blessed And though you say I cannot from hence conclude Baptisme yet from hence I do conclude that Christ performed that action to Infants that his disciples did afterward unto such as were baptised viz. laying on of hands and prayer likewise I can conclude that Christ admitted of Infants to come to him and that he prayed for them And “ he prayes not for the world â—oh 17. 9. Mâ—r. 10. And that also he pronounceth that †of such is the kingdome of God And therfore whether Baptisme can be denyed to such let the godly reader judge I avouch constantly against you that eyther they were not the children of the Iewes or they were not the Infants of beleeving Iewes or if their parents beleeved yet it followeth not thaâ— those Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised for Christ doth not say of these but of such is the kingdome of God Although you do so constantly avouch against me yet it is but your stout denyal without any reason or probabilitie to the contrary That these Infants which were brought to Christ were of the Iewes I have shewed my reasons before But not beleeving say you I answer how dare you deny them to be professors of the hart we are no judge stood they not members of the visible church and are they not so long to be accounted for beleevers nay they came to hear Christ and by presenting their children unto him and desiring him to pray testifyed their fayth in him and †1 Cor. 1â— 7. charitie binds us to esteem of such in the better part If their parents beleeved yet it followeth not that therefore these Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised c. It doth follow that these infants were of the kingdome of God in that Christ prayed for them Mar. 10. 16. conferred with Mar. 19. 13. but he * Joh. 17 â— prayed not for them that are not of his kingdome Yea Christ sayth not of these say you but of such And do you not think in your conscience that Christ in these words of such included those infants would he include others like to them exdude them As coÌ„cerning that place of Mat. 18. 3. 6. which you alledge to crosse my interpretatioÌ„ of these words it gaynes you nothing for the disciples coming to Christ and asking who is the greatest in the kingdome of heaven he teaching them humblenes called a little child not a man of years and set him in the midest of them saying except ye be converted become as little children ye shal not enter into the kingdome of heaven using the same word in this place for little children Mat. 18. 3. that is in Mark 10. 15. In Mat. 18. 6. for little ones is used another word that wil as wel agree to men of yeares so they be humble as to children And in verse the third Christ doth not deny children to be of the kingdome of God but teacheth his disciples by a simile to be humble mynded as little children or els they could not enter into the kingdome of God †Esa 66. 3â— Jam. 4. 6. 10. 1 Pet. â— 5. 6. who regards the lowly and giveth grace to such And this doth rather confirm my exposition in teaching none can enter into the kingdome but such as shal be like to infants Besides how can you prove that by the kingdome of God Christ understandeth the visible Church of the new Testament First for answer to this question I wil send you to Mr. Smyth in his * printed A. 1609. Paralels Censures and Observations pag. 22. who sayth That the true visible Church is CHRISTS sheepfold his kingdome c. Also pag. 15. of the same book The true Church in the scripture is called the howse of God the Temple of God the howsehould of faith and the kingdome of heaven of Christ and of God And in 17. pag. of the same book these are your words they that are not of a constituted Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome and pag. 16. you say that the visible Church is the onely kingdome of Christ that therefore they who are not members of Christs true visible Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome the like is affirmed in pag. 18. 19. considering therefore what you have written I marvel you demaund this question for by your owne words you insinuate that the kingdome of Christ or of God is the onely visible Church in that you say they are not of Christs kingdome that are not members of a true constituted Church and then must it needs follow that by kingdome of God in this place is understood the visible Church Rev. 18. 4 Luk. 19. â— 12. Act. 3. Mat. 5. â— Gen. 17. â— Psal 73. â— Psal 147 â— Rom. 9. Esa 28. â—6 51. 3 â— chap. 54 â—s 132. 13 â— 17. Ps 128. 1 â— Ps 1-3 â— 112. 1. 2 119. 1 â— 92. 13 4. 4. 5. â—at 5. 1 â— Eph. 5. 25 of the new Testament seing you say it is the onely kingdome of Christ. but I do not consent unto you herein for there be many of the kingdome of God that are no members of a true coÌ„stituted visible Church as * God 's people in Babylon and those seven thousand in Israel that never bowed their knee to Baall The kingdome of God extends more largely though invisibly then to the visible Church 2. To your question I answer that the visible †Church of the new Testament is the kingdome of God and so to understand it in this place of Maâ—k 10. 14. 15. is nothing repugnant to the circumstance and scope thereof although the kingdome of glorie is also intended both which are but one yet diversly considered And he that hath right to the one part hath right also to the other and therefore Christ saying of such is the kindome of God he meaneth his whol kingdome of grace and glorie Or how can you prove that Christ blessed none but members of the visible Church First I never did affirme that Christ blesseth none but the members of the visible Church and therefore you have no reason to require the proof thereof at my hands 2. If your question be of Gods general blessings then I answer that the Lord causeth “ the sunne to shine upon the iust and uniust and the rayne to fall vpon the good and evil all nations and people are partakers of many temporall blessings But if you speak of spirituall blessings and of those that are purchased by Christs death then I say * such blessings apperteyne to the Church and to the †true members thereof whether visible or invisible because “ Christ is given onely to his Church 〈◊〉 * 1 Cor. â— 2 Cor. 1. â— 21. 22. whom all the promises of God are yea and in him Amen Or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham apperteyneth onely to the members of the visible Church c. And I
ask you why you put me to the proof of it seing I never held any such thing Nay I deny that the blessing of God reacheth no further then to the members of the visible Church for the Churches †King 18. Rev. 4. members are many invisible but that the blessing of Abraham perteyneth to the visible Church I hope you wil not deny see Ephe. 2. 11-22 3. 6 19. 4. 8 -14 2 Cor. 4. 9. Col. 1. 3-6 1 Thes 1. 2. 10. in all which places in divers others it doth appeare that these visible Churches had received the blessing of Abraham Or that from this particular of Christs praying for infants Mar. 10. 13. baptising of infants to follow My argument from this place of Mat. 10. 13. 14. to prove that baptisme belongs to the infants of beleevers you have already and have not answered it why require you it againe I have proved that infants are of the Kingdome of God as also that the holy things of God as baptisme c. belong to all the members of this kingdome But further to satisfie your desire thus I prove baptisme to belong to infants from this particular of Christs praying for them For whom Christ prayed they were of his everlasting covenant for he prayed for them ¶ Ioh. 17. 10. 20. which were given him and not for the world But Christ prayed for these infants Mat. 19. 13. Therefore these infants were of his everlasting covenant and so consequently baptisme the signe thereof belonged vnto them seing God both in making “‘ Gen. 17 7 -10 this covenant with Abraham gave to him and to his seed together with it circumcision the seale thereof And also in commanding the †Mat. 2â— 19. publishing of the same covenant to all nations did withall command baptisme to be administred Againe those whom Christ blesseth he blesseth with the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3. 14. conferd with vers 8. 16. 9. But Christ blesseth these infants Mar. 10. 16. Therefore Christ blesseth them with the blessing of Abraham and so consequently these infants were capable of baptisme because the Lord hath ioyned together the blessing or covenant and the signe or seale thereof as before hath bene shewed Or how caÌ„ you prove that Christ obtayned for theÌ„ prayed for remissioÌ„ of sinnes the holy Ghost fayth everlasting life for many were brought to Christ for releife of bodily infirmities And I demande of you againe for what other things should Christ pray for these Infants but for spirituall graces there is no mention that they were brought for the curing of any bodily infirmitie in them and if they had been diseased it is like the Apostles would not have hindered their Mat 19. â— comming to Christ the end of their †bringing of their infants to him was to put his hands vpon them and to pray The reason that Christ yeeldeth why they should suffer little children to come to him because of such is the kingdome of God doth argue of what nature the things were he prayed for Againe where Christ prayed for the curing of any corporall disease Mat 8. 4. 15. â— 28. 29. â— Mat 8. â—6 it is recorded with what * infirmitie they that he prayed for were troubled that so the miracle might be knowen which was the end of his doing of great works The “ Centurion requiring Christ for his servant shewed his disease but those that brought the infants mention no corporall infirmity for which they should desire him to pray for them Thus you having made all these questions you proceed to a second answer saying I deny that it followeth because Christ blessed some of the infants of the Iewes or Gentiles vpon speciall intreatie therefore that it may hence be concluded that generally the covenant and the seal of the covenant as you call baptisme doth apperteyne to them for there is not the same reason of all infants as of some specially blessed as Iohn Baptist Ieremy Sampson I marvel greatly that you will thus shift off doth not my reason prove that the covenant and seal therof apperteyneth to the infants of the faithfull seing of such is the kingdome of God Doth Christ say these infants are blessed onely because they alone are of the kingdom of God Nay sayth he not of such including other infants also is the kingdome of God And dooth not the reason which our Saviour useth here why these infants should come to him inferre so much for they that brought them being stayed he reasons thus against his disciples why they ought not to hinder them because of such as these are is the Kingdome of God meaning not all infants but the infants of beleevers as these were But in that you say there is not the same reason of all infants as of some speâ—â—lly blessed c. Neyther doo we reason for such speciall blessings or callings as were â—iven to John Baptist Jeremy or Sampson but for the right of the covenant â—o appertayne to all the seed of the faithfull for although God do out of â—he seede of beleevers chose some whome he wil imploy to speciall service aâ—ove others and therefore doth bestowe on them more then ordinary â—iftes yet this hinders not the rest of the infants of the faythfull from â—heir right to Gods covenant or coÌ„mon salvation Neyther indeed can you prove that these infants which were blessed of Christ were blessed with any extraordinary blessings or callings for no â—â—ch things is recorded of them therefore to compare them their blesâ—nge with these three extraordinarie servants of God John Baptist Ieremy â—d Sampson is not to make an equall comparison Thirdly If Baptisme doth appertaine to infants because Christ blesseth some partiâ—ular infants and because Christ saith the Kingdome of God appertaines to such then the lords supper also I answer that doth not follow the ordinances of Christ belong to the members of the Church and they are to partake of them as they are capable The infantes of the Iewes could receive circumcision at eight dayes of age but could not eat the passeover so likewise the children of Christians are capable of Baptisme the first day of their birth but not of the Lords â—pper because the Lord Iesus of such as participates therof requires †1. Cor. 11 26-31 to examine themselves to shew forth the Lords death c. which children cannot performe in regard of their yeares And therefore it wil not follow that if infants are to be baptised therefore to receive the Lords supper And though you would prevent this answer by saying They must have it meaning the Lords supper as sone as they can eat it I grant as much as sone as they can eate it as the Lord hath * 1. Cor. 11 27. commanded They cannot confesse their sinnes and faith and so cannot be baptised To this objection sufficient answer is given already and further occasion of answer wil follow 4. I would know why the
theire Reasons we do chalendge al the separation in speciall to the combate This Challenger would fayne have the world to take notice that he deales with an adversary that is too weak to try out this controversy with him so to forestall mens judgments before ever they come to the reading of my answere And because he would not be seene to be the Author himselfe of my disgrace he imputeth this report to the Rabbies of the Separation as it pleaseth him in his taunting maner to terme them who I am perswaded are guiltles thereof But if any had so sayd vnto him in private yet doth he in publishing the same breake the bounds of love For myne owne parte whether any have so spoken or not it shal not offend me I knowe the Lord measureth his guiftes to every one as he wil. 1 Cor. 12. 8. 11. I praise God for that I have and do not envy but reioyce in the graces that God bestoweth vpon others and pray that they may vse them to his glory and to edification Notwithstanding though Mr Smyth thinke me to weake to incounter with him yet the Lord assisting me I meane not for all these his disgraceful speeches to yeeld him the cause or give back one foot from the defence thereof knowing that the truth which I contend for wil discover and convince his damnable errors the which though he set a glorious shew vpon as a marchant of false wares by misapplying of Scriptures yet wil the falsehood of them appeare to al such whose eies God shal open to discerne between the truth and lyes Moreover if I in my weaknes make to appeare how vnconscionably untruly Mr Smyth dealeth against the truth his glorious boasting and Philistine valour will have the more disgrace then if he had dealt with men of greater guifts and God shall have the greater glorie to foyl such a warlike Champion with weak and base meanes As for my allegations and reasons which he saith are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies c. herein he both taxeth me and wrongeth them me as if I had bene but their pen man in my former answer them in saying my reasons are their best plee whereas he hath had neither conference with them by speeches or writing about these matters save onely with Mr Robinson And therefore so to speak without triall bewrayes but the bitternes of his spirit against them Thus Mr Smyth preparing way for his great challendge by pretending mine insufficiencie calles forth the Rabbies as he termes them to speak challendging the whol Separation to the combate wheras a wise man would haue spared such speaches vntil he had seen the issue of his combate already attempted and not thus to provoke others until he had greater likelihood of victorie As for those reverend men whom now he calles vpoÌ„ for better if they can say better they haue already sayd and written so much against his errors as I am assured he wil never be able to answer and when it pleaseth him to reply if there be occasion I doubt not but as they have done so the Lord will inable them to batter downe with spiritual weapons his greatest forces that he shal be able to raise against the truth And whereas Mr Smyth seemeth to insinuate that by his answering of my reasons he hath answered theirs herein he is deceaved for the Reasons in my former answer be they what they are I acknowledge for mine own though written unto him without any purpose of publishing if therfore weaknes be found in them let it be imputed vnto me and neither to our Teachers who had no hand in setting downe thereof nor yet to the truth it self As for his challenging of the whole Separation and other his intemperate speaches in his epistle they bewray in him a malicious hart against our poore Church and puft vp with too loftie a conceit of his 〈◊〉 strength Did ever any of the Prophets or servants of God thus chal 〈…〉 ge a combate with the Lords people in deed such braving speeches 〈…〉 eeded from Goliath 1 Sam. 17. 10. that defied the whol hoast of Is 〈…〉 and from Rabsake 2. King 18. 23-25 against the Iewes But â—as never heard that an Israelite professing the religion of God vsed 〈◊〉 proud chalendges as this man doth I pray you Mr. Smyth wherein hath the separation offended you or my wise wronged you that you desyre rather to quarrel with them then with other Churches holding the same truth in this thing agaynst you To the Elders and brethren were you most welcome and glad they were of you so long as you walked in the fayth with them Why is it that you â—â—e become their adversary is it because they have rejected you and your company for your errors which you wilfully mayntayne Alas they must â—o it vnles they would become vnfaythful to God Next after this Chalendge Mr. Smyth chargeth the separation with a 〈◊〉 constitution ministery worship and government saying Be it knowen to all the Separation that we account them in respect of their con 〈…〉 tion to be as very an harlot as eyther her mother England or her grandmother 〈◊〉 is And although we held her a true church in our ignorance yet now being better informed c. we protest agaynst her as wel for her false constitution as for her false Ministery worship and goverment c. the false constitution is of infants baptised Concerning the constitutioÌ„ of a Church we do not hold that any visible Church can stand onely of infants neyther that their baptisme doth geve the being thereof 1. Seing there can be no baptising of infants where there are not first Elder people with whome they come vnder the covenant of God 2. Baptism is an other thing divers from the Church Ephe. 4. 4. 5. and it maketh none to be the people of God onely it sealeth vp to be his people them that are so formerly by vertue of his covenant 3. Els Turkes or Indians professing the Popish Religion being baptized should be a true Church for Mr. Smyth holdeth the †Charact. pag. 51. baptism of such to be true baptism if so they confesse their fayth sinns 4. Then circumcision should have made the Sichemites a true Church for that which baptism can doe now in constituting of a Church circumcisioÌ„ could do then wherfore I say baptism is an ordinance of Christ geven to his Church to seale vp his covenant to his people but is not that whol essential constitutioÌ„ therof And therefore our baptizing of infants if it were admitted to be vnlawful can not make the constitution of our Church to be false much les being the commaundement of the Lord can it so doo And thus Mr. Smyth fayleth in the first poynt of his charge As for the other things he chargeth vs withall shall receave answere in their due place But here further he proceedeth to affirme That no man can separate from England as
reason is from the testimonie of Tertullian Eusebius The words of Tertullian as Mr Sm. himself hath englished them are these Therfore to deferre not to hasten baptisme is more profitable for the condition disposition age of every person but especially as concerning yong children for what 〈…〉 there to bring sureties into danger for the baptising of Infants if there be no 〈…〉 of hastening the baptising of infants Seing the Sureties are disabled often 〈…〉 to performe theire promise both by reason of mortalitie and of the evil dispositiâ— sâ—â—e children when they come to yeares for whom they promised in baptisme c. â— First concerning Tertullian it is to be noted that thus he writeth â—n he was fallen into the opinions of the Cataphriges or Montanists â—â— so held divers errors as Augustine and others have observed out of â— workes And therefore being thus departed from the fayth Let â—e Reader judge if this man be a competent witnesse in this case Yet â—th not this man affirme that infants were not baptised in his tyme but â—ther the contrary in that he makes mention of Sureties for infants sayâ—g what necessitie is there to bring Sureties into danger for the baptising of infants â—hich words do plainly argue that the Church then used to baptise inâ—ts 2. Agayne that which he affirmeth was his owne private judgment â—d his Reasons are of no weight as the bringing of sureties into daunger and â—â— the suerties are disabled oftentymes to performe theire promise c. such sureties â—ot being appointed of God 3. P. Mart. Clas 4. ca. 8. affirmeth that â—â—tullian denyed Baptism to yong men and yong widowes and his owne â—rdes here related do seeme to intimate some such like thing in saying 〈…〉 ferre and not to hasten baptism is more profitable for the condition disposition and â—â— of every person And this he meaneth of others then yong children For â—er he speaketh of yong children saying especially concerning yong children â— 4. Crispen State of the Church pag. 47. 48. witnesseth that Tertullian brought â— extreeme vnction after baptism the Sygne of the Crosse offering for the dead and â—er the like dreames of the Montanists Now if Tertullians judgment be â—and agaynst infants baptism why not also for extream vnction the sygne â—f the Crosse and the like his errors seing all these are fruits proceeding â—om the same tree But thus this adversary careth not who the witnesse is so he wil speake in favour of his heresy let him be Montanist Papist or what othersoever But let it be further observed that about Tertullians tyme and after some deferred theire baptisme vntil they thought they should dye and so were not baptised vntil they fell into some great sicknes as Theodosius others And this seemeth to be Tertullians error as if baptisme was for washing awaye of sinnes past and not to come Concerning that which Eusebius reporteth of Athanasius his bap 〈…〉 of children in sport I have answered pag. 109. and set downe reasons â— prove that those children were not children of the church but of some oâ— the heathen which were instructed in the fayth of Christ by the church but were not received into the communion of the same These are the two Auncients that M. Smyth produceth against us whereof neither of theâ— affirmeth that the church did not baptise infants in those tymes Now to these two I wil oppose other two Auncients amongst many others that do testifie that infants in their tymes and before were baptised viz. Origin who sayth that the church received from the Apostles to give baptisme to infants lib. 5. ad Rom. And Augustine de Bap. contra Donatist lib. 4. cap. 23. who speaking of the Baptisme of Infants sayth that which the whole church holdeth neyther is ordeyned by councels but alwayes hath been holden we are to beleeve to be delivered by Apostolical authoritie The next corruption that the Separation is charged withal is to have a false ministerie Now the Ministers that we have are of Pastors Teachers called thereunto by election of the Church according to these Scriptures Eph. 4 9. 11 12. Rom. 12 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12 28. Acts. 13 1 2. Revel 1 20. Nehem 8 1 8. Mat. 23 2. Mal 2 7. Act. 14. 23. And practise of the primitive churches And of this Ministerie of Pastors and Teachers M. Smyth himself approveth in his Principles pag. 18. and in his Questions and answers pag. 8. printed this last year 1609. he describing the officers of the Church devides them first into Bishops and Deacons then the Bishops into Pastors or Teachers or Elders and withal describeth the Pastor to be a bishop over one particular Church excelling in the word of wisdome The Teacher to be a Bishop over one particular church excelling in the word of knowledge The Governour to be a Bishop of one particular visible Church excelling in wise government Thus hath he written and yet we having no other Ministerie then he himself approveth chargeth us to have a false Ministerie not caring to crosse himself so he may utter his bitternes against the Church of Christ The 3. corruption this adversarie chargeth us withal is false worship of reading books This he sayth but proves it not I will breifly set downe our practise that the Reader may take notice how unjustly we are charged 1. For prayer giving of thanks that is publiquely performed by our Pastor or Teacher who invocate the name of God praise him for his benefits â—s the spirit directs their harts to conceive and giveth utterance â—ithout the use of any book during that action according to those â—ptures Rom. 8. 26. 27. Eph. 6 18 19. Col. 4 2. Act. 6 4. Num. 6 23. â—4 27. Nehem. 9 3 38. Ezra 9 5 15. 10. 1. Ioel. 2 17. 2. They read the holy scriptures translated into our owne language â—me two or three chapters or moe as tyme wil serve shewing briefly the â—eaning thereof Which is warranted by these Scriptures Neh. 8 3 8. â—eut 31 11. Act. 15 21. Col. 4 16. 1 Thes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 4 13. 3. The Pastor or Teacher taketh some Scripture which they ordinarily â—llow and after the reading thereof do expound and apply the same by doctrine exhortation c. to the further edification of the church according to these scriptures Luk. 4. 16. 21. Act. 8. 35. 13 15. and 26. 7. â— Tim. 4 13. 2 Tim. 4 2. And together with the preaching of the word the Sacraments are administred after the rules of Christ with prayer and thankesgiving according to these Scriptures Mat. 28 19. 1 Cor. 11 23. c. Act. 20 7. c. 4. Some of the Psalmes of David before and after the exercise of the â—ord the same being first read and opened by the Pastor or Teacher is â—ing of the whole church together to the praise of God and our own ediâ—â—cation according to these Scriptures Eph. 5 19. Col. 3 16. Mat 26
