of washing is the party washed For as wee say accident is esse est inesse the subject is al the matter of an accident as the matter of the Church are the Disciples of Sayntes The matter of the Ministery are the Prophets so the matter of baptisme is the persons vppon whome baptisme is conferred on whome it is It is false therfor which you affirme that water is the matter of baptisme 2. I say that washing into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost is not the forme of Baptisme For to wash a Turk Iew Foole mad Man or infant into the Trinity is not â—â—ne baptisme but it were so if simply to baptize into the Trinity were the forme of baptisme Therefore to baptise the true matter into the true Fayth or into Christ or the New Testament or the Trinity or into the true body is the true forme of baptisme So that the true matter of baptisme is a new creature one regenerate a confessor As the true matter of circumcision was a male of eigt dayes old eyther lineally descending of Abraham or a Proselite So the true matter of baptisme is a person that is of the Fayth of Abraham one that hath the male Christ formed in him The true forme of baptisme coÌ„sisteth in three things 1. washing with water 2. a new Creature 3. into the Name of Chr. or into the Trinity for I think wee are not tyed to forme of words so if antichr hath washed any I say I wil never consent that they shal be rebaptized but hold that Anabaptistery true heresy But if an infant that is not the matter of baptisme or a wicked man mad man foole Turk or Iew or any Pagan bee washed with water into the Trinity I say ther is neyther true matter nor forme of baptisme Christ is not the author thereof therfor the baptisme of antichrist is not Christs but his owne so all infants baptized by antichrist are eyther vnbaptized or have the marke of the beast so are to renounce it to receave Christs marke of baptisme or els woe bee to them when they shall manifest a new creature Christ the male is formed in them they confesse with their mouth then be baptized into the Trinity this is not anabaptistery but the true primitive Apostolique Baptisme so Christ Iohn Christs Apostles were anabaptists with you Sir For they baptized men that had been washed before a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes Heb. 9.10 which baptismes were also into the Messias no doubt in those that saw the end off those Figures But if it bee blasphemy to say that Christ Iohn the Apostles were Anabaptists though they were of tymes some of them baptized into the Messiah in Type bicause they were onely once baptized truly indeed So shal it bee blasphemy in all them that call the true Christians anabaptists that baptize new Creatures once onely into Christ though baptized before by antichrist in their infancy when they knew not the right hand from the left or what a new creature or the New Testament or Christ or Baptisme or any thing els was hence therefore I conclude vndenyably that seing Popish baptisme hath a false matter a false forme therefore it is antichrists Idoll asmuch as a false Ministery a false Church is so the Lord is not the author of it therevppon though the Scriptures Gods word bee retayned by Gods providence in the word all the Holy things of