Apostles put infants back and why Christ did not command them to be baptised c. Why would you know that which is not written that the Apostles did not well in putting them back Christ his rebuking of them doth manifest What may be coniectured hath bene noted before And as foâ— Christ his not commanding them to be baptised I answer Christ performed that which they required of him the text doth not mention that they came to desire baptisme and therefore there was no cause that he should command them to be baptised Next you labour to weaken such proves as I brought from the scriptures to confirme my Argument withall saying You see by that which hath bene answered that both your maior and minor ar weak and the scriptures alledged by you do not confirme them for the place 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours that is theirs that actually beleeve and are baptized c. My major and minor are so weak that you can disprove neyther of theÌ„ As touching your answer to this scripture 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply it Cor. 3. 21 â—2 onely to them that actually beleeve which the text sayth not the Apostles meaning in this place is that all such helpes as the Lord Iesus hath appointed for the benefit of his people are theirs whether they be men of yeares or infants for he speakes to the whol Church inclusively whereof the children are members †as hath bene proved But you say I must prove Mat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 â— that infants have the use of all I have answered that they are to have the use of so many of Gods ordinances as they in regard of their yeares and knowledge are able to partake of But not satisfyed herewith you demand further saying Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of salvation c. I answer that all the members of the Church are capable and partakers Eph. 5. 25 â—6 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12. of all the meanes of their * salvation which is Iesus Christ yea children †els can they not be saved But as concerning the outward ordinances of the Church as the ministerie of the word Sacraments and such like though they be necessarie in their due place yet the use of them is not at all tymes and of all persons required the Israelites borne in the wildernes were not circumcised by the space of fortye yeares neyther was the Passeover commanded to infantes to offer sacrifice or the like though †Dâ—â— 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. â— Mar. 10. these were necessarily required of them that were growne to yeares so that tyme and age doth priveledge some from the practise of those things which otherwise they are bound to observe The next Scripture is Rom. 9. 4. wherein you except against the Kom 9. word appertayneth and say It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning â—f the Apostle For your excepting against the word appertayneth saying it is â— into the text you seeme to contend before you be provoked I onely quoâ—ed that place of Rom. 9. 4. and did not set downe the wordes And therefore to strive about a word added in the translation is to strive against your owne shadow I defend no words added whereby the text is misconstrued But although no verbe be expressed in the original yet gramatical coÌ„struction requires some verbe to be vnderstood as this verbe is or appertainâ—th or some such like and if is be vnderstood it is the same in sense with appertayneth But you say Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnall Israelites were actually within the covenent of grace c. Paul intends to set downe the dignitie and prerogative of the people which he had chosen to him selfe to be his inheritance and to shew that Gods word is true although Israel be cast of he performeth his promise to so many of them as he had chosen in his secrete counsel And this is all that the Apostle intendeth To your carnal covenant and to the offer of the spiritual I have answered before Lastly whereas I did affirme that infants vnder the Gospel were as capable of baptisme as children vnder the lawe you answer That baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Testament as Circumcision was the seale of the old Testament and that infantes of the old Testament were capable absolutely seing that to be circumcised there was nothing requyred but a foreskin apt to be cut of but to baptisme in the new Testament there is required actual fayth repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47. That †pag. 37. Baptisme is the seale of the new Testament is proved before also that circumcisioÌ„ was * pag. 12. a seale of the same spiritual covenaÌ„t to the Israelites and that our infants are as capable of baptisme as the Iewes were of circumcision your reasons alledged to the contrary are of no force for the difference you put between the two sacraments of circumcision and baptisme is but a florish for as the profession of actual fayth and repentance is â—zra 6. 21. â—ter 8. 17. required of all them that are of yeares to baptisme so †was it of the proselytes to circumcision And if you would compare Infants with Infants and men of yeares with such like then shall you see that there is no more required of our infantes that are to be baptised then of the children of the Iewes and proselites nor lesse looked for of men of yeares vnder the old Testament then now vnder the new As for the scriptures that you alledg they witnes what is required of the elder sort to be received into the visible Church and not of infants Out of this your answer you collect 5 arguments against Paedobaptistry the first is this They that are not members of the visible Church have no title to the holy things of God and therefore are vncapable of them and so of baptisme Infantes of the faythful are not actually members of the visible Church for these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of these infantes were beleeving Iewes or if they were beleevers their infantes were already baptized with their parents according to your doctrine and so Christ cannot intend baptisme to appertayne to them but the rest of the ordinances Ergo c. I deny the minor the reason proves it not do affirm that the infants of the faythful are meÌ„bers of the same Church with their pareÌ„ts have right to the holy things therof as may thus be shewed first AbrahaÌ„s house was a visible Church of God the infantes of Abraham and of his servantes are Gen. 17. â—2 sayd to “ be born in his house wherevpon I conclude that they were part of Abrahams family for in
coÌ„maÌ„dement of sealing of the covenant expired therfore infants are stil to be sealed with baptisme which succedeth circuÌ„cision In the last place you require prose that onely persons that confessed their sinns their faith were baptised I prove it thus They onely were to be baptised that Christ coÌ„manded to be baptised persons made disciples by teaching were onely commanded to be baptised by Christ Mat. 28. 29. Ergo c. I deny your Assumption the affirmative is not to baptise them onely that are made disciples by teaching but also their seed as formerly hath been proved and you feighne a false negative to that affirmative in Mat. 28. 19. 2. Againe considering that in every affirmative there is included a negative therefore wheresoever example is that persons confessing their sinns and their fayth were baptised there is signified that those that did not confesse their sinues c. were not baptised This is graunted of such as were of yeares and to be added to the Church so now to be practised towards any of the Turks or such like that should come to the faith But this is false that because persons confessing their faith were baptised therfore the infants of the faithful not able to make confession of their faith shall not be baptised Willing confessing must be opposed to actuall refusing if the argument according to the mind of the holy Ghost stand good For we must know that the bodie is one c. and the seed one and not two for in the new Testament they know God from the least to the greatest Heb. 8. 11. and they are al taught of God Mat 11. 11. and this I take to be a playne proofe of the point which you desire This serves rather to prove that children are to be baptised because they are of the same body of Christ To affirme infants to be baptised is not to hold two seedes of contrary natures as you charge us for as the father so are his children partakers of the covenaunt and both are a holy seed children of God in respect thereof though the father professe his faith the childe cannot in respect of age the father can reason so cannot his infant yet both of them are of the same nature reasonable creatures And be it that some of the children whose parents professe the faith are not elected so may it be also that the father that confesseth his faith is not elected but this belongs not to us we are to hold them as children of the covenant as the word teacheth â— 8. 11. Concerning Heb. 8. 11. all shall know me c. it must be vnderstood of all that are capable of knowledge God promised a more singular grace of illumination under the gospel of those thinges which the Church had more obsurely before Christs comming so doth he promise remission of sinnes wherof childreÌ„ are partakers shal be of this heavenly knowledge also as by yeres they shal be able to learne the want whereof doth no more hinder them from being partakers of Gods promise in Christ then the want of knowledge hinders an infant to be heire to his fathers inheritance But if this be an argument of force against the baptising of infants because the Lord sayth I wil put my lawes in their harts then wil this be as forceable against them that are of yeres that they need not be taught because the same Lord sayth they shall not teach every man his neighbour c. and so teaching shal be overthrowen also The true sense is to be sought after â— not thus to pervert scriptures aÌ„s you do to your own destruction Touching that of Ioh. 6. 45. they shal be al taught of God it must be understood Ioh. â— of al as they are capable of instruction the promise is made to the church Esa 54. 13. and so to children as also that in Hebr. 8 11. and shal be fulfilled to every one as they shal be able to understand Next upon my speeches affirming that of Iohn it is not said that he refused to baptise infants you say that Iohn his preaching was such as peremptorilie excluded infants for it was the baptisme of repentance c. Iohns preaching of repentance is the preaching of the Gospell which excludes not children your reason is not good for baptisme of repentance respects the tyme to come and not onely sinns past and byndeth the baptised to continual mortification And both Iohn Christ preached to the Iewes which * Act. 2. â— 3. 25 were of the covenant and therefore called them to repentance and taught them to beleeve that Christ was come whom they looked for For being not regenerate c. yet they could not enter into the kingdome of God Joh. 3. 5. Christ in Iohn 3. 5. speaketh of true members in his sight we are to hold the professors with their seed to be regenerate because they are of the covenant until the contrary appear by their deeds And here it would be considered vnto whom Christ and Iohn spake unto the Jewes c. and yet he sayd repent and beleeve Now if the Jewes had been truly regenerate in their communion Iohn needed not to have required such conditions of them but in few words might have sayd come you faythful and al your infants and be baptised 1. Iohn spake to them that were of yeares and had sinned therefore repentance was necessarily required not so of Infants that have not committed actual sinne 2. The preaching of the Gospel belongs to the regenerate I mean the preaching of repentance and fayth seeing we are but regenerate in part and “ dayly sinne The primitive churches I hope Mat. 6 1â— you wâ—ll graunt were regenerate in their communion I use your termes yet to them was preached †Rev. 2. 5. 16. 21. and 3. 3. 20. repentance Ergo your reason fayles you 3. The members of al true churches whether under the old or new Testament are holy in regard of Gods covenant and so wee are to walke towards them but that every particular person is truly regenerate is not our faith because in visible Churches †Joh. 2. 19 there may be hypocrites man oft fayleth on his part * and breaketh of Notwithstanding †charitie bindes â—om 11. 20. 1 Cor. 13. vs to hope the best until the contrarie appeare Lastly where you say That the Iewes were not faythful in their coÌ„munioÌ„ because Iohn saith the Lord wil purge his store Christ sayth they are of your father the Divil 1. This may fall out to any true Church to have unfaythfull members that may pollute their coÌ„munion see the Churches of Asia Rev. 2. 4. 5 14. 15. 20. 21. 3. 1. 2. 16. of Galatia Gal. 3. 1. but what is this to the purpose that the Iewes became unfaithful but by the way remeÌ„ber that they ought to haue bene faithful which you deny to that Church did not Gods covenant stand stil
confesse the Lord these were called “ Acâ— proselytes which signifies a stranger coming and converted to their manner of religion as the Eunuch such like And it is not to be doubted that the Iewes would ever admit into their communion and to administer circumcision unto a Gentile that did not renounce his heathnishnes and professe their fayth seeing †Ex. 12 one law was to them that were borne in the land and to the stranger that dwelled amongst them therefore as much required of them that were to joyne to the Church of the old Testament as is now of theÌ„ that wil ioyne to the Church of the new And so I hav shewed you that more was required of theÌ„ that were circumcised then to be a male for every one must be a professor or the child of a professor so much is required coÌ„cerning baptisme no more And to your particulers I answer that these things were also required of the Israelites CoÌ„cerning the two former infants both have Ch. wer are circumcised in hart in that they are partakers of the covenant of graceâ— we are to hold them partakers of Christs benefits Mat. 19. 13. 14. For the third point that we must learne what the schoolmaster of the old Testament doth teach It is for such as are of yeares and was required of the Israelites and not of us onely as the writings of Moses and the Prophets do shew And where you say this must be done of al before they can be baptised it is your addition which you can never prove Moreover if you by old Testament do mean the writings of Moses the Prophets then can not we †learne al that they can teach us whylest we live Cor. 13. â— unlesse you dream of perfection with the Familists and so by your doctrine shal not be baptised But if by old Testament you mean Moses administration Heb. 8. 9. â—3 Gal. 3 25. it is * abrogated and seing “ fayth is come we are not under that schoolmaster to be taught by such legal types and ceremonies as were the Iewes And so your doctrine is false howsoever it be understood And whereas you wonder at me and at your self that we could not see so evident a truth al this tyme for myne owne part I saw I thank God long since and stil do see your evident truth as you cal it to be a manifest Act. 13. 10 error And further I see that God hath given you over to †pâ—rvert the right wayes of the Lord and to be the leader of others into heresie and so for just cause known to himself blynded your eyes and hardened your hart This is that great comfortable state that now you stand in God in his mercy deliver you forth of it To the 2. particular of my Answer to your reason you thus reply 1. Your distinction is without warrant and I deny that Infants of the faythful are to be considered in these two respects And whereas you bring Gen. 17. 7 1 Câ—r 7. 14. to prove the latter part of your distinction I have answered these two places alreadie shewing your false exposition of them c. And these two places of scripture I have likewise formerly proved to stand with my exposition where it wil appear that this is but a calumniatioÌ„ of yours and that my exception is not frivilouâ— For first you wil not deny that the children of the faythfull are carnall in respect of their naturall berth then being proved within the covenant in that regard they must â— Cor. 7. 14 needs be spiritual and as the Apostlâ— calleth them * holy To the third particular of my Answer you reply saying The sacrament of baptisme is prophaned when it is administred upon a wrong subiâ—ct as to give the Lords supper to an infant of two yeares old so to baptise an infant is â—â—phanation c. That to baptise an infant is a prophanation of baptisme I deny and by sundry reasons I have proved the contrarie shewing that infants are not a wrong subject but a right subject for baptisme As for the Lords supper the institution and use of it and the actions duties required of them that eat and drink at that table shew it to be otherwise for the not giving of it to infants But you say As profession of fayth shal intitle any man to al the ordinances of the Church and fâ—rst to baptisme So absence of confession of fayth shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the church in communion And afterward you say Although I dare not say this or that infant is not under the election of God yet I dare say that never an infant in the earth is actually seazed of the new Testament which is onely attayned by confession of sinne and of fayth c. Mar. 1. 15 Ioh. 3. 3. Eph. 3. 17. c. To this I have answered before and have shewed that profession of fayth is required of such as were never of the church and that with them their seed enters in also but that absence of confession shal debarre every one from the orrdinances of the church can never be proved seing there is not a like reason of persons without and of infants borne in the church Also I have shewed that infants are actually seazed of the new Testament according to the â—enure of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed I mean so actually seazed as we are to repute them children of the covenant And here also I mynd that al infants to you stand in the state of condemnation this is your Gospel contrary to Gen 17. 7. Act. 2 39. 3 25. Gal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Concerning the Scriptures which you alledge I answer first that all Mar. â— three places are applyed to them of yeares secondly in Mar. 1. 15. the Evangelist setts down in breif the summe of Christs doctrine the unfolding thereof doth reach to the faythful and their seed as by his own action Iohn 3. â— appeareth Mat. 19. 13. 13. Mar 10. 14. In Ioh. 3. 3. Christ speakes of regeneration without which none can enter into the kingdome of God and he speakes to Nicodemus that was a member of the Iewish church into which as also into the visible Churches under the new Testament many did and may enter into with outward confession onely as did Simon Magus though their harts be not regenerate And therefore this scripture speaking of that grace of God which is imvisible is not fitly alleadged for this purpose where we are to judge of members of the church not as they stand so before God in his secret counsel but as they externally appear to us within Gods covenant by their confession or otherwise That of Ephes 3 17. is also spoken to them that were of yeares who â—h 3 17. being beleevers they theirs were Christs of whom is named the wholâ— familie in heaven
to teach us that live under the Gospel And if they be in force to teach then are we to learne and to be taught by them As for Christ his faythfulnes in teaching us his new Testament which you think is diminished if we labour to prove any of the ordinances thereof from the Scriptures of the old Testament know you that we hold Christ * Heb. 3. 2. to be faythful to him that hath appointed even as Moses in al his howse And yet no disparagement to him or the new Testament but rather an honour to prove the parts and observances thereof from Moses and the Prophets For he that bad us Search the scriptures did also himself to the two disciples that went to Emaus “ Luk. 24. â—â— beginne at Moses and at all the Prophets and interpreted unto them in al the Scriptures the things which were written of him Which practise of Christ as it doth teach us that we may learn Christ and the new Testament out of Moses and the Scriptures of the old Testament so doth it manifest his faythfulnes that taught and fulfilled al that was prophesied of him not imposing upon his church any new doctrine not heard of before Baptisme under the Gospell is proved out of the old Testaments the Iewes did not think it strange to be at the coming of the Messiah Ioh. 1. 25. And Mr. Smyth sayth that the Iewes baptismes were into the Messias to come in type Ergo our baptisme being the thing typed must needs have warrant from the old Testament and then it is no disgrace to goe to school to Moses to learn it And first I would know why we may not as wel with the Papists fetch one high Repl. Priest from Moses succession in the Ministerie from Moses succession in the Church from Moses as a succession in baptisme from Moses and in effect you fetch a succession of the Church from Rome for in fetching a succession of Baptismâ— from Rome which is the forme of the church yea and in fetching a succession of the matter of the church which is the seed of the Parents baptised you of necessitie make the church of Rome a true Church First for the Priesthood of Moses the Ceremonies and such like ordinances Answ of the church under the old Testament they are †Heb. 7. 12. c. cha â— ch 9. â— cha 10. Col. 2. 16. 17. removed by the coming of Iesus Christ and therefore there cannot be any succession thereof under the Gospel save in Christ but of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and sealed to him and his seed before the law was given is no abrogation thereof There is an everlasting continuance which you call a succession not onely in the Church of the old Testament but also under the Gospell as the Apostles do * Gal. 3. 8 9. Act. 2. 3 witnes as also “ Mat. 28. 19. a continuance of the sealing of the same And therefore we must plead such a succession both of the covenant and sealing thereof from our father Abraham seing it is the †Gal. 3. 8. 14. 17. 28. 4. 28. same wherein we of the Gentiles are comprehended And this difference between this Covenant and the law and ordinances of the old Testament if it please you to take notice of will answer your question about succession Yet I would not have you mistake me for although I hold in this sense a continual succession of the people of God partakers of this covenant of salvation I affirme not that there hath been alway and at al tymes known established churches keeping soundly all the ordinances of Christ and making visible profession thereof In the Apostacie of Israel the Lord had his seven thowsand that never bowed their knee to Baal to whom this covenant belonged and so had he in “ Rev. 18. 4 antichristianisme Again we fetch not a succession of Baptisme from Moses otherwise then the Apostles have taught us Col. 2. 10. 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21. The sealing of the covenant was commanded to Abraham and never repealed save onely the outward signe changed as before is sayd And as we fetch no otherwise succession from Moses or the old Testament then hath been sayd No more do we succession of the Ministerie or of any other ordinance of Christ but in like manner and upon like warrant 2. Concerning fetching of succession of our church froÌ„ Rome because of our Baptisme I answer 1. that Baptisme as also the Scriptures were given to the Church of Rome when she was a true church and she retayning them in her Apostasie we receive them as Christe word and baptisme though continued through her corrupt Ministerie and estate 2. If according to your terming succession of Baptisme be graunted being an ordinance of God yet will it not followe that therefore we must reteyn the whoredomes of the church of Rome which we are coÌ„manded to separate from Rev. 18. 4 because we retein baptisme but rather thus as we have baptisme froÌ„ Christ so are we to have the coÌ„stitution of our church what is polluted in eyther by Antichrist to reject 3. Our retayning of baptisme administred in the Apostate churches doth no more prove that we fetch succession of our church from Rome then the Israelites that were circumcised in the church of Ieroboam returning to Ierusalem did fetch the succession of their church froÌ„ the Apostate church of Israel If it be objected that this people now separated from that Apostacy were matter of that false church and so we fetch a succession of the matter of our church from a false church I answer that al such of Gods people that stand members of those Antichristian assemblies must be considered two wayes 1. in respect of us and their outward standing so are they members of those Assemblies 2. in respect of the Lord and their election so are they no members thereof but the matter of Gods invisible church in tyme becoming visible As on the contrarie in a visible church al the people thereof in our account are held true members yet †hypocrites 1 Ioh. 2. 19. in the Lords account are no members or matter thereof And as the Apostle sayth of Antichrists if they had been of us they should have continued with us so I say of Gods people in Babilon if they had been of that Antichristian church they should have continued with them but by their coÌ„ing out it appeares that they are not of them and therefore we cannot be sayd to have the matter of our church by succession froÌ„ Antichristianisme but by the gracious work of God in his people of al ages and to use your word of Succession as it were by a secret and hidden succession even from the Apostles tymes And thus it wil not follow as you say that we make the church of Rome a true church If Infants of the church of Rome have true tytle
to Baptisme by reason of the fayth Repl. of some of their Auncestors that were faythful then are they the true matter of the visible church c. We do not say that the Infants of the church of Rome have tytle to An. Baptisme by reason of their Ancestors fayth but do afferme that in respect of that Apostatical standing neither infants nor their parents have right to any of Gods ordinances neither is it inough that people be elected and thereby to have right to Gods covenant c. before God but to be members of the visible church and partakers of the holy things there must be a * Rev. 18. 4 visible going out of Babylon “ 2 Cor. 6. â—6 fâ—r what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols the vessels of the Lord must be caried out to Ierusalem then are they in their due place and shal have their true vse which in their Romish standing they could not have albeit in Babylon they were the vessels of the Lord. And herein are you deceived that if any of the ordinances of God be reteyned in the hands of Autichristians these ordinances must eyther make them a true visible Church or be none of his and when they are brought out thence have no vse These thing may also answer that which followes For upon this that we deny Baptisme administred in Poperie to be iterated you would conclude these absurdities to follow viz. That infants of the Church of Rome are a true visible Ch in the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ essential Repl. causes therof That the Church in the new testameÌ„t coÌ„meth by successioÌ„ of carnal genealogie through the church of Rome to our dayes That the matter of the church viz. Infants descending of baptised parents is by genealogie the form of the Church viz. baptism vpon those infants is by descent and therefore the Church is by succession I demaund why may not the Ministerie be by succession as wel as the Church and England and Rome true Churches their Ministery true c. To all which particulars I answer thus 1. Infants may be members Ans of a visible Church but that a visible Church can stand of infants onely we deny 2. Neyther Infants nor the elder sort standing in Antichristianism can be the matter of a true visible Church being so looked vpon according to that estate and respect 3. Baptisme which you would have the form hath his true use in the visible Church of Christ and to Gods people 4. let the people of God in Babylon and the Baptisme that there they receive be compared with Gods people in the apostate Church of Israel with their circumcision And it will appeare that the infants of the Church of Rome are not a true visible Church in the essential causes therof any more or otherwise then as they were in Israel CoÌ„cerning the Churches successioÌ„ by carnal genealogie I answer that as the covenaÌ„t was made with AbrahaÌ„ and his seed so vnder the Gospell doth the promise belong to the parents their childreÌ„ And that God had “ Apoc. 14. 4. his people in all the tymes of Popery that were within his covenant Neyther is this to hold succession of visible Churches but to vse your terme a succession of true beleevers in all ages though not alwayes known in publick it being the lot of the †Rev. 1. 13. 14. Church to be persequuted by the Dragon and driven to flee into the wildernes for a time times half a time And therefore seing the matter of the visible Church is not alwayes nor otherwise seen to descend from baptised persos by genealogie then as it did from parents circumcised in Israel there can be no other succession visible of the Church or Ministerie then is incident to such estate but as in Israel there was * a breaking off of both so hath King 12 33. â—ev 11. 7. 12. 14. â— 13. 7. 8. it fallen out under the new Testament a †surceasing of succession of true visible Churches and of the true Ministerie in the apostasie of Antichrist And this may satisfie you why we may not returne back againe to churches continuing in Apostasie But where you say you hear some are mynded to take up their former ministerie and returne back againe into England You should have done wel eyther to have forewarned such if you knew in them a purpose to sinne els not so easily to have received the report thereof to make it publike and so to cause suspition to arise against any brother undeservedly For myne own part I know none of the church to have any such thoughts If any that have left the fayth as you have done and departed from the church or for their sinne justly cast out so do purpose what is that to us look to it your selves And truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retayne the church and Ministerie of England as to retayne the baptisme and when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of England I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church Ministerie of England c. It may be you speak truer of your estate then you think But whatsoever Ans your perswasion is I mynd a difference to be put between baptisme administred in churches standing in Apostasie and the constitution and ministerie of these churches For baptisme being the ordinance of God may not be repeated as before is proved but those Assemblies that consist of confused multitudes and are not set in the wayes of God that have a false Ministerie and worship we have a speciall commandement * to separate Rev. 18. 4 Cor. 6. 17. from as we have from al corruptions of Gods ordinances but in no scripture to reject the ordinances themselves for any pollution that is upon them Now it is further to be remembred that we in retayning baptisme do not retayn the corruptions wherewith it was administred but that which is of God therein Neyther do we hold it lawful for them that are come out of Babylon to returne thither to fetch Baptisme And to make this difference to appeare more playnly Let be considered the example of those Israelites that returned to Ierusalem who cast not of theire circumcision yet might they not iustify for true that apostate Church or Ministery from which they did separate or continue in the coÌ„munion thereof without sinne But because I know the Ministerie and Church of England is false therefore it must needs be that Baptisme which is the forme of the Church essentially c. Repl. For the Ministerie of the Church of England whether it be true or false Ans is not the thing controverted between you and me but that baptisme in an apostate Church is false essentially I deny and your self confesseth * Charâ— pag. 35. that if it be administred by Antichrist to such as confesse their faith and sinnes it were true and not to be repeated which
THE PLEA FOR INFANTS AND ELDER PEOPLE concerning their Baptisme OR A PROCESSE OF THE PASSAGES between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton Wherein first is proved That the baptising of Infants of beleevers is an ordinance of God Secondly That the rebaptising of such as have been formerly baptised in the Apostate Churches of Christians is utterly unlawful Also The reasons and objections to the contrarie answered Divided into two principal heads I. Of the first Position concerning the baptising of infants II. Of the second Position concerning the rebaptising of Elder people Mat. 7. 15. 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves you shal know them by their fruits 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But there were false Prophets also among the people even as there shall be false Teachers among you which privily shal bring in daÌ„nable Heresies even denying the Lord that hath bought them bring upon themselves swift damnation And many shal follow their damnable wayes by whom the way of truth shal be evil spoken of Printed at Amsterdam by Gyles Thorp Anno 1610. To all them which are called and sanctified of God the Father and returned to Iesus Christ LEt it not seem strange deare brethren neyther cause any to distast the right wayes of the Lord because from amongst vs some have departed from the fayth and are turned after errors For the holy Ghost hath foretold vs that even from amongst our selves there should meÌ„ arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after theÌ„ Act. 20. 30. And with such the primitiue Apostolike Churches were greatly molested and that whylest the Apostles were living Iohn doth also witnesse that in his tyme there were many Antichrists they went sayth he out from us 1. Ioh. 2. 18. 19. meaning even out of the bosome of the Church And our Saviour sayth many false Prophets shall arise and deceive many Mat. 24. 11. And Peter saith many shall follow their damnable wayes 2 Pet. 2. 2. All which may teach vs not to be offended when the like doth befall to the Churches in our times Seing it is incident to Gods people not onely to be persecuted by enemies without but also greived with false brethren that under pretence of more sinceritie of religion will seek to destroy the faith being the very instruments of Satan whom he subborneth to deceive the unstable and to corrupt their minds from the simplicitie that is in Christ 2. Cor. 11. 3. These things being considered it behoveth us to mind the exhortations and warnings given by the Apostles of Christ that is to stand fast and keep the instructions which we have been taught 2 Thes 2. 15. And not to beleeve every spirit but to trie the spirits whether they be of God or no for many false Prophets are gone into the world 1 Ioh. 4. 1. And the rather it stands vs the more upon to take heed to our selves and be admonished by the word of the Lord because as the Divil on the one hand prevayleth in these our times by worldly arguments of profite pleasure and the likeâ— to keep many back from walking in the right wayes of God So on the other hand under glorious shewes of pretended holynes hath he deceaved many and drawne them into damnable heresies labouring to poyson the fountaines of wholsome doctrine reveiled in these last dayes vnto his Church And wherâ—â— God in mercie hath preached vnto vs the Gospel that formerly he had â—eached to Abraham our father and by the Apostles vnto both Iewes â—d Gentiles that a long time hath bene greatly obscured through the â—oggy mists of popish doctrines now seeketh to spoile the church of Christ â—ereof altogether by that detestable heresie of Anabaptisme which as â— hath overspread many places to the great annoyance of the people of God So as a leprosie hath it at this present infected some of our owne â—ntryemen who are not onely taynted therewith but have revolted froÌ„â—e faith and taken vpon them the profession thereof and published their â—reticall opinions in our owne language For there is lately set forth 〈…〉 rtayne Treatise of theirs intituled The Character of the Beast â—c A title as it is most blasphemous being understood of the baptising â—f infants so is the book it self ful of many dangerous errours wherwith â—he simple may easily be deceaved And seing the same book is sent over â—to our own country and is spread abroad into the hands of many I have thought good also to give warning to all that loves the Lord Iesus and â—e carefull of their own salvation to take heed therof And for this â—nd have published this Treatise following contayning a Processe of the Passages between Mr. Smyth the author of that book and me wherin â—l whose eies it shal please God to open may see the notable sleights of Saâ—han by this his instrument who first sought to disgrace the holy Scriptures translated and to cast them out of Gods worship and now in his Charcter to distroy the covenant of grace which of old was given to Abraham including the children with the parents and to bring in a new Gospel that excludes the children of the faythfull both froÌ„ the covenant and baptism the seale therof I had no purpose of publishing these my writings had not the occasion bene offered by Mr. Smyth in printing our former private Passages but so having done I could 〈…〉 no lesse then to publish these my labours also vnles I should have bene iniurious to the truth Seing I had received the copie of Mr Smythes book in written hand which he purposely sent vnto me as a reply to my former answer to his two Anabaptistical Positions whereunto I had almost finished this my second answer before his book was printed Otherwise if I had not bene so far interessed therein I should haue bene glad if this work had been taken in hand by others more sufficient then my self But thus God having disposed to imploy me in this part of his service at this present I shall desire the godly Reader to accept this my small endeavours proceeding from an hart earnestly striving to mainteyne that faith which was once given unto the Sainsts and to supply my weaknes with his better labours as there shal be cause And withall to take notice that I have here set downe the whol Passages touching this controversie between Mr Smyth and me First his Positions with the Reasons annexed 2. My answer therevnto written in private vnto him which without my knowledge he published together with his reply committing that against me therein which he condemneth in Mr Barnard against himself Parallels in the epistle to the Reader Thirdly the Summe of his Reply And lastly my Answer therevnto So that the Reader may see how these thinges have from the beginning passed between vs. The Lord give vs to discerne the truth from falsehood to look to our selves that we loose not the things which we have done but
from a false Church except he also do separate from the baptisme of Engl. c. Wherevnto he may be answered that it wil not follow that they which separate from a Church standing in apostasie or sinne must separate from the baptism therein receaved or yet from any other of Gods ordinances there retayned We are commaunded to forsake the whordomes of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. but not to seperate from any ordinance of Christ that is found therein save onely from the polutions thereof Yea Mr. Smyth cannot deny that a Church standing in Apostasy is to be separated from when the baptism therein received if it be of such as confesse their fayth and sins is still to be retayned for such baptism sayth he iâ— true Baptism though administred by Antichristians Character p. 51. 2. Those Israelits that separated from Ieroboams Church which stood in Apostasy went to IerusaleÌ„ 2. Cor. 30. 11. did not separate froÌ„ their circumcisioÌ„ therin receaved No more are we from our baptisme as afterward is proved As for his Reason That the baptism of England cannot be true and to be reteayned and the Church of England false and to be rejected c. It is but as if he should say the circumcision of Israell cannot be true and to be reteyned and the Church of Israell false and to be rejected I speake of Israell being in Apostacy And therefore thus I answere vnto it that baptism retayned in Rome and so in all Apostate Churches is baptism and is not to be repeated as in the latter part of this Treatise is proved And seing Mr. Smyth holdeth there Character â—ag 51. may be †true baptism in an Apostate Church if they confesse their fayth doth not he crosse himself here to say neyther can the Church of England possibly be false except the baptism be false Now if true baptism may be in an apostate Church as he affirmeth then a Church may be false that is apostate not baptism by his owne reasoning Yet this man chargeth vs with contradiction vz. to say England hath a false constitution Engl. hath a true baptism We hold baptism so to be true in an apostate church as circumcisioÌ„ was in the 〈…〉 ate Church of Israel otherwise we do not affirm Now concerning 〈…〉 ptising of infants Mr. Sm. thus proceedeth saying It seemeth to vs thâ— vnreasonable heresy of all Antichristianism for considering what baptism is An 〈◊〉 is no more capable of baptism then is any vnreasonable or insensible creature â—d then addeth 3. Reasons agaynst it 1. from his owne description baptism saying baptism is not the washing with water but it is the baptism of 〈…〉 it the confession of the mouth and washing with water c. These blasphemous speeches against the ordinance of Christ bewrayeth â—f what spirit this man is Gods ordinance is a most vnreasonable heresie with â—im yea the most vnreasonable of all Antichristianisme Thus iustifying all the â—dolatries of the Papists and their detestable heresies in comparison of baâ—tising of infants Besides his odious and blasphemous comparison afâ—rming Infants no more capable of baptisme then the vnreasonable and insensible 〈…〉 ures So that in his judgement a horse yea a block may aswell be â—aptised as the children of the Church whom the Lord of his free grace 〈…〉 ceiveth together with their parents to be his by an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and therefore are holy and capable of the blessing of Christ 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. Mark 10. 16. as hereafter is sufficiently 〈…〉 ved And therefore to compare these infants with vnreasonable and insensible creatures as touching the participation of Baptisme argueth the authour of such comparisons to be void of spiritual sense and reason and more to follow the corruption of his own hart in hatred against the truth then to mind what he affirmeth Concerning his description of Baptisme and those Scriptures which he quoteth for proof thereof see them answered hereafter pag. 94. where I have shewed 1. that the baptisme of the Spirit is no part of that outward Ceremonie of baptisme that is administred by man but is the inward work of the spirit in the elect of God 2. That the confession of faith of sinns is no part of the Sacrament of Baptisme seing the confession of sinns is so often to be repeated as we transgresse against the Lord likewise of faith as we have occasion administred vnto us And therefore baptisme which is given to be the seale of Gods covenant to his Church is the baptising of the faithful and their seed with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost Mat. 3. 11. with Mat. 28. 19. of this infants are capable neyther is their baptisme folly as Mr Smyth sayth but it wil prove his fully to make mans confession a part of the Sacrament which oftentymes â— hypocrical as it was in S. Magus to shut out of Gods covenant whoâ— the Lord hath accepted And it wil prove his folly to denye baptisme to infants because they caÌ„not performe such actions as in other respects are required of the elder sort that are to be baptised who also not having traÌ„sgressed in like manner therefore need not so to confesse And it wil prove his folly to deny that an infant can be baptised with the spirit for so to say is to deny that an infant can be saved But of these things hereafter His 2. Reason is taken from Iohns baptisme framed thus Iohns baptisme was the baptisme of repentance Infants have not Repentance and therefore can not have the baptisme of Repentance To this Argument I answer thus 1. That repentance is required of such as have actually transgressed not as the proper cause of baptisme but as a necessarie fruit of fayth condition of the Gospel required of them that being of yeares are to be received into the church whether before or since Christs coming But of the infants of the faythful whether of those that are newly received into the church or of beleevers borne in the church it is not so Ergo c. 2. Repentance was not required of the infants of the Iewes before they were circumcised no more is it to be required of our infants before baptisme these two Sacraments being the same in use 3. If Baptisme of repentance be understood onely of the tyme past not of the tyme to come then is that a false exposition of Iohns baptisme For as he taught that those that came to be baptised should repent so also his baptisme did preach a continual dying to sinne or practise of repentance al our life long Rom. 6. 4. And therefore though children cannot repent of actual sinne which they are not to do they having not committed the same yet is their baptisme the baptisme of repentance seeing it preacheth continual mortification repentance to the receivers thereof which is one true use of baptisme His third
then I hope it cannot be denyed but so it is lawfull to do for other ordinances also Touching the error of the Incarnation of Christ which also Mr. Smyth desyreth may not be imputed vnto them It is wel knowne that many of theire company holding that error about the incarnation are separated from the rest And Mr. Smyth him selfe as some amongst them have reported maketh a question about the first matter of Christs humane nature as if it were not a poynt of fayth to beleeve that it was of the virgin though it be to be beleeved that the second matter was nourished in her womb Whether his hearers do wrong him in such reports or how he resteth satisfied it is best knowen to himselfe And be it that he stand cleere of this error yet is be taynted with the errors of general redemption and free wil els why hath he given forth these Positions 1. Christs Redemption strecheth to all men 2. Man hath not lost the facultie of willing any good thing that is shewed him And with all added therevnto his Reasons in defence thereof Now let the Reader judge what cause he had to desire that these things should not be imputed vnto them Lastly Mr. Smyth taketh upon him to advertise our Church saying Let the Separation be advertised that whereas they do so coÌ„fidently through theire selfe-love self conceat fil their mouthes with heresie and hereticks as therby they would feare Babes that therein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors c. For this his advertisment if any have spoken otherwise then is meete I am no Patrone of any such speeches but if it was lawful for Iohn to call the Phariseis GeneratioÌ„ of vipers And Paul to say to Elimas Oh ful of subtilty all mischeiffe c. then is it not simply vnlawfull to vse such speeches so it be for reproofe and not for reproche Therefore to call them hereticks and their opinions heresies it being true and spoken in detestation of their errors not of their persons I see no evil in so saying see these places Io. 8. 44. 2. Pet. 2. 1. 2. 1. Io. 2. 18. Act. 13. 10. Gal. 3. 1. Rev. 2. 6. 15. And if this be a fault in vs why doth Mr. Smyth fil his mouth with Antichristian errors so calling those truthes which we hold Hath he a dispensation so to speake agaynst the truth and yet to blame vs for calling their false doctrynes heresy I should rather have thought that he ought to have advertised himselfe for these reprochful sclanderous speaches that he hath vttered agaynst our Church the Teachers thereof calling them †Charâ—â— Epistle the Reâ— Rabbies of the Separation The greatest Rabbies And thus speaking to the Church Be it knowen to the Separation that we account them in respect of their constitution as very an harlot as eyther her mother England or her Grandmother Rome We protest agaynst her as wel for her false constitution as for her false Ministery worship and Goverment I could wish as the Tyrant wished Concerning the people of Rome that all their heads were joyned into one We desire the Separation they wil not in craftines withdrawe from the Combate We require them nay we charge them yea we chalendg them to the defence of their errors We protest agaynst them to be a false Church They treade in the steps of all the Antichristians their Predecessors Let them take heed that notwithstanding their Syrenes songs they prove not Cages full of most vgly and deformed Antichristian Hereticks All these reprochfull speeches if not more hath he published in lesse then a sheete of paper besydes what are contayned in his Book And yet notwithstanding all these speaches have thus passed from him he takes vpon him to advertise vs for that we can justifie against his doctrines against themselves for their obstinate defending of their errors But where he chargeth vs to call them Heretikes their doctrines heresie through self love and self conceatednes c. If he had applyed self love and conceipt to him self I take it he might more justly have done it if we may judge by his words As for selfe love and selfe coÌ„ceipt we condemne in whomsoever And howsoever we have our infirmities I trust he shalnot be able to tax any of vs iustly of these imputations And as Mr. Smyth wisheth us not to be wyse in our owne eies through pryde c. we hope the Lord wil so teach vs. And we pray the Lord to geve him a sight of his damnable heresies whereinto he is fallen openly sinning in the publishing thereof to the great dishonor of God and greiffe of al the godly and that the almighty may preserve all that are his chosen from being poysoned with the same Richard Clyfton THE PROCESSE OF THE PASSAGES between Mr Iohn Smyth and Richard Clifton Mr Smyth CERTAINE REASONS PROPOVNDED To Mr Rich. Clifton concerning the two Propositions following 1. That infants are not to be baptised 1. Because there is neither precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples Only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their Faith were baptized Marc. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. 2. Bicause Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptize theÌ„ Mat. 28 19. Ioh. 4. 1. but infants cannot by doctryne become Christs Disciples and so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptized 3. Bicause if infants be baptized the carnal seed is baptized and so the seale of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenant apperteyneth not Rom 9. 8. which is a profanation 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admited 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 received 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 and so not that one baptisme of Christ but all members of Christ must have true baptisme 3. Because as the false Church is rejected and the true erected the false Ministery forsaken and the true received So false worship and by consequent baptisme must â—e renounced and the true baptisme assumed Richard Clifton AN ANSVVER TO TVVO ANABAPTISTICALL OPINIONS vid videlicet 1. That Infants are not to be baptized 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to vndertake this busynes 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 Authours 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 brief answer to these opinions which by the Churches in all ages have bene and are condemned for hereticall the practise whereof I could wish might never have befallen to any of myne owne country especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth And chiefly vnto him to whose charge both I and divers others had once purposed to have committed our soules had he not besides these broached some former opinions both erronious and offensive wherby the truth for which we suffer is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked many hindered in our owne country that shall heare thereof of whom we had great hope that they would have walked in the same faith with vs. NotwithstaÌ„ding for as much as I am informed that the authour hath promised vpon the sight of his errors to confesse the same I do the more willingly take vpon me this labour praying the Lord to give a good yssue to his glory for his mercy sake Amen Mr Smyth A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truthes viz 1. That Infants are not to be baptised 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme These two truthes are by you Sir in your answer intituled Anabaptisticall c. Rich Clifton Sir Whereas you iustify your two Positions to be two truthes and so â—title your Reply A defence of two truthes And charge me with vsing of â—eproachfull speaches in calling them Anabaptisticall Herevnto I answer â—irst that your two Positions will no more prove two truthes then Ieroboâ—ns two calves proved two Gods as in my former answer I have shewed â—nd shall by Gods grace more fully manifest in this treatise following Secondly I deny to have vsed any reproach by intituling your erronious opinions Anabatisticall But your self do sinne in calling evill good and darknes light thereby bringing vpon your self that fearfull woe dâ—nounced by the Lord against such Esa 5. 20. If you repent not 3. Whereas you blesse God that yoâ— are accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christes truth wish me to know that my reproach shall light vpon myne owne head c. I could wish you did not rejoyce in vayne for there is a suffring for evill iustly deserved as well as for the truth 1 Pet. 2. 20. The Iesuites some of them have sufferred vnto death yet had they no cause of reioycing therein seing they suffered for their due desert And so your opinions being termed Anabaptisticall for their vntruthes can bring no true comfort vnto you in suffring for them nor yet my reproach as you call it any iudgement upon my head being warranted to give falsehood her deserved titles Gal. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 2. Gal. 4. 9. As for Christ and his truth which you say are by me evil spoken of it had bene lesse sinne in you to have stayed your pen from publishing of such sclaunders vnlesse you could have proved your Positions the truthes of Christ which I am sure you shall never be able to doe Mr Smyth In your Preface you avouch that your are provoked to write I mervayle you should so speak seing your conscience telleth you did make the first quest or motion â—â— Mrs Bywater c. Rich Clifton For Answer herevnto know you Sir and let all men take notice that the thing which you charge me with is most vntrue for presently after you were fallen into these grosse errors came Mr Southworth Mr Brâ—mhead two of your followers to my chamber as they sayd in kindnes to see me and entred conference with me concerning these opinions saying that they had heard that I had bene enclyned that way when I was in England with some perswasive speaches to consider of this your new walking saying also that you were willing to conferre with me and did wish that eyther I would come to you or els if I were willing you would take paynes to come to me to whom I answered that I never had any thought of imbracing such opinions neither was willing to have any conference with you thereabout which when they heard me so to say they further did solicite me to write with you about these points and sayd that you would as willingly as frendly write with me thereof as you did in England in our former conference concerning excommunication and other differeÌ„ces then betweene you me offring if I would not beginne that yet I would vouchsafe to read and answer your writing to whom I sayd againe that I would not write first or require your writing for I thought not to have any dealing with you yet being so importuned I tould them that I would be content to read it if you sent it me but for Answere therevnto I I promised none onely I sayd I would consider thereof and so do then as I thought good This was the substance of my speaches to Mr Southworth and Mr Bromehead and of theirs to me Now if this had bene true that I had provoked you by any former speaches it is very like they would have made some relation thereof especially requiring that you might have conference with me neither need you to have sent me word that you would write or conferre if so I pleased and to desire either at my hands as these men did testifie if I had before moved you thereunto But for witnesse hereof you produce Mrs Bywater a gentlewoman â—at hath imbraced your errors with whom after I had received your poâ—ions which also she sayd she had seen I had speach to this effect that she â—ould be carefull over her self how she entertayned your new opinions afâ—rming that I was perswaded they were grevous errors and prayed her â—staÌ„tly to stay a while vntil your positions might be answered assuring her that I could by Gods help defend this truth we stand for against you with some other words to like purpose Now let the indifferent reader iudge if you have not greatly wronged â—e to say that I did make the first request or motion of writing nay your own act in writing first vnto me your own speaches in this your * Pag. 1. book which are these Certayne reasons propounded to Mr Rich Clifton concerning the two Popositions following as also your adiuring vs to answer you or els you wil proclayme vs subtily blind leaders of the blind into the ditch do witnesse the contrary And that this busynes comes of your self though you seek to lay it vpon my back let your owne conscience iudge as for myne owne part being so provoked I could do no lesse then answer 2. You charge me with perverting of this scripture Jude 3. and say that I â—â— neither to plead for Baall nor contend for Antichristian errors And I answer that these being truthes for which I contend as have ben proved sufficiently and shal be God willing as occasion serveth more fully confirmed then am I not guilty of any
another contrarie to the scripture for the truth sake That Augustine was an heretick and condemned Auxentius for the truth contrary to the Scripture resteth for you to prove if you can I have already proved that the denying of Baptisme to Infants is an error you have not in all this your writing confuted the same as wil appeare in the answer And here let it be observed that you acknowledge AuxeÌ„tius Pelagius to be hereticks so these your errors to have bene first broched by men iustly condemned for heresie for you say one heretick condemned another Further concerning the fathers by me alleadged in the 6. page of my writing to shew the practise of Churches in baptising of Infants you passe them over with this answer saying I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Cyprian Origine Nazianzene Ambrose and many others were as grosse hereticks if he be an heretick that holdeth an heresie as Auxentius and Pelagius c. That these Fathers and others had their errors we do not deny but that they were hereticks and such as did obstinately defend their errors being convinced therof by the word of God is more I think then you can prove we do not say that the holding of every error makes an heretick but when he that holds an error and persisteth obstinately therin after admonition â— say that such a one is to be rejected Tit. 3. 10. And though you could â—ove those fathers as grosse heretiks as Auxentius Pelagius as I know â—u can not in that sense as the Scripture taketh this word Hâ—reticke yet â—is opinion of those Catabaptists is not therby iustifed for as an heretique â—ay hold some points hereticall so may he some truthes And you are to â—ove that those fathers did vnjustly condemn Auxentius and Pelagius â—r the denying of the baptisme of Infants or els you Answer not to the â—urpose As for our acknowledging of the Auncient fathers to be Antichristian â—t is more theâ— you have froÌ„ me or can shew that I have so affirmed in deed â—n there tymes the churches were in declyning and through ignorance and careles taking heede to the word Sathan beganne to prepare way for Antichrist but that we account them simply Antichristian as fallen into that deepe Apostacy we doe not they had some Ceremonies and other observances that we approve not of yet reteyned they many of gods ordinances wherof Paedobaptistry is one And where as yov say it is no more to be respected 〈◊〉 the Ancient Churches then the Prelacy and read prayer in the same we have learned by the word to put difference betwene the things of God reteyned in Churches declyning and the inventions of men though you cast out both together account vs AntichristiaÌ„ for the same next you proceed to examine my Arguments from the scripture alledged to prove that Infants are to be baptised 1. OF THE FIRST POSITION concerning the Baptising of infants Rich Clifton Argument I. Gen. 17. 10. God made his covenant to Abraham and to his seed from whence I reason thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him and to all his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfore that is commanded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrhams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2. 39 sayth the promise is made to you and to your children and to all that are a farre off as many as the Lord our God shall call In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive and were baptised into And therfore is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is sayd to redeme vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8. 9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant for otherwise ABRAHAMS covenaunt should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a tyme Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs and to our infants els it is not the same that by the coÌ„mandement of God For the abolishing of circuÌ„cisioÌ„ the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospell doth not abrogate or disannul the commaundement of sealing the covenaunt to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant beloÌ„gs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seale thereof to them to their seede as it did to Abraham to his seed The outward ceremony onely changed Mr Smyth To this Argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two coveâ—nts or testaments for a covenant testament is all one in the originals though â—he English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham and his carâ—al seed and of that covenaÌ„t was circuÌ„cisioÌ„ a seale another covenaÌ„t made with AbrahaÌ„ and his Spirituall seed and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seale for â—he carnall covenant had a carnal seale vpon the carnall seed the Spirituall covenant had a Spirituall seale vpon the Spirituall seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnall seale could not seale vp the Spirituall covenant to the Spirituall seed for to say so is to leap over the hedge and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth c. Rich Clifton Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham a carnall a spirituall the one with Abraham and his carnall seed the other with him and his spirituall seed I answer first that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation which is That God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was * Gen. 17. 10. 11. Râ— 4. 11. sealed with circumcision and it is the same covenant that is established by the †2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12. bloud of Christ vnto all the faithfull seed sealed vnder the Gospell * Mat. 19. by baptisme in stead of circumcision Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed the scripture knoweth none In this covenant is promised through Iesus Christ remission of sinnes iustification life everlasting with all saving graces to all that †Heb. 8. â— Ier. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11. beleeve And that this is so the
Esra 6. â— Abraham and of them that were Gentiles and to be adioyned to the Church of the old Testament And therefore this manner of admitting members into the Church being morall vnder the law so continueth to be vnder the Gospell And the †“ Deut. 1â— 4. â— 6. Ier â— Deut. 30. 6. Circumcision of the hart was commanded and promised then to the Israelites and their seed as wel as now it is to us and not onely to them that adjoyned to the Church but continually to all the members of the same And therfore it is noâ— true that theirs was the type onely and ours the truth seeing the things signifyed by Circumcision were required of the circumcised as the thing signified by baptisme is also required of vs and a like enterance into the Church vnder both Testaments The third is this As in the old Testament carnal infants were carnally begâ—tten and borne by the mortall seed of generation by their carnal parents and then â—ere carnally circuÌ„cised received into the carnal covenant so in the new Testament spiritual Infants new borne babes in Christ must be spiritually begotten and 〈◊〉 the immortall seed of regeneration by spirituall parents and then being spirit 〈…〉 circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be received into the new Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second was verified in the truth This reason is a like to the former and hath answer already This I add further that circumcision though it was a cuttyng of the foreskinne of the flesh yet was it an holy action †sealing vnto the beleevers and theire RoÌ„ 4. 11. seed the righteousnes of faith 2 I deny that the seed of Abraham after the flesh was by circumcision received into a carnall covenant the covenant is spiritual vnto which Gen. 17. 7 â— Act. 7. 8. â— 4. 11. they were sealed * by circumcision as before I have proved for had they bene received into a carnall covenant then should the Church of the old Testament be also carnall for according to the nature of the covenant so must the Church be and GOD must be a carnall GOD and delited with carnall things contrary to Psal 50. 8. 13. Esay 1. 13. 14. But the Lord required of his people the Israelites more then outward or carnal service and that which stood in ceremonies types and shadowes Lev. 19. 2 even †holynes the circumcision of the hart * repentance “ Deut. 10. the service of the hart and soule And that the Lord did principally require â—6 Jer. 4. 4. â— Hos 14. 2 â—el 2. 12. â—3 Ps 4. 4 â— Deut. 10. â— 6. 4. 5. â—sa 1. 11 â— 58. 2 â—4 5. Ps â—0 8. 13. spirituall worship of them appears by his †rejection of their ceremoniall worship when it was offerred vp without the spirituall and by exhorting to the spiritual as Psal 50. 14. 15. to offer praise and to call vpon him and Psal 4. 5. to offer the sacrifice of righteousnes and in Hoseah 14. 2. to pray for pardon and to render vp the calves of their lips And consequently faith in Christ without * Heb. 11. 6 which all their worship was vnsavory to God the Psal discribeth the true members of the Church and dwellers in the Lords †Ps 15. 1. â—2 3. c. Ps 24. 3. 4. â— Tabernacle not by an outward observacion of legall ceremonies but of their spirituall obedience The Lord sayth “ Prov. 23 â— â— Esa 29. â—3 my sonn give me thy hart and reproveth †hipocrisie By all which testimonies it is manifest that the members of the old Church were received into a further covenant with the Lord then into a bare carnal covenant which hath carnal conditions onely as before is proved The fourth is this If the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the new Testament must not be baptised because that as circumcision is abolished which was the singe or seal so the infant is abolished which is the subiect of the signe or seal And a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the spirit and by the word But the carnal infaÌ„ts in the old TestameÌ„t were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the new Testament to be baptised The consequent of the major wil not follow the reason proves it not For although circumcision be abolished in that there was somewhat 〈◊〉 â—t was typical as the circumcising of the males onely whereby they were directed vnto Christ by whom our corrupt nature is clensed yet was â—t not abolished as it was a seale of the covenant but the outward ceremoâ—ie onely changed no more is the carnal infant of the beleeving parents abolished or made vncaple of the seal of Gods covenant for the children of Christians †Gal. 3. 29 are Abrahams seed I say not in respect of the flesh but by grace of the covenant comprehending the whole seed of the faithful and therefore have right as well to the signe of the covenant as had the carnall sede of Abraham Towching your proportionable infant as you term him it is to be obserâ—ed that in the old Church it was required of al that were to be adioyned thervnto that they should * Exod. 12 48. Ezr. 6 21. separate from the filthines of the heatheÌ„ to seek the Lord as now it is vnder the gospel And therefore it wil not follow that circumcision was a type onely of the time to come the fift is this As in the old Testament when the male appeared the eight day their was a paynful circumcising and mortifying of the foreskin when the party was received into the covenant actually so in the new testament when the Lord Iesus Christ typed by the male appointeth that when there is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous fore â—kin of the hart the party so qualifyed should be received into the new testament actually But the first was signifyed by the type Ergo the second is verified in the truth First the covenant to the infants of the Iewes was actually sealed by circuÌ„cisioÌ„ but this caÌ„not properly be said a receiving into the covenaÌ„t wherin they were before comprehended with their fathers but a confirming therof to the parties circumcised And this appeareth to be so by the Lords threatning to * Gen. 1â— 14. cut of from his people the vncircumcised male-child Can he be cut of that was not of his people or for the refusing circumcision to be be sayd to have broken the Lords covenant 2. Your simile holds not proportion for you say the party circumcised was by circumcision actually received into the covenant then by your reason if you will make it proportionable the parties that are to be received into the new Testament must be received therin by the mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of his hart or els you must shew some ceremony folowing
the covenant * For if the root be holy so Rom. 11. â— Gen. 17. 7 â— 11. 12. â—at 28. 19 are the branches And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant through the free grace and large promise of God so have they †to the seal thereof which is administred by the commandement of God according to the outward dispensation of his covenant and not after his secret election according to which election neyther all the carnall infants of Abraham or all the seed of the faithfull or yet all that make * 1 Io. â— visible profession of their faith and stand members of true Churches are under the covenant save onely the elect But thus to vnderstand to be vnder the actuall possession of it as it is proper onely to the true children of Abraham so the certaine knowledge thereof †2 Tim 19. belongs onely to God And thus you see the majors consequent in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow Your second is this If Baptisme doth not succeed circumcision then Baptisme doth not perteyne to carnall infants But Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision because the seale of the spirit is correspondent to the typicall seale of the flesh and Baptisme with water is onely the manifestation of the seale Ergo c. The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true for though baptisme should not succeed circumcision yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God But I deny the minor and do affirme that Baptisme doth succeed circumcision as I have formerly proved The reason of your assumption is also before disproved for the spirit as you vnderstand it for our confession is not correspondent to circumcision seing infants are excluded Your third is this If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants then by your proportion baptisme doth not seale up the everlasting covenant to the faithful their carnal infants But circumcisioÌ„ did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants Ergo c. The Assumption is false being rightly vnderstood viz in respect of their outward standing and the contrarie is proved before to wit that circumcision did seale up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed Gen. 17. 7. c. Your fourth is this If beleeving Parents do not stand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants then though they be baptised themselves yet their children shall not But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants for no man is the father of the faithfull as Abraham was and he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnall infants Ergo c. For conveighing of the everlasting covenant this is that which we say that it is conveighed to the children by the free grace and disposing of the Lord who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their seed And although the beleeving parents stand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations yet stand they in Abrahams rowme in this that as * God did conveigh his everlasting covenant by Abraham beleeving â— 17. 7 â— 2. 39 â— 7. 14 â— 11. 9. to his seed so dooth the Lord conveigh †his covenant to the children of beleevers for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their seed and thus entred Abrahams carnall seed as you call them into the everlasting covenat as before is proved And be it that all their seed are not within Gods election yet leaving secret things to the Lord we are to beleeve the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely and not to put difference before the time that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham Amongest them that confesse Iesus Christ and “ are members â—oh 2. of the visible Church many depart away yet we account them childreÌ„ of the covenant vntill their hypocrisie be discovered and so in like manner are we to esteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy vntill the coÌ„trary â—or 7. appeare Your fift argument is this If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham but onely occupy the place of carnal children then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized yet the infants shall not which cannot beleeve actually But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham seing the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Joh. â— 39. which infants cannot do Ergo c. First it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onely occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderstand it for they are also the †children â—ct 3. 32 â—at â— of the covenant and of the “ kingdome Secondly the consequent of the major according to the true meaning of the termes therein used is also denyed the contrary is proved before viz that infants are to be baptised though they have not the actuall use of fayth To the minor I answer that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the Act. 2. 29 â—t 29. â— 15. true children of Abraham for to * them is the promise and in that respect children of Abraham as hath been sayd Your reason drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children is not truely gathered from that scripture for Christ there proveth that the Iewes living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be seing they did not the deeds of Abraham and he speaketh to men of yeares of whom the practise of â—â—ith is required Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires â—o such works is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes 3. 6. that because children cannot work therefore they must not eat And such is â—our absurd reasoning from this place Now when children of beleevers do come to yeares to manifest their infidelitie by their works we are accordingly to iudge of them after the example of Christ and not before Thus much to your five reasons whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptised Argument III. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive But the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts are of the kingdom of God Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptisme seing they are capable of it
The major Proposition I think will not be denyed it is written 1 Cor. 3 21. 22. All things are yours Rom. 9. 4. The assumption is Mat. 19. 13. 17. For of such is the kingdome of God meaning that his kingdome stood not onely of such as being of yeares that beleeved but also of their infants And this he declareth not onely in this saying but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their comming unto him also by coÌ„maunding to suffer them to come and by putting his hands vpon them and blessing them Mat. 19. 13. 14. 15. For would Christ have blessed them that were not of his kingdome or do not the blessings apperteyne onely to the children of the kingdom even to the seed of AbrahaÌ„ Gal. 3. 8. 18. If it be objected that children are not capable of baptisme I answer they are as capable thereof as the infants of Israel were of circumcision being both partakers of the same promises with them and in all respects as capable of the outward seales of the covenant as they were And therefore the infants of beleevers are to be baptised M. Smyth To this Argument of yours I make answer diversly First you have not proved that the visible Church and all the ordinances thereof perteyne to infants of the faithful for the infants of the Iewes that were presented to Christ were not infants of beleevers c. Rich Clifton You answer you say diversly but yet your answer would have been more direct and playne to my understanding if you had denyed eyther proposition or distinguished in stead whereof you demannd divers questions deny the sequele of the conclusion and pretend absurdities to follow notwithstanding I will answer to your particulars And first where you say I have not proved that the visible Church and all the ordinances thereof perteyned to infants c. I have proved that which I vndertook viz both the parts of my argument and you deny neyther but say I have not proved the conclusion which if the Argument be in mood and figure must necessarily follow upon true premisses Next you say the infants that were presented to Christ were not infants of beleevers for ought that I see c. Neyther have you any likelihood to judge theÌ„ to be infaÌ„ts of any others â—at 10. â— Mat. â— 13. 14. that were not either of the Iewes or Proselytes for would Christ receive the infants of the vnbeleeving Gentiles and to say of them of such is the kingdome of God therefore it cannot be that they were the children of unbeleevers unlesse we shall imagine that Christ did practise contrary to the course â— hath set downe for the receiving of them into his covenant that are without also this was in * Mar. â— 1. Iudah by the far syde of Iorden whether the people resorted unto him again †Marâ— 10. Mat 1. after he was come out of Gallily And though the text mencion not who they were that brought the infaÌ„ts to Christ nor â—hose they were as it was not needful for vs to know yet by the circumstance of the place and persons comming then vnto him it cannot otherwise be thought but that they were of the children of the Iewes or proselytes and as for your likelihood to the contrary it is no likelihood at all seing the Disciples fayled in many things “ Luk. 9. 54. 55. they also besought him to send the Cananitish away yet he received her Now the cause why the Disciples would have had the Canaanite sent away was for that she cried after * Mat. 1â— 22. 23. 2â— them and it may be this was the reason why the disciples rebuked them that brought the infants because they troubled them or it may be they thought infants uncapable of knowledge and so could not profit by the word preached but this matters not for by Christs reproving of them it is manifest that they erred in so doing that they ought not to have forbidden children to have bene brought vnto him You say it may be they were the children of some of the Romane souldiers or some Caâ—anish persons So it may be the parents of these infants were proselytes and most likely they were Iewes but what is this to the purpose answer to the argugument for this is but to seek shifts when you cannot find a sufficient answer But suppose say you they were children of the Jewes how is it prooved that their parents were beleevers seing the Iewes for the most part were stiffenecked and uncircumcised in hart Although some of the Iewes wer stiffenecked yet how is it proved that these were the infants of such seing many of the “ Ioh. 7. â— people beleeved in him nay rather the contrary appeares by * Marâ— 10. 1. 13. their comming to heare Christ and the bringing of their infants unto him that they were not of those that were stiffenecked for would they have sought to Christ to blesse their children if they had dispised him And although the parents of these infants might be such as yet were not fully instructed that the Messiah was come whom they looked for the contrarie is more probable yet did they professe the Lord to be their God whom they ought to worship therefore were in externall account beleevers and members of the Church If they had been the children of beleeving Iewes that were baptised by John â—â— Christs disciples c Whether these Infants or their Parents were baptised by Iohn or Chr. disciples the scripture mentioneth not neither is it greatly material for us to know els the spirit had reveyled it that they were blessed of Christ ther is no question But say you if they were baptised what need was there to bring them to Christ except iâ— were for popish confirmation The Scripture sets down the end why viz. that †Christ should lay his hands on them and pray for â—uk 18. â— Mat. â— 13. Gen. 48. â— 20. Mar. 7. â— Luk. 4. â— Act. 9. 17. Act. 8. â— 19. Act. 19. â—6 them or blesse them The laying hands on the partie blessed was practised by the * fathers when they would pray for or blesse their children Christ used it in “ working of miracles for they that brought the deaf man prayed him to put his hands upon him all they that had sick of diverse diseases brought them unto him and he layed his hands on every of them and healed them Also Christs disciples practised this laying on of hands praying not onely in †curing the diseased but also * upon them that were baptised And Paul “ layed his hands upon those twelve at Ephesus who wer baptised with Iohns Baptisme If the Apostles might lay their hands upon them that were already baptised and pray for them and this I hope was no popish confirmation might not our Saviour do this to these Infants if they were baptised but it must be a needlesse thing to bring them unto him thus to be
not desolved when eyther of them is called to the faith so that the beleeving husband may lawfully use her as his wife if she be content to dwel with him 1 Cor. 7. 12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or separated to such use to their father as the wife is to her husband And therefore are the children called holy because they are the seed of a beleeving father Mr. Smyth I answer first denying your maiors consequent Seing that all the nation of the Jewes were holy and yet not within the covenant of Abraham I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ that they were not all within that covenant is playne Rom. 9. 6. all they are not Israel which are of Israel verse 7. neyther are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham ver 12. God revealed that the elder should serve the younger Act. 7. 51. yee have alwayes resisted the holy Ghost as your forefathers haue done so do you c. Rich Clifton This is a strange opinion of yours that a people of God can be holy be without the covenant in Christ Is there a people called out and separated from the world to offer sacrifices and to worship God which may be called and are a holy people considered out of Christ The covenant made with Abraham and his seed in Christ to come which Abraham received caused that the Israelites were called * a holy natioÌ„ or a holy people Exod. 19. Rom. 11. â— Hâ—b 4. 2. Rom. 11. â—6 collectiuely being separate from the nations to be the house kingdome of God And although †many of the Iewes by vnbeleefe cut of themselves from the priveledges of Abraham yet considering the rest of that people as his seed and the generall face of that Church in the true constitution therof they were holy as the Apostle sayth “ if the root be holy so ar the branches and if the first frutes be holy so is the whole lumpe As it is one thing to consider of a Church in respect of the whole as it is one body of Christ and another thing to consider thereof according to every particular member so is it one thing to call a people holy respecting theire covenant in Christ into which they have solemnely entred Deu. 29. 10. 15. and promised to be Gods people and another to consider thereof according to the personal holynes of every particuler member the Church hath the denominatioÌ„ of holines of the former not of the latter though this also be required for the personall holines of any particular members causeth not the whol multitude to be called a holy people els might many assemblies be called holy for that there may be and are some particular persons in the same indued with personall holynes but their joynt entering into Gods covenant and felowship in the same therefore let divers holy persons come together to serve the Lord entermingled with an Antichristian assembly that congregation shall not be called holy because there Philip. 1. 2 Cor. 6. â—6 17. is not a separation of the cleane from the vncleane and a joyning together of the godly in one body or “ felowship of the Gospel neyther can you ever prove that any people or congregation is called holy with whom the Lord hath not made his covenant of salvation But let vs see how you reason All the nation of the Iewes say you were holy yet not within the covenant of Abraham c. You reason not ad idem for in saying that all the nation of the Iewes were called holy here you speak of them as they were a people separated from other nations and had * Deut. 10 -15. entred covenant with God to be his people as he with them to be their God in which respect they were called holy but in saying that all were not with in the covenant you intend it of some particular members of the body of that people being considered a part from the whole and so the Scriptures by you alledged do import For neyther Paul to the Romanes cha 9. 6. nor Steven in the Act. cha 7. 51. do speake of the whole nation but of particular persons who by their vnbeleiffe and evil workes did manyfest themselves to be no true Israelites Concerning that place of rom 9. 6. the Apostle speaking of the rejection Rom. 9. â— of the Iewes which might there vpon charge God that if he did reject them he kept not promise with their fathers labours to remove all such Calumnies saying it cannot be that the word of God should take none effect proveth withal that the promise is not cut of though the Iewes for their vnbeleife be rejected seing the promise is sure to the elect The Apostle thus speaking not of the body of the people but of some particulars that sel away is falsly alledged to prove that all the natioÌ„ of the Iewes were not within the covenant of salvation And that some of them that were of Israel were not true Israelites who wil deny but that many of them discovered themselves to be no true sonnes of Abraham yet this proves not that the whol Church in respect of the visible face of it was not within the covenant But you will reply that you sayd that they were not all within the covenant and I answer agayn if you reason not concerning the face of that people of Israel but of Gods secret election and reprobation it is not to the purpose for so disputing you answer not the Argument And so may you reason against the visible Church under the Gospel that not all therein are within the covenant because * Luk. 1â— 25. 26. 27 1. Ioh. 2. 19 many prove hypocrites And so by your reasoning neither the Church of the new Testament nor of the old in respect of the generall face thereof are under the covenant of grace which is the thing controverted and not the state of particular persons As towchting that place of Act. 7. 51. Steven spake to the Ieâ—es there present to accuse him but in so speaking did not accuse the whole body of the church vnder the old Testament but those his persecuters and there forefathers who also persecuted the Prophets before them brake Gods covenant and * so manifested themselves to be of their father the Divil â—oh 8. 44. Now to reason thus from the example of those wicked Iewes and to say many of the Iewes brake the covenant and became rebellious for al did not therefore the body of the people was never within the covenant is to conclude upon a false ground If it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secret election and not of mans knowledg I answer the twelft verse is plâ—yne of that which was reveled vnto the church and yet Esau was holy and circumcised being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ. The place I have expounded
it was sett upon the male it did type out Christ that promised seed through whom our corruption is purged as before is observed And if circumcision be such a type as you here afferme how can you exclude children under the new Test they are Christs and in the covenant †Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7. capable of the spirit or nevv berth therefore to be sealed If it be obiected that before the law there was no seal appointed I say hereby it appeareth that to be under the covenant was not the cause of â—ytle to the seal but the expresse commandement of God c. But to be under the covenant after the seal was thereunto annexed is sufficient cause of tytle to the seal except you vvil disjoyn those things that God hath coupled together In the next place you ansvver to the Assumption of my Argument vvher first you desire of me to expound unto you vvhat is this holynes vvhich the Apostle mentioneth 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I say under the covenant then you demand vvhat it is to be under the covenant and so you proceed from question to question as if you could not find out a direct ansvvere vvithout such interrogatories To your first demaund I ansvvered before shewed that this holynes in 1 Cor. 7. 14 is in respect of the covenant that children of the believing fathers are called holy by the Apost Then what it is to be under the covenant happely you wil say to be iustified by the imputatioÌ„ of the righteousnes of C. righteousnes Although thus to answer be true yet is it not al that vve are to ansvver to this demande For to be under the covenant is to be considered 2. maÌ„ner of vvayes 1. according to the L. solemne dispensatioÌ„ of his covenant vvith his people their admittance thereinto after vvhich manner it vvas made vvith Abraham and his seed And thus the covenant vvas established to * Gen 17. 21. Act. 39. Deuâ— 15. them that vvere unborne at the tyme of the promise making being then in the loynes of Abraham Secondly men are sayd to be under the covenant after a more special and hidden manner And so al the elect whether known by the confession of their fayth or lying hidden 〈◊〉 â—om 4. 4. â—at 8. 12. â—zo 14. 6. Rom. 11. â—-2â— Esa 29. 13 Luk. 13. â—-27 â—at 8. 12. in the confused assemblies of the world are within the cov of salvatioÌ„ but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within who is without some wee may judge to be within in respect of their outward standing which in the Lords sight are without and some without whom the Lord accepteth but after that external and solemn making and receiving of the covenant of life we are to repute †al that makes profession of their fayth with their seed to be under the covenant and * branches of the olive tree until they fal away And of these that are thus under the covenant there be many “ hypocrites which are not partakers of salvation in Christ Then I demand which of these three viz. to be holy to be under the covenant to have Christs righteousnes imputed is first in nature happely you wil say first they are under the covenant secondly iustified 3. sanctified or holy I perceive you would draw us by your supposed answer from that generall holynes apperteyning to the whole church of God by reason of the covenant of salvation made with them to the sincere holynes of perticular persons which is not found to be in al that are visible members of the ch Heb. 4. 1. â— Rom. 11. â—0 For this we say that a people that are entred covenant with God are in regard thereof holy because they are separate from the world unto God and so are to be esteemed of us as they to whome is promised Christ with al his blessings whereof they are partakers if by †unbeleef they hinder not themselves of that holynes of the olive whereinto they were planted in this sense are we to understand that place of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. Then I proceed and demand when do Infants come under the covenant when they are conceyved or when they are born or when the parents are converted being born already It wil be answered that Infants begotten of faythful parents come under the covenant in their conception and such as are borne come under the covenant when their parentes are regenerate Hereby it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children by generation by filial relation Thus I answer as formerly I have done that the covenant belonges to the parents and their seed through the free grace gift of God the Lord binding himself by promise to be God to the faythful and to their children which though they be borne according to the course of nature are in the covenant yet is their so being within it not by vertue of their carnal berth simply considered but by vertue of Gods promise Indeed this we say to be borne of beleeving parents is a declaration of the childrens being in Gods covenant that they come under the covenant when their “ Act. â— 14. 15. 33â— parents do * first beleev whether they be borne already or to be borne I mean such parents as were before strangers to the covenant Hereunto adde if it be true that some say that children under the goverment of the faythful also are under the covenant that the covenant is conveighed also by pupilship â— adoption so of servants under beleeving masters c. God making his covenant with beleevers includeth their families as in Gen. 17. 7. with verse 9 13. where the Lord establishing his covenant with Abraham included his whole houshould borne in his howse or bought with money for he commanded al to be circumcised So Zacheus manifesting his fayth and repentance Christ sayd †Luk. 1â— 8. 9. this day is salvation come unto this howse see also Act. 16. 30 31 33. and Ier. 31. 1. And thus do we affirme hereof according to the scriptures You say Why may not at the infants borne under one king if his subiects be al his servants â—d vassals be by that relation brought under the covenant and so be accounted iustifyed and sanctified God hath established his covenant to the beleevers and their seed not to a king and his subjects and therefore this relation wil not stand with the condition of the covenant The relation of a King and a subiect is as neer as the relation of a master and a servant or an adopted child The relation of a king and subjects be it never so near maketh not tâ— the purpose seing we are to mynd with whom God maketh his covenant who tyeth not himself to civil relations but freely accepteth the beleever and his family and further then this relation the scripture doth not warrant us to apply Gods covenant And then I demaund say you seeing the
relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal then any relation of adoption or servitude why the wife shal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage happely it wil be sayd that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted because of her unbeleef and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of fayth It is true that neyther the wife nor servants if they refuse can be admitted because of their unbeleef but the case is not alike of men and women growen to years as of infants borne in the church the former eyther consent or refuse actually infants do not refuse and therefore being the seed of the saythful are to be admitted to Baptisme But it wil be sayd that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed onely I say it was made by your confession with him and his adopted infants c. We say as the scripture teacheth us that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed the faythful their children Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby the whole family of the faythful if they refused nor as before is proved And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant and those that are further off why shal not these that are nearer as his wife I have answered before her unbeleef hinders her to be one flesh makes them not one in the covenant which is by grace not by mariage But you wil say because infants do not refuse the covenant they may be admitted to baptisme c. but wives refusing may not I further insist that as infants do not resist so they do not consent and that al the children servants and wives that do not resist may be admitted though they cannot make declaration of their fayth c. c. We do not make the infants not refusing the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant but the Lords dispensation and coÌ„mandement in children there can be neither actual coÌ„sent or resisting the one of which Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3 1. â—am 2. 18. â—2 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares who also are to †live by their own fayth also * confession is of such required so is it not of infants Then I say there is no reason why fayth and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification c. more then of an other except God be an accepter of persons To this I have answered before and again do answer that there is one and the same way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers they receiving the covenant after the same maÌ„ner that he did beleeving that God is their God and the God of their seed Also fayth and repentance is required not onely of such as are of yeares and to enter into the Lords covenant but of al that are in the covenant they being the condition thereof on our part to be performed continually and therefore we must know that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise and not any act of theirs fayth receiveth grace but causeth it not and repentance is the fruit thereof required of every one as they are of understanding And further the covenant is onely with Abraham and his seed not with adopted children c. and therefore fayth and repentance must necessarily be had and so â—y cannot be baptised til they shew their fayth c. I have proved already that God in saying I wil establish my covenant beâ—en me and thee and thy seed included Abrahams family or els shew unto â—e wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision if they â—ere not with him in the covenant Agayn fayth and repentance is required of the elder sort not of infants Ergo c. As for partaking of the covenant actually how children are thereof capable I have proved oft ynough and therefore it needs no further answer And whereas it may be justly objected against you that if infants be denyed to be within the covenant they cannot be saved you labour to remove this exception saying we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be â—verted but leave the secret of them to the Lord Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or against your opinions is the condition of infants such a secret that God hath not manifested his wil concerning them Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants when he was to circumcise them Gen. 17. 12. And doth not †Mar. 10. 14. Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them manifest unto us how we ought to account of the infants of beleevers The prophet Malachy sayth * Mal. 2. 1. did not he make one seeking a seed of God Act. 2. 39. the promise is to children as Peter there witnesseth and Ier. 31 1. God promiseth to be the God of al the families of Israel and children are a part of the familie 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy Now if God had given you eyes these scriptures †Gen. 17 c. Deuâ— 29. 10. 15. might teach you that the state of the childreÌ„ of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend Moses shewed the state of children under the old T. you say “ Caracter pag. 6. 3. the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of al affaires c. as the old How is it then that the state of children is now more secrete then formerly it was Thus you might see your speeches contradictory if your right eye were not blynded Secondly I desire you to prove unto me by scripture that in this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes signifieth true sanctification c. And I desire you to prove unto me that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified you keep not to the state of the questioÌ„ that place is to be understood of the general holines pertayning to the â— every meÌ„ber thereof in respect of the covenant your demand is of Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded and is to be understood of the general face of that church which was called holy because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people in Exod. 32. 9. 33. 3. the Lord cals them a stifnecked people in regard of personal sinnes which he found to be in some of them not in all the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part whereof they repenting the Lord forgave them The personal sinns of some meÌ„bers do not disposses the face of the church of holynes â—he labouring to reforme such faulty members Concerning the holynes of children of the unbeleeving wife before is shewed Finally you say God hath sayd to al the faythful I wil be thy God and the God
meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not Neyther wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlasting covenant for berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance but a covenant that continueth his proper tyme. c. I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting tyme as in these places Psal 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal 145. 13. Esa 45. 17. and so in divers other places Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting vid videlicet to be God to Abraham and his seed after him and therfore gnolam must needs be understood for ever unles you wil say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tymâ— for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words I am the God of thy father the God of Abraham c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant And though gnolam do sometymes signifie a tyme that hath an end as it doth in the type â—t it noteth tyme everlasting in the truth of those types and therefore â—s Canaan called an everlasting possession Gen. 17. 8. But be it granted say you that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. â— the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ what then â— it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful whether Iewes or Genâ— beleeving actually as Abraham the father did therfore it is made with the faithâ—â—an c. and with his children begotten of his bodie c. I denie it utterly Yes it †Act. 2. 3â— wil and must follow els are not the faithful partakers of Abraâ—ms covenant for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed and the beleeâ—ers onely to themselves then is it not the same neither in the giving nor â—â—iving thereof as before is proved And if you graunt Abrahams inâ—â—s as Isaac c. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant â—ade with him in Christ for to deny it by any colour of scripture you â—an not then must the same account be made of al other infants of beleeâ—ers seing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed â—â— the same fayth that Abraham did to him and his Because the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz. Christ or the 〈…〉 al beleevers The words of the Apostle are these * Gal. 3. 1â— but to thy seed as of one which is Christ Some understand by seed the church Christ mistically as 1 Cor. 12. 12. gaâ—hered of Iewes and Gentiles which grow together in one body in Christ of the seed of Abraham as ver 18. According to which exposition both â—ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise â—ade unto them that are partakers of salvation yea infants els are * Eph. 5. 2â— 26. they â—ot sanctified by Christs death But if by seed be understood the redeeming â—eed which is C. it is he in whoÌ„ both the elder people infants ar blessed But you to prove that by one onely actuall beleevers is to be minded â—edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted that Paul intendes not to shew â—hat none are in Christ save onely actual beleevers for that were to conâ—mne al infants but he speaking to the church and such of them as were â—apable of instruction and having exhorted them not to faynt because of â—is troubles prayeth the Lord that they may be strengthned with his spirit that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith that is bring forth the fruits of the spirit testifiing their fayth and so continue constant Now it is to be observed that RoÌ„ 8. 9. 11 â— Joh. 3. 24. Christ dwelleth in al his by his spirit and thereby joyneth them unto him and so in infants els are they †Rom. 8. 9. not Christs this should you have minded as wel as the other and haue knowen that actuall beleeving and the practise of other Christian duties is the work of the spirit as the act of reasoning is of the soule in the elder sort required of them and not of infants as oft inough hath bene shewed But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle you thus obiect 1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one seed the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten which is an other seed c. then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many and that is directly against the Apastle Gal. 3. 16. I answer that the covenant is made with the faithful and their seed as of one kind God of his free grace estating the beleevers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life both of them becomming * spiritual or Rom. 7. 4. â—ct 2. 39. â—zech 16. â— 21. â—sal 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. â—phe 2. 14 â— holy seed and sonnes of God by vertue thereof and not two contrarie seedes as you would pretend and therefore the Apostle is not contrarie to that we affirme for as he sayth the seed is one so say we whether Christ our Saviour be thereby understood or the Churches united into †one or all beleevers who together with their children are after a spiritual maner the sonnes of God Therefore that one seed is of persons actually beleeving c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actually infants do not beleeve actually Ergo c. Your conclusion ariseth from false premisses which are answered before to the former Proposition of this argument I answer that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeve but in no place of the scripture is added of them onely that actually beleeve which you do insinuate therefore there lyeth deceipt in your proposition God promised his blessing to Abrahams seed which coÌ„prehends his infants “ to blesse the house of Israel not only the elder sort That promise of blessing the families GeÌ„ 12. 3. 28. Ps 115. â—2 14. Act. 31. 25. Esa 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth childreÌ„ for they ar of the family Againe Abrahams covenant was onely to Abrahams one seed that is to all beleevers Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo c. This Argument is the same in effect with the former the maior in your understanding is false the faithful and their children in respect of the covenant are but of one seed Children though they cannot actually beleeve yet are they accounted of the beleevers and partakers of the promise with their parents Again They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham Infants cannot do the works of Abraham Ergo c. The Proposition is false in your understanding Paul saith if any would not â—â—k he should not eate 2 Thes
But the first is true Mat. 28. 19. Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13. 48. 16. 14. 15. 32. 33. It wil be objected against the Major that it followes not that the infants are any more bound to receive baptisme then they are bound whilest they are infants to receive the word but the word they cannot receive Ergo. I answer that the coÌ„mandement is general to al nations and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circumcise him self and al his familie yea the infants he should grevously have rebelled against God so whosoever of the Gentiles shal not beleev and be baptised both himself and his seed shal have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ seeing he cutts himself and his seed from the covenant of God Genes 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant which notwithstanding they are bound unto as they shall come to yeares of discretion yet are they capable of the seal as before is shewed and therefore by vertue of this generall commandement Mat. 28 19. are to be baptised M. Smyth The errors of this Argument I wil discover in order first I deny that baptisme is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ Thirdly Baptisme therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision c. Fourthly I deny that although Abraham had a speciall commandement did circumcise his male infants therefore Christians upon this generall commandement Mat. 28. 19. shal baptise their infants Fiftly I say rather the contrarie is hence proved c. R. Clyfton This is a ready course in answering if it might be admitted of to denye one thing after another without shewing any reason to the contrary As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors of three of them I have spoken before more particularly the fourth is now to be answered unto concerning the baptising of infants upon the general commandement of Christ Mat. 28. 19. which you deny to have warrant from that scripture I prove it thus If there was a commandement given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children then is this Mat. 28. 10. a comandement and faithfully described in the institution of baptisme as the person condition and tyme of circumcision But for paedobaptisme there is no expresse description of the person condition or tyme of their baptisme c. I answer to the consequent of the Major that our Saviour hath †reveled â— 17. 6. â—14 26. â— â— â— to his church the whole will of his father which is conteyned in the Scriptures not onely in the writings of the Apostles but also of the prophets which hee hath for that end commanded us to search Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter to take heed unto 2 Pet. 1. 19. and Paul commends to be profitable to teach to convince to correct and to instruct in righteousnes c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods wil must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles that the prophets be excluded but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expresly then the writings of the Apostles But to come to the point I answer that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner which before had been written and were stil to continue as example the sealing of the covenant the persons yong and old that were to be signed and such like what needs a new repetition hereof when the Lord purposed not to disaÌ„nul them so much as was to be altered concerning the outward signe Christ omitted not to declare And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaithfulnes if he in expresse words had not commanded infants to be baptised seing under the old Testament they had the signe of the covenant Again the Apostles writings do plainly ynough declare unto us that infants are to be baptised as both from that commandement of Christ Mat 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles in baptising of families and by other reasons hath been shewed And concerning the tyme of baptising I see no reason why you should cavil about it more then about the tyme of administring the Lords Supper which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day nor tyme of the day for the administring thereof as Moses did of the passeover And the scriptures which you cite do shew that bap is to be administred when men enter into Gods covenant and children entring in at the same tyme with their parents are to be baptised at the same tyme with them as Ismael and al Abrahams howse were circumcised * the same day with Abraham Deu. 17. â— And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major which â—so serveth to answer your minor But touching those scriptures which you alledge for proof of your Minor thus I answer in general to them all that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel to beleeve that Iesus was the Christ who were never baptised before And this rule I confesse to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptisme that they make confession of their fayth sinnes as they did but they serve not to teach vs to deale so towards their infants or the infants of beleevers that are borne within the covenant For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it is not the same as concerning the administration of baptisme no more then it was in the Iewish Church towching circumcision for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their owne profession and the other to be within it by their being borne of beleeving parents if you had instanced an example of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament of pareÌ„ts that were members thereof whose baptising was differd until he was able to make confessioÌ„ of faith then had you sayd more to the purpose though in such an example there might haue bene neglect as was in Moses in circumcising his sonne Argument VII Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly the Apostles practise is our instructioÌ„ but they baptised not onely the maister of the familie which beleeved but all his household Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now also the like is to be done and so consequently the infants are to be baptised for they are a part of the family see Gen. 45. 18. where Ioseph bad his brethren take their father and their househoulds and come to him Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is sayd they caried their children and wives in charets noting hereby
not that onely they that beleeved were baptised but that they preached to al that were in his howse and waâ— baptised with al that were his Next you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants the former is this The Apostles practise is our instruction but the Apostle in baptising howsholds First Preached to all that were in the family and then they beleeving were baptised Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised This argument might have bene granted had not the conclusion contayned more then the former propositions viz. this word onely which ought to have bene placed in the one of them and if in the assumption then were it false to say that onely they that beleeved were baptised and â—o more the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before And it is to be further observed that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church Your other Argument is this That which the Apostles practised in one family they practised in all families that they baptised But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. c. This argument also may be granted and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants except your heretical collection which I deny And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this the rest of my argumeÌ„ts OF THE TESTIMONIE OF THE fathers concerning the baptising of infants HErevnto I will adioyne some testimonies of the fathers not to prove that children ought to be baptised which is to be done is by the scriptures already proved but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches Augustine as I find alledged writing to Ierome epist 28. sayth Cyprian not making any new decree but firmely observing the faith of the Church iudged with his fellow Bishops that as soone as one was borne he might lawfully be baptised See Cyprian epist to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. 24. sayth that the baptisme of infants was not derived from the authoritie of man neither of counsels but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles Ciril vpon Lev. Cha 8. approveth the baptisme of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptisme Origine vpon the Rom. sayth that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum 3. sayth that baptisme agreeth to everie age to every condition of life to all men if thou hast an infant it is sanctified from his infancy yea from the finger ends it is consecrated After he sayth some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne what shal we baptise those he answers yea verily Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha 11. Speaking of baptisme sayth neyther old man nor Proselyte nor infant is to be excepted because every age is guilty of sinne and therefore stands need of the Sacrament These many other of the fathers do beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the lawfulnes of the baptising of infants Mr. Smyth And for conclusion you produce the fathers I say that the producing of fathers who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies shall availe you nothing in your cause and you that deny the testimonie of fathers contrary to the Scriptures how can you with any colour produce fathers against vs in case contrary to the Scriptures c. R. Clifton I plead not for the errors of the fathers but for the truthes which they held according to the Scriptures And where you charge them to hold pleÌ„tie of antichristian heresies you tax them very deeply and you that so censure others had need to judge your selfe otherwise the Lord wil find out a sentence against you Also I desire you to shew where I produce the testimonie of the fathers contrary to the Scriptures you are growen to be very careles what you affirm For my producing of the fathers against you I do not recall that I have done seing theire testimonie is the truth who shew the practise of their times according to the Scriptures I know the device of your producing of fathers viz. 1. to set a glosse vpon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy c. what would you answere would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt tymes c. even so say I to you c. Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptising of infants antichristiaÌ„ heresy †Esay 5. wo to him that speaks evil of good 2 with sinne in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a glosse vpon my antichristian heresy c. for were it a falseshod that I defend as I know it is not yet know you that my soule is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf It is one thing to produce the testimony of the fathers witnessing the truth according to the scripture another for the defence of errors the latter we reiect you take vp but the former we approve and you condemne And although we are not to build our fayth vpon the fathers yet for matter of fact done in their tymes we may give credit to their report and so theire testimonie serves to prove something namely to shew the practise of their tymes to which end I did alledge them and that is not to confesse that they prove nothing as you charge me And say Remember that and let al men take notice that you produce testimonies that you say prove nothing And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers forsooth to shew the practise of ancient Churches But all these Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession c. Yea Sir I do produce them to shew the practise of Auncient Churches whose testimonies is not so lightly reiected save of you and such like that condemne all Churches for antichristian except such heritical Synagoges as your owne is As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred yeares after Christ albeit some devises of men crept in and as they grew elder so increased yet that they were Antichristian where have you my confession it is strange that you dare affirme such untruthes And for anticihrstiaÌ„ antiquitie vniversality I could wish you were as free froÌ„ Anabaptistical novelitie as I am froÌ„ approving of any error or superstito eythâ—â—oâ— the antiquitie or universalitie of it the truth we defeÌ„d needs no such Popish propps but yet antiquitie when the thing is found to be true that is ancient is not lightly to be regarded seing the truth is
more auncient then error And although you esteeme not of the testimony of the fathers witnesâ—â—ng against you yet haue you summoned togeither such men as you thought would give any contenance to your error to batle against both the Scriptures and them but their testimony doth little pleasure you as shall appeare by the examination of the particulars The first you alledge is Henr-Pantalâ—on Chro. fol. 6. who saith that Victor Apher anno 193. ordeyned that aâ— Easter it should be indifferently administred to all wherevpon I gather that before his time onely such as were catechised in the faith were baptised for he would not decree that heathen should be baptised This man I take his words upon your report doth mention Victors decree for the time of administration of baptisme to all yong and old viz at Easter But would any but you inferre hereupon that baptisme was not administred before this time to infants You might aswel say that before that time it was not administred to the elder sort for he speakes in generall of the persons to be baptised Victor brings not in baptising of infants which was then the Churches practise but prescribes a certaine time for the general administration of that sacrament as Gelasius did the like anno 494. That infaÌ„ts were baptised before Victors time appeareth by that â—eliques 〈…〉 e p. â— 96. â—â—bius * of Higinius who decreed that children which were to be baptised should haue a Godfather and a Godmother Anno 143. Higinius lived before Victor about 50. yeres Your next Eusebius Hist lib. 7. cap. 8. saith that Novatus reiected the holy baptisme and overthrew the faith and confession which was accustomed before baptisme whereby it appeareth that faith and confession were required before baptisme and therefore the rudiments thereof still remaine that in the baptising of infants a confession of sinne and faith is required of the suretie or parents That confession was required before the baptising of men growne to yeres and newly come to the faith is not denyed and more then this can not be gathered from Eusebius words as you set them downe But what is this against the baptising of infants Howbeit I find not this of Novatus in Lib. 7. chap. 8. but in that chapter mention is made of a certayne faithful brother that being present when some were baptised and heard what was demanded and what was answered weeping c. began to confesse that he had otherwise received baptisme of Hereticks c. Now if he was baptised of Hereticks without confession of his faith it was contrary to the practise of the Church of the Apostles concerning such as came newly to the faith Eusebius ecclesiastical hist lib. 6. c. 33. thus writeth of Noâ—atus that â—e being vexed with an vncleane spirit in his youth and having spent sâ—me 〈◊〉 with Exorcists fel into a great sicknes and lying in his bed for necessity he was baptised neither any of those things which were accustomed to follow baptisme wâ—re so 〈…〉 nly fulfilled c. As for the rudiments of this confession which you say still remaynes therevnto I answer that this practise is a kind of imitation of that which was observed in former times towards them of yeres and it may be that the parents which brought their childten to be baptised did make some short confession of their faith for of confessing of syn is no step remayning that I know onely a promise to forsake sinne which after did grow as other things into corruption Againe you alledge Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 15. reporting a story of one that did baptise children in sport and that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria though dâ—ne in sport yet finding that the children had questioned and answered according to the manner of the catechumeni in baptisme did approue it whereby it appeareth that then onely persons by confession of their faith and sinnes were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria This storie I doe not find in that chapter before quoted but such a like in chap. 14. yet both your written copie and printed book appoints to cha 15 If you meane that of Athanasius baptising of certaine Catechumeni lib. 10. c. 14. I answere that those children so baptised seeme not to be any children of the Church but some of the heathen which with their parents were instructed in the faith but not yet in communion or baptised Againe in that they being thus baptised were by the Bishop delivered to his Church to Athanasâ— vero atâ— eos c. â— vocatis pâ— reÌ„tibus sâ— Dei obteâ—tione tradâ— ecclesiae suâ— nutrienâ—â— to be brough up their parents thereto consenting which consent the Bishop needed not to haue required or so committed those children to be educated if they and their parents had bene already of the Church for to them then had this care apperteyned Besides if none but the elder sort had bene baptised which by that which is here obiected is not proved yet was this but the practise of one particular Church which might be tainted with that error about baptising of infants as Tertullian and some others were in those times Next you alledge Hoseus Petricov Confes de fide cap. 27. saying that these 2. Apostolical traditions which the Scripture teacheth not viz that there are 3. persons and one God and that Dionysius Origin do testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostolical traditioÌ„ Now you know their Apost traditions were antichristiaÌ„ inventioÌ„s This witnesse wil do you little pleasure for as he calleth the baptising of infants a tradition so doth he the Trinitie which the scripture doth manifestly teach in sundry places Now if you accept not his testimonie in calling the Trinitie a tradition why do you produce him against baptising of infants Besides though this man was a Papist yet is his witnesse with us for calling the baptisme of infants an Apostolical traditioÌ„ he meanes as the Papists do such doctrines of the Apostles as were not written which they hold equall with the scriptures Againe this he sayth is so called by Dionisius and Origen who understood thereby the doctrine of the Apostles And those Apostolical traditioÌ„s whereof you dream were not in their times in esse Polydore Virgil you bring in also to testifie that it was the use with the Auncients that persons of yeres sere in a manner should be baptised clad with white garments c. and this was performed at Easter and Whitsontide c. This witnes tels us that it was in use with the Auncients not onely to baptise the elder sort that turned to the faith but appointed the nâ— to be clad in white that they were instructed until Easter thâ—ir time appointed for baptism these it seemes were the Catechumeni for in those former times many had not imbraced the faith now this authoâ—â— sayth not that children borne in the Church were kept unbaptised until they could make profession of their owne faith whereof our dispute is The wordes of
the Trinitie of persones vnitie of essence in the Godhead is proved by playne wordes 1. John 5. 7. c. That the Trinitie is proved by this scripture and by divers other places I deny not yet in these expresse words That there be 3. persons in one Godhead is not so set down in this place or in any other Nether is found to be in those playn words though the same thing may be concluded out of the Scriptures But I did instance these to shew that every thing is not set down in so playn and expresse words as you would bear us in hand Finally I say shew me any necessarie consequence for baptising of Infants out of the old Test. or the new and I yeeld This I have done already but for your yeelding it is not in your owne power but in †Phi. 2. â— God that must shew mercy and give grace which I pray the Lord to give you Amen Yet a reason or two I wil here adde unto my former to prove that infants of beleevers are within the covenant from Gal. 3. 29. thus I reason Whosoever are Christs are Abrahams seed within the covenant The children of beleevers are Christs Therefore Abrahams seed with in the covenant and so consequently have right to baptisme the seal thereof The Assumption is thus proved Children be eyther Christs or els they * Act. 4. cannot be saved But they “ Mar. â— 13. 14. may be saved Ergo c. 2. The infants of beleevers are eyther of the church †Eph. 1. 2. 23. which is the body of Christ or without If within then are they of the covenant and Christ is theirs for he * Esa Eph. â— 25 -27. 2. 18. 22. is given for and to his Church and is the saviour of it and so being of the church baptisme must belong unto them But if children be without the covenant then are they “ Eph. 2. 1 without God without hope and without promise of salvation and so their estate as hethen and the children of beleevers no more holy then the children of infidels though Paul witnesseth the contrary But I desire it may well be observed that you are driven to consequents for this matter and secondly that the Gospell of Christ is for babes Matth. 11. 25. c. What except you against a necessary consequence is not that maÌ„ner of reasoning lawful did not Christ so reason as before is shewed you your self do †Paraleâ—â— pag. 71. Caract p. 33. justifie it I know if you had such consequents for the baptising of your self you would make them go for currant as indeed they ought But I do not onely reason a consequentibus but set down the expresse †commandement of God for the sealing of yong and old and the example 〈◊〉 17. â— 13. of the Apostle baptising whole families 2. That the Gospel is for babes I graunt and that in Mat. 11. 25. is applyed to men of yeares which are lowly and meek but you must know that the most simple persons as you speak are capable of the mysteries Cor. 13. 12. Heb 11. 14. 6 13. 2 Pet. 4. of the Gospel but in * part and every man hath his tyme of groweth therin and needeth to be instructed that he “ may increase in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ And though the Gospel be playne yet we attayn to the knowledge of it by degrees your self wil confesse this at least your many alterations do testifie thus much against your self and therefore the most simple is not so capable thereof as you pretend Lastly for my consequences which you cal mere hallucinations Sophismes I justifie them against your best arguments how well you have disproved them let the good Reader judg Your second Answer and exception is that if want of special precept and example barr children from baptisme it shal also barre women from the Lords supper I deny it for in playn termes it is sayd 1 Cor. 11. 28. let Anthropos viz. eyther man or woman eat after examination Gal. 3. 28. there is neither male nor female in Christ c. 1 Cor. 12. 13. we have been all made to drink into one spirit and Dorcas is a disciple Act. 9. 36. and the disciples met together together to break bread Act. 20. 7. c. That women are to be partakers of the Lords supper is no question but whether there be commandement or example expressely nameing women that you have not shewed from these scriptures Concerning 1 Cor. 11. 28. there is a word of the common gender but the Apostle sayth not in plaine termes thus let every woman examine her self and so eat seing the word anthropos may be applyed to the man and is sometimes restrayned to man onely as in Matth. 19. 3. is it lawfull for Anthropos to put away his wife and Hebr. 5. 1. and every high Priest is taken ex anthropon And in reproving of their abuse the Apostle useth words of the masculine gender also the words joyned with Anthropos 1 Cor. 11. 28. are of the masculine gender let a man examine himself cauton for he that eateth esthion c this compared with Christs institution where onely men were present though women were in the citie shâ—weth this testimonie not to be so plain as you pretend Neither do the rest of your scriptures prove your desire As for Dorcas being a disciple is no expresse example the women of the Iewes were Moses disciples yet were it not true to reason that therefore they were circumcised As for Gal. 3. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 13. they speak of the spiritual union in Christ and spiritual grassing into his body by the spirit and baptisme but neither of them sayth let women partake of the Lords supper I reason for the plaine termes otherwise I deny not that arguments may be drawn froÌ„ these scriptures to prove that women are to receive the Lords Supper Your 3. Answer and exception followeth wherein you do affirme that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants c. to these I have already answered in the sixt and seventh reasons going before And there also may you receve satisfaction to that you have answered but yet to one objection concerning the commandement once given of the sealing of infants I answer say you besides that baptisme is not the seal of the new Testament but the spirit and that circumcision was not the seal of the everlasting covenant c. So though it were granted that infants of the old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in Christ which I peremptorilie deny yet seing the tyme of circumcision is expired therefore infants are not to be sealed by baptisme To al this it is answered “ pag. 12 37. 38. before that circumcision as also baptisme are seales of the covenant of salvation and though the tyme of circuÌ„cising be expired yet is not the
beleevers may and ought to be baptised though they can not by teaching be made disciples 2. to that you answere to my first particular thus I reply That of Abraham his circumcision of the Church of the old Testament I haue spoken before this now I wil adde further that AbrahaÌ„ was an * Iosh 2â— 3. idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church As for his faith it was not onely a president or example to others but was also necessarie for him self as the scripture teacheth he beleeved the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes And being thus iustifyed he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousnes of faith by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemne covenant of the Lord to become his peculiar people and to haue him to be their God which at that time the Lord made with him so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood And where you say that Circumcision was not a seal of Abrahams iustification c. you give the holy Ghost the lye which testifieth the contrary Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason that he was sealed by the spirit long before it is nothing to the purpose for the spirit was no external seal as circumcision was The spirit sealeth inwardly and is proper onely to the elect yea to all Gods people in Babilon and so is no visible signe of of Gods promises given to the Church visible whereof our dispute is And here remember by the way that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit and so was under the new Testament as also others had Esa 63. 11. Psa 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4 39. that being the pledge and earnest of the sowles of al the faythfull in al ages of the love of God in Christ But Abrahams iustification in uncircumcision was a type of the iustification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised And Abrahams circumcision after his iustification sealed him up to be the father of all the beleevers circumcised That Abrahams justification was an example to al that should be justified both of the Iewes and Gentiles I graunt viz. that as he was justified by fayth so should al others that beleeve be likewise justified But as concerning Abrahams circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father Rom. 4. 11 â— 13. of al beleevers circumcised the Apostle sayth thus * Abraham received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of fayth which he had when he was uncircumcised c. that he should be the father of al that beleeve not being circumcised c. and the father of circumcision c. In which words I observe 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousnes of fayth yea of Abrahams 2 that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised beleeving And the father of al the circumcised his posteritie the Israelites and so was father of both sorts of people and of the parents and children 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised he meaneth Mat. 15. â— Act. 25. Rom. â— 4 5. of his spiritual fatherhood in regard of the “ covenant 4. He is called the father of circumcision not onely of beleevers circumcised as you say but of their infants also seeing they were circumcised and in this you deceive your hearers by perswading them that Abraham was the father onely of beleevers circumcised not of their seed whereas Paul sayth he was father of the circumcision And so circumcision had a triple vse one general two special â— Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a patterne of al the beleevers in uncircumcision c. 2. Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a paterne to al beleevers in circumcision c. The general use of Abrahams circumâ—…cumcision was common with him to Ismael and al the persons of his familie and al the carnal Israelites viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. You labour by your new devised distinctions to obscure the truth and to shut out of the covenant of grace the infants of the faythful otherwise â—e affirme that both beleeving Iewes and Gentiles are justified and †Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20. live by their fayth and that the one and the other have but * Rom-4 3. 24. 2 one way of justification as they have but one Christ and one covenant of salvation And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham so was it given to have the same use to al that were circumcised viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by “ Rom. 3. 2â— his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Concerning that general use of circumcision as you terme it to be common with Abraham and to Ismael and to al the persons of his familie c. is true but the use viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. you must prove for God had not then given the law or old Testament It was the covenant in Christ that was sealed by circumcision and not the law or covenant of works And whereas it was the Apostles purpose to shew that †Rom. 4â— c. Abraham was not justified by works he hath not proved it but confirmed it by this your distinction of circumcision if Abraham received it to seal him up to the old Testament to the observation of the law Now for the place of Rom. 4. 11. which I am assured you wil ground your assertion upon I say it is both falsly translated expounded for tes en acrâ—bustia is usually translated which Abraham had when he was uncircumcised and this I say is a false translation for this is the true translation viz. which is or was or shal be in the uncircumcision meaning that circumcision upon Abraham c. was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcision that beleeve and the end of his circumcision is the fatherhood of the faythful Here you pick a quarrel against the translation before it was alleadged and so it pleaseth you to set downe an other with your own exposition to this scripture Rom. 4. 11. and by your glosse corrupts the text You 〈◊〉 4. 11. fault the Translator for saying which he had c. and you put in which is or was or shal be The text is which in the uncircumcision the verbe being omitted Now I ask you what warrant you havâ— more for your addition then the Translator had for his the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain that the Translator saw his
thereof and purpose of the holy Ghost who intendeth to discover the hypocrisie of vaine professors and to shew who are true sonnes of God viz. such as by a godly conversation declare their fayth to be unfeighned I denye that infants are carnal because they shew not their fayth by their works Those whom the scripture so calleth are they that â—om 8. â— 8. †walk after the flesh and do the deeds thereof which Infants nether do nor can do wanting actual power of doing good or evil The former scripture that you alleadge to prove infants carnal is Rom. 7. 14. The Apostle sayth of himself I am carnall and so you conclude â—â—m 7. 14. thence that al that naturally discended of Abraham and so of the faithfull are carnal and so to be reputed of us and consâ—quently without the covenant Paul when he thus sayd of himself I am carnal was regenerate And if you cal children carnal in that sense it hinders not but they may be spiritual seed as he was The Apostle cals himself carnal in respect of his natural corruption and carnal infirmities wherewith he was compassed neither was he wholly carnal but in part †Rom. 7. spiritual And here is to be noted that carnal is opposed to spirituall in one and the same person and is found to be in al that professe fayth and are regenerate yet doth it not debarre them eyther of the covenant or of baptisme A like Answer may be given concerning 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians 1 Cor. 3â— are called carnal because of their infirmities and carnal works as enrying strife c. vers 3. c. Infants cannot in this sense be called carnal therefore this scripture also is unfitly applyed unto them And here it is to be noted that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptised are called carnal whereby we may see how impertinently this scripture is alleadged You say also that you cal children carnal as in opposition to the spiritual seed that one seed of Abraham Gal. 3. 16. I have sayd that carnal as the Apostle opposeth yt to spirituall is our corrupt nature that * lusteth against the spirit and is found in the faythfull Gal. 5. 17 Rom. 7. 2 Now to oppose the infants of beleevers to spiritual seed is no opposition for such infants in regard of the covenant are spiritual though by nature they are carnal Concerning Rom. 9 8. see page 63. The Apostle proving God to be Rom. 9 8 faythful sheweth withal that though the promise was made indefinitely to al the Israelites yet al that were carnally begotten of Israel were not true Israelites save onely such as were the children of the promise verse 7. 9. but he intendeth not to oppose all the seed of Abraham naturally begotten to the childreÌ„ of the promise for then should Isaac be opposed against himself for he was both the natural seed of Abraham and a child of the promise but this he teacheth that although many be reputed the sonns of God in regard of the promise which is made indefinitely to all the seed of Abraham and to al that are called to be members of the visible church yet al of those in the account of God are not children of the promise seing many hypocrites are found to be in the outward visibilitie of the Church to whom the Lord shall say * Luk. 13. 25. 27. I know you not whence ye are c. Touching Gal. 4. 23. it hath been handled before pag. 14. Thus I will here answere to your obiection out of it viz. that Paul doth not intend Gal. 3. 2â— to make an opposition betwene the natural seed of Abraham and the heires of promise but opposeth against the false doctrine of such as vrgeth circumcision and the workes of the law to be necessary to iustification and after divers reasons against this error he illustrateth his purpose by an allegorie which shadoweth forth two sorts of children borne of two Testaments as Ismael Isaac were of two mothers the one sort that should seek after righteousnes by the law but they were no better theÌ„ Ismael no heires of the promise but in bondage vnder the law The other should seeke after righteousnes by Christ and these are of the covenant of grace as Isaak was of the freewoman which are heires and free indeed and this appeares to be the Apostles meaning by that which followes in the Allegory as also by vers 21. And so it is to be noted that to be borne after the flesh typed out by Ismael is to be without the covenant under the bondage of the law which was given in Sinai signifying that all such as seek for iustification by the law are as they that take up their habitation in the wildernes and never enter into the land of promise â—eb 7. 16. The next Scripture is Heb. 7. 16. where the commandement is called carnall so children borne of theire parents say you naturally are carnal c. see this place expounded pag. 68. by carnal commaundement the Apostle means that law that coÌ„maunded the ordinatioÌ„ of the Preists under the old testament which stood in fraile and transitorie things as in Aarons consecration c. Also this commaundement or ordination of the Leviticall Preists may be called carnal compared with the ordination of Christ â—sa 61. 1. 〈◊〉 45. 7. which was without all * external ceremonies and not simply for in other respects it may be counted spiritual as all Gods ordinances are whether under the old or new testament and so this scripture rightly vnderstood maketh nothing to your purpose And towching childreÌ„ you should observe that as it is true that naturally children are carnall so is it true also that the children of the faithful borne under the covenaunt are by grace spirituall Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually sease upon any infant of the Iewes in deed and in truth and the place Act. 2. 39. doth not prove that it did for the place is to be understood of the offer of Christ and the new testament to all the carnal Iewes and their children c. and therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed For this point for the exposition of this scriptur see p. 19. where also is answer to that which is here obiected for by this scripture it is playn that the promise apperteyned to the Iewes their infants into which they their childâ—eÌ„ had entred when God made his covenaÌ„t with Abra his seed for theÌ„ were they in his loynes And upoÌ„ this grouÌ„d the Apostle exhorts theÌ„ to be baptised not saying the promise is now offred but thus the promise is to you that is made or given to you and your children as the Apostle explayneth the same Gal. 3 16. 17. 18. Act. 26. 6. And to as many
as the Lord God should call meaning to the Gentiles which should beleeve and to their seed Therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed c. To this I haue answered that childrē of beleevers though carnal by nature yet are they spirituall in regard of the covenant and in this respect to hold them the children of Abraham though they can not shew forth the fruites of faith which are required of the elder sort Why then they are damned wil you say God forbid do you cendemne all the men that are not of our saith and yet they are neerer to condemnation in the iudgement of the scripture to you then infants for Christ sayth he that beleeveth not shal be condēned c. It is wel that you detest the condēnatiō of infants if they be not condēned then are they saved if they saved then are they under the covenāt of grace in Iesus Christ Towching others of yeres according as the scripture sheweth their estate to be unto vs so must we judge but secret things belong not unto us the salvation or condemnation of this or that particular person is a secret nay wee are not able certainely to determine thereof amongst such as be external members of the Church because many that haue not on their * Ma◠11-1◠mariage garment may thrust in with the guests the †Ma◠1. c. five foolish virgins had lampes as wel as the wise But this is not the question we reason concerning the dispensation of Gods covenant in respect of us which we affirme according to the “ Gen. 17◠Act. 2. 3◠scripture to be given to the children as wel as to the parents And you deny it and therefore by your opinion in respect of us no hope can in deed be had of the salvation of any infant nay the infants of Turks and infidels wil be in as good estate as the children of beleevers for if infants be without the covenant as you affirm if we wil speak according to the scripture we must hold thē * Eph. 2. ◠without Christ and alianes from the common wealth of Israel without hope and without God in the world and standing dying in this estate to be as Turks infidels dying in the state of condemnation But you not able to shift of this Arg. loth to confesse the truth do say that the Scripture teacheth nothing concerning their final estate except it be the salvation of them al. If it teach the salvation of them al then I hope it teacheth that they are in Christ and within the covenant Christ teacheth that the kingdome of heaven is of such The final estate of many professors of the fayth being of yeares is a secret to us the scripture doth not open unto us the particular election of this or that man but teacheth with whom God hath made his covenant to esteeme them as of his covenant untill the contrarie appear by their falling away Rom. 11. 20. And thus having explayned your own meaning of your former Argument you proceed to examine my Answer saying Now according to your exposition I should intend because it is not discerned which children are the spiritual seed which the carnal therefore both of them must be deprived of baptisme least by giving baptisme which you falsely call a seal to al it should be prophaned to the carnal seed Wel suppose this were my meaning what then If this were your meaning then my collection must follow for my calling baptisme a seal I have proved that which I affirme of baptisme p. 37. 38. You except against this exposition two things one that the spirituall seed should be iniured by denying baptisme unto it for the carnal seeds sake And I reply by giving baptisme to al indifferently we should iniure baptisme it is to be administred onely upon them that confesse their fayth and sinnes and are made disciples c. Your Answer stands in begging the question I say it is no more an injurie to baptisme to be indifferently administred to al them to whom the covenant is indefinitely given as it is to the seed of the faythfull then it was before for circumcision or is now when hypocrites are baptised For we can not be sayd to prophane the sacrament by administring it to them that appear to us to be within the Lords covenant as both hypocrites infants until they break off An other thing you except is that this reason should availe against circumcision seeing the males of eight dayes old could not be discerned to be the spiritual seed And I insist that it was not then needfull that then they should be discerned to be the spiritual seed for that carnal seal of that carnal covenant it was ynough for investing of them with that carnal and typical seal that they were the carnal typical seed and that they were Israelites or proselyts c. Your answer stands upon a false ground confuted before I have proved pag. 12. 13. that circumcision is a holy seal of the covenant in Christ and that your carnal covenant is a devise of your owne And where you call the Isralites the carnall and typical seed I have answered and do again say that though they may be called carnal in respect of their natural generation or in regard of the infirmities hanging upon them or some of them termed carnal in respect of their evil works yet the bodie of the Israelites considered as they were a body and children of the covenant were a spiritual seed and holy And it was needful that they should be so els had not †Rom. 9 5. Psal ◠16. 21. the holy things of God belonged unto them or they pleased God in their slanding And shew me that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised but to be a male But in the new Testament it is taught 1. that Christ the male must be in us and 2. that there must be circumcision of the hart 3. that wee must attayn to learn al that the schoolmaster of the old Testament could teach us before we can be baptised I answer that the Lord required as much of them that were to be circumcised as of them that are to be baptised of the infants both of the Iewes and Christians God requires onely that they be the seed of the faithful but for such as were of yeares and without the church as under the Gospel they are to turne from sinne and professe their fayth in Iesus Christ that require baptisme so likewise before Christ was the case of Abraham himself such of the Gentiles as would be circumcised were to * Exo. 1◠48. Este◠17. Esra ◠21. Ac◠27. renounce their hethenish and idolatrous worship and to professe the true God of Israel and his religion In Ester it is sayd many became Iewes that is addicted themselves to the religion of the Iewes which is to celebrate or
their parents come not to the fayth because they are not visibly knowen to vs to be of the covenant as the infants of the faithfull are And the Church is not to administer baptisme but to those that are children of the covenant visibly apparant As for condemning or not condemning I leave to God That which I speak of is touching our question about the administration of baptisme that it appertaines onely to members of the Church and to such as come out of the world to be ioyned vnto it And seing the infants of vnbeleevers to vs appeere not to be of the kingdome of Christ because their parents remayne stil in infidelity we cannot acknowledg them nether have we any rule to admit them vnles some beleever make them his children by adoption or the like And we refuse them as not belonging to the visible communion of the faithful as yet and there â—e rest without further searching into Gods secreet counsel And thus I hope the scruple which you say remayneth is removed To the 4. particuler of my answere you reply That the external scale of that external covenant was perticulerly inioyned by God and the knowledg of the reprobation of Esau and Ismael did not hinder it But now seing we have â—o expresse commaundement for baptising of infants but c. Circumcision the seale of the covenant of grace was †Gen. 17. â— 12. Mat. 2â— 19. commaunded to every member of the Church and so is baptisme now as before is proved Concerning Ismael and Esau that their parents had knowledg of their â—eprobation and yet did circumcise them 1. I do not find that that secreete was reveiled vnto them 2. Christ knew that Iudas was reproved yet eate he the passeover with him The administration of the Sacraments is according to mens outward standing not according to election therefore the parents ought to circumcise them of their houshold according as the Lord had commauÌ„ded And as Abraham did know that God would establishe his covenant to Isaac so he knew also that it should be in Christ that should discend of * Gal. 3. 1â— Isaacks line and not of Ismaels in whom not onely Isaac and his posterity but al the “ Gal. 3. 8. nations of the earth should be blessed yea Ismael if he beleeved and so many of his stocke as should beleeve And so the promise concerning Christ to come was to be fulfilled in the seed of Isaac and not of Ismael or Esau As touching Ismaels Esaus state is before spoken of And thus much concerning this first Position For where you say we have no expresse commaundement for baptising of infants and al that followes to the end of this question is answered before yet I wil note this here that you end this point with a notable vntruth saying That we have an expresse commaundement many examples to the contrary of baptising of infants For there is neither any coÌ„maund ment to forbid it nor any example to the contrary agaynst it as I have shewed before OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptising of Elder People 〈…〉 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme Answer AS the former Position denyeth the baptisig of infants so doth this adnihilate that Baptisme which we hav received in the Apostate Church and establisheth rebaptization And this also I will shew to be an error by proving the contrarie and then answer the Reasons hereunto annexed That baptisme administred in the apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptisme not to be iterated thus I prove it I. Argument If the Apostacie of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that that it ceased to be the seal of Gods covenant to so many of theÌ„ as repented no more doth the Apostasie of our fore-Elders so polute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a sacrament to so many of them that turne unto God from their sinnes But the first is true 2 Chron. 30. 11. 18. 21. els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierusalem have eaten the Passeover seing no uncircumcised might eat thereof Ergo the second If it be obiected that the apostasie is not alike theÌ„ let it be shewed that the apostasie under Antichrist did make a nullitie of baptism not the apostasie of Israel of circumcision for Israel played the harlot so deeply that the Lord denyed her to be his wife or himself to be her husband Hose 2. 2. Mr Smyth And thus having shewed the vanitie of your answeres to my reasons against â—swer paedobaptistrie let us come to your answere made to my 2. Position 2. That Antichristians converted c. Your first Argument is framed thus If the apostasie of Israel c. I answer that the apostasie of Antichrist is deeper then the apostasie of Israel for first Antichristians are not called Israelites but Babylonias Egyptians Sodomites Gentiles in the Revelation whereby the holy spirit of wisedome giveth vs to conceive that he doth account the apostasie of Antichrist equâ—â— to Paganisme it self c. Rich Clifton Whether my answers be vaine or your reasons haeretical let the reader â—ply judge For your answer to this my first Argument against your second Position if it be graunted that the Apostasie of Antichrist be worse then of Israel yet this difference is but according to the lesse the greater both are Apostasie But as concerning these names of Sodomites c. they do not prove that Antichristianisme is equalled to Paganisme rather they shew that the Antichristians were in some things like to the Sodomites Aegyptians c. Was Iuda her circumcision voyd because the Prophet calles â—a 1. 10. their Princes * the Princes of Sodome the people the people of Gomorah If this had bene so they must haue bene new circumcised Know you not that the holy Ghost by these similitudes would manifest some abhominable sinne that he saw in his people wherein they became like unto the profane GeÌ„tiles And the more to cause them to detest their sinne likeneth them to such notorious sinners as had tasted of the hand of God against them for their sinnes Wherefore as Iudah for her uniust shedding of blood and other filthy sinnes is called Sodome and Gomorah So the Antichristians are called Sodome for their filthy sinne of Sodomitrie and such like wherein they become like to the Sodomites and Egypt and Babylon because they keep Gods people under a spirituall servitude as formerly Egypt and Babylon had done the Israelites and Iewes under a corporal boÌ„dage And the Antichristians if they be compared to the Gentiles which I do not remember it is in respect of their profanenes and strange Gods for as the Gentiles had many Gods to whom they gave spiritual worship so the Antichristians have their Gods Saincts of both sexes and the Angels to whom they do worship and service Notwithstanding all this their profanesse yet did they confesse God and Iesus Christ to be their saviour
and worshipped him though corruptly professed also many of his truthes which neither the Sodomites Egyptians Babylonians or Gentiles did And therefore are not comparable with the heathen in all respects much lesse to be held the worst kind of Paganisme For in Paganisme it was never heard that God had his people yet in Antichristian Babylon the spirit witnesseth that he hath his people amongst them and so many truthes of God are therein taught as thereby Gods elect do come to some knowledge of God and to faith so can none do in Paganisme by any doctrine there taught 2. I declare playnly the difference between the Apostasie of Antichrist and Israel Aâ—â— in this that Israels apostasie did not destroy the true constitution of the Church but Antichrists apostasie did rase the true Apostolike constitution For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or proselytes circumcised and so long as they reteyned circumcision in the Land of Canaan they reieyned a true constitution though there apostasie was never so great c. This which you say is a playne difference is none at all it is your false Re. ground that deceaves you The reason of your difference wil not hold for if reteyning of circumcisioÌ„ preserved the constitution of the Church of the old Testament though their apostasie was never so great as you say it did then should the reteyning of baptisme in the greatest apostasie preserve the Churches constitution under the new testament but this you deny ergo the other can not stand Seing baptisme by your owne confession * Char 〈…〉 in the prâ—fâ— is the constition of the Church under the Gospel as circumcision was of the old Church Now if this be true doctrine which you teach I pray you shew us some reason why Apostasie more raseth the constitution of the Church now then it did under the law for circumcision was as corruptly administred by the apostate Israelites as baptisme is by the Antichristians But your iudgement of the Churches constitutioÌ„ fayles you in holding the Sacraments to be the constitution thereof 〈◊〉 them appertayne vnto it yet can they not be counted the whole constitution of the Church And if this should be granted you it would follow that if Israels constitution was carnal for circumcision you say was carnal so should the constitution of the Church of the new testament be carnal also seing baptisme is an external ordinance as well as circumcision was and both alike carnal in that respect And therefore you must eyther renounce this opinioÌ„ or els grant that the constitution of the Church of the old Testament was spiritual then all your building is overthrown But to prove that Israel reteyned a true constitution in their apostacie you alledge Hosea the fourth saying Though their apostasy was never so great thâ— their worship ministerie and government as it is to be seen in Hosea 4. 6. 8. 12. yet they reteyned a true constitution so long as they reteyned circumcision in the land of Canaan I answer although the Lord call Israel his people he doth it in regard of his covenant formerly made to their forefathers not in respect of their present outward estate The Prophet sayth There shall be like people like Preist And in verse 12. they are charged to go a whoring from under their God How can this people be sayd to stand in a true constitution or covenant with God that went a whoring from under their God Hath Rome done any more then this the people * perished for want of knowledge Hose 4. 6 and the Lord reiected their Ministers from being his because they refused Hose 4. 12 knowledge The Israelites did †ask counsel at their stocks and the spirit of fornication caused them to erre they sacrificed to strange Gods c. â—hroÌ„ 13 â— King â— 31. â—hr 11. 14 â— Chron. â—â— â—ers 8. â—rse 9. “ Ieroboam drove away the true Prophets placed Preists after his own devise Israel set up an other governement and * refused the governement of the Lord †had a false ministerie and worship What more can be sayd of Rome then is here sayd of Apostate Israel And what though the Prophet Abijah did not charge Israel with a false coÌ„stitutioÌ„ but with the other particulars before meÌ„tioned yet that sufficeth to declare that they had broken covenaÌ„t with God which what is it els but to depart froÌ„ their primitive constitutioÌ„ Needs a man to say any more to prove that a wise hath violated the bond of mariage but that she hath played the whore and foloweth other lovers and so much have the Prophets testifyed of Israel â— Chro. 15 Azariah beareth witnes against Israel thus †now for a long season Israel hath bene without the true God without Preist to teach and without law And this was â—n the tyme of Asa king of Iuda Also Eliah complayneth †◠〈◊〉 10. that the children of Israel have forsaken the covenant of the Lord and this was in the dayes of Ahab now it cannot be that they that had forsaken Gods covenant could be a true constituted Church so continuing also which were without God and without his Law c. Câ—n you say more agaynst the Antichristians and them you deny to be a true Church and yet you iustify Israel withal her abhominations but let vs consider furder of the difference you make between Israel and Antichristianisme you saye That Antichrist hath not onely set vp a false government c. but also a false constitution Ans of the Church for whereas the true Apostolike constitution was of baptised Disciples that confessed theire sins and their fayth he hath foysted in a false matter of â— Church viz. infants and persons vnbaptised and so a false forme c. I answere 1. that the Apostolike constitution did not shut out the children Re. of beleevers as I have formerly proved 2. I iustify neither the matter nor forme of Antichrists Church neither their ministerie worship nor government they have in all these corrupted the wayes of God But the falshood you tax them of in their matter form is the baptising of infants otherwise if they had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. theire constitution had bene with you Apostolike such a deadly feud have you against infants that to admit them to baptisme makes a false Church For the lawfulnes of baptising children you may be satisfyed before if the eye sight of your soule be not quite put out Your saying that infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole or mad-man or pagan Argues in you the want of spirituall wisdome but that which you drive at in this your bitternes against infants is to prove That the Church of Antichrist is constituted of a false matter viz infants uncapable of baptisme and a false forme viz. infants vnable to enter into the new Testament
c. And therefore to be as Pagans or Gentiles in the Lords account and to iustifie Apostate Israel reteyning circumcision to be a true Church For your pleading against the adulteries of Rome I dislike not but by these your Arguments manner of pleading you shall never convince her or ever be able to justifie that adulterous Church of Israel neither wil this your reason stand good That circumcision in the Israelites Apostasie was true because it was performed vpon carnal Israelites or proselytes the 8. day And that baptisme in Popery is false and in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing c. for as much may be sayd for baptisme administred to the apostate Church of Antichrist as yoâ— can say for circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel And all that can be sayd is this that neither of them both is in deed capable in that standing For the sacraments belong to the members of a true Church not to apostates But if to be circumcised the 8. day prove that Israels circumcision was true in her Apostacy what letteth the circumcision of the Edomites and Ismaelites to be true also they keeping the 8. day seing they were of the seed of Abraham The right of circumcision belonged to the children of the promise which was made to Abraham in Christ And therfore when any of Rom. 2. 5. 2 Chro. 30 â—-11 AbrahaÌ„s seed did cut off themselves by infidelitie their †circuÌ„cisioÌ„ became vncircumcision on the contrary circumcision though administred in Apostacy vnto infants yea * those coming to yeares and seeking the Lord their circumcision was then profitable to them And so is baptisme in like manner to them that receive it in apostate Churches when they by repentance shall returne to God But you drive all to this yssue that not the profanes of the apostasie but the fittines of the subiect makes the sacrament true or false That infants are as fit subiects for baptisme as the infants under the law for circumcision I haue proved in the former part of this writing Your third answer 3. I declare that Israel was the true church of God or a meÌ„ber Answ of a true Church though infinitely corrupt as wel as Iuda in the dayes of her apostasie c. and therefore if Iudah reteyned true circumcision in her apostasie c. surely the circumcision of Israel was also true This is strange that Israel can be a true Church yet infinitely corrupt caÌ„ â—â—l a wife be a true wife also a harlot thus you may as wel iustify Rome all Antichristian assemblies The holy ghost calleth both * Aholah and Aholibah Ezech. 23 harlots and you in their infinite corruptions instifye them to be true Churches and particularly of Israel the Lord sayth †plead with your Hose 2. 2. mother for she is not my wife And you say she was a true Church that is a true wife directly contradicting the holy Ghost But you reason If Iudah retayned true circumcision in her apostasie then Israell c. Then if eyther Iuda her circumcision was false or that your comparison is not equall your argument is of no forse The sacraments seale up Gods covenant to his people walking in his wayes and not to them when they fall from the faith That of Hosea 2. 2. alledged by some is you say to Prove Israel a false Church you thus answer unto Hosea â— I say it was after the Passeover of Ezechias which was in the first yeare of his reigne 2 Chron. 29. 3. 14. and 30. 2. and the bill of divorce was given the sixt â—re of his reigne 2 King 17. 23. compared with 2 King 18. 10. yet notwithstanding Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophecied of the bill of divorce â—â— be given her Hose 4. 6. 8. 12. c. Concerning the time of Hosea his prophesie when he sayd plead with 〈◊〉 mother c. I take it was in the dayes of Vzziah king of Iuda and about the * Perkiâ— Specimen â— c. pag. 3 †2. Kinâ— 17. 23. 23. yeare of his reigne which was almost 60. yeres before Ezechias began to reigne and before the Lord †put Israel out of his sight Now so long before the prophet was bidden to tel Israel that she was not the Lords wife This being so I would know how you or any can iustify Israel to be a true church when the Lord denyes her she had broken covenant her divorcement as you call it argues as much for men put from them wives that had broken the band of mariage and not true wives To that of Hosea 4. 6. 8. 12. I have answered pag. 152. Furthermore you say when the bil of divorce was given divers of Isâ—ael kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme and went yeerly to Ierusalem I doubt thereof no more then you according to these scriptures 2. Chron. 34. 6. 7. 31. 32. 33. and 35. 18. and 30. 11. but we reason of the face of that Church as it stood in apostasie and so continued and not of particular persons In Babylon god hath his yet the face of that Church of ANTICHRIST is apostate and false to the LORD And so we say of Israel that if we respect the outward face of it it was a false Church to God long before Samaritanisme began And here I observe that you agree not with your self for here you say no manner of sinne made the Church of the old testament a false Church and yet you call it apostate as also you do the like in your Paralels pag. 14. and 26. And it is as much as we say of it for that people that are fallen into apostasie have broken faith and covenant with God And if in any place we call Israel or Antichrists a false Church we meane no other but a Church that hath unfaithfully departed from the LORD and so continues in Apostasie II. Argument BAbylon in Chaldea which was a type of spirituall Babylon Reve. 18. 2. though she did abuse and profane the vessels of the Lord Dan. 5. 3. yet did not that make a nullitie of them that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lord but were brought with them of the captivitie that came up from Babylon to Ierusalem Ezra 1. 11. Even so although spiritual Babylon have profaned the holy things of God as baptisme the rest yet remaine they still Gods ordinances to all them that come out of her Rev. 18. 4. and returne to the celestiall Ierusalem And as these vessels of the house of the Lord need not to be new cast because of Babels polluting them no more is baptisme to be iterated to the people of God because it passed through the polluted hands of the Papists If it be objected that they that administered baptisme in Babilon were Idolaters and had no calling therevnto I answere that they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters so standing
God thus disposing that the infants of the faithful might be capable thereof sealed up for the Lords as wel as their pareÌ„ts And it is to be noted that the desiring or offering to receiv baptisme is an action differing from the thing desired so not a part of the same As for your mutual consent of both persons contracting together it must be understood of God with the faythfull their seed for such was the contract or covenant making with Abraham which continues stil in force to al beleevers their seed this precedeth baptisme is no part of the external forme thereof Gen. 17. 1 7. c. Act. 2 39. And for that forme of baptising in poperie with credis credo c. which others speak for the Infant declaring as you say that there must needs be a mutual coÌ„tract c. You know very wel how it is coÌ„tinued upoÌ„ a blynd custome imitation because such as were to be received into the church in the primitive tymes and to be baptised being of yeares did make confession of their fayth answered to such interrogatories as were demanded of them concerning the same This the papists apply to infants the questions being answered by the godfathers who ar sayd to be brought in by Higinus before whose time the parents presented their children to be baptised This corrupt custome apish imitation your self hath condemned Yet now having cast off baptisme it self you scrape in the filthye Dungehill of Poperie to advantage your selfe against the truth whose practise you know condemnes your opinion of not baptising of infants If Yf therefore you wil crave their testimony for your forme of baptisme why dispise you theire witnes of baptising of infants which is the matter And thus much for answer to your description of baptisme Now concerning the outward ceremony of baptisme the Scripture Mat. 3. 11. 16. â—ar 1. 10 Act. 8. 38 Mat 28. â— â— Jo. 1. 7 Act. 2. 38 â— 3. 19. Gal. 3. 27 Rom 6. 3 â— Col. 2. 12 â— 3. 5. 6. thus teacheth that the element in this sacrament is * water onely the forme of administring thereof Christ commaunded thus †baptise them into the name of the father and of the sonne of the holy ghost This is that which the Lord hath instituted whereby he would signify and seale unto his people “ the remission of their sinnes * and the ingraffing into Christ †the mortification of the old man and renuing of the spirit This is the substance of this ceremony and is found to be stil retayned in the Apostate Churches And therefore although it hath bene polluted by the hands of Apostates as the vessels of the Temple were by the Babylonians and by adding of humane inventions yet is it in substance that which Christ ordeyned in his Church neither the element nor forme of administration changed and therefore not to be iterated Your third answer 3. I answer that if the Antichristians had baptised persons confessing their sinnes their faith into the name of the sonne of God and the Trinitie it had been true baptisme though in the hands of the Antichristians c. First you confesse then that the apostasie of Antichrist is not so great but that in the papal Churches there may be true baptisme not to be iterated That they baptised with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy ghost can not be denyed all that you except against is the administring of it to infants so this second question is answered in the former for if the infants are to be baptised then stands their baptisme good without repeating which they have in Apostate Churches Lastly where I sayd that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament made not a nullitie thereof instancing the circumcision of the Israelites by Apostats and of Zippora her circumcising of her sonne you answere saying 1 What say you to Cyprian and al that counsel of learned Bishops who concluded that baptisme of Heretiks was a nullitie and decreed rebaptising This I answer that if Cyprian and those learned Bishops did erre what is that to this purpose for those examples that I have alledged are such as are recorded by the holy ghost to be done not by such as had lawful calling and yet stood without recircumcising But suppose Cyprian those Bishops fouÌ„d that some were baptised by Hereticks and not in the name of the Trinitie for seing some denyed the Deitie of Christ some his humanitie others held other errors about the Trinitie It is not like that they would observe the true forme of baptisme but some strange forme of their owne devise as some report how truly I know not that you baptise your selves into the fayth of the new Testament And so decreed not rebaptising but baptising of them that were not before baptised with Christs baptisme Indeed it is recorded by some that the Novatians Arrians Aetians Donatists did as you do rebaptise those that fell to their errors which had been baptised before into the name of the Trinitie Lastly if Cyprian those Bishops did erre about this poynt of rebaptising as in some others they did I am no patron of their errors 2 I say that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church and Antichrists Ans baptisme was in a false and that is a dissimilitude That Israel in her Apostasie was not a true church I have shewed before how you in this disagree with your self here I wil set down your own Re. words in your book of Paralels c. against M. Barnard pag. 14. thus you write A church falsely constituted as in the old Testament was the apostate church of the 10. Tribes and in the new Testament is the Church of Antichrist is such a communion of men where to God hath not given the covenant the holy things the promises Christ for King Priest and Prophet c. Also in pag. 26. of the same book you answering such as plead that they have the Word Sacraments conversion in the English Assemblies have these words I say it is but as a thief hath the true manns purse and as the false church of Ieroboam had and as the Samaritanes Edomites c. had circumcision the sacrifices by usurpation Here you have testified to the world that Ieroboams church was a false church falsly constituted c. And now seeing a disadvantage thereby to your new erroneous opinion you doubt not to cal it a true church This inconstancie befitts not him that wil be a leader of others 3. I know nothing to the contrarie but Zippora might circumcise her sonne her An. husband commanding her For where is it sayd in the old Testament that a woman shal not circumcises for Moses did circumcise though Zippora was the hand of Moses in that action c. When you deal against us about baptising of infants you wil have coÌ„mandement
Re. or example or els you reiect it as Antichristian now yâ—â— being pressed with this Act of Zippora you shew nether nor any reason for the lawfullnes of the fact and yet you defend it answering that you know nothing to the contrary but Zippora might circumcise her son c. What nedes the Scripture to forbid women to circumcise when for the adminisstring of that ceremony God gave coÌ„maundement that AbrahaÌ„ the * Gen. 17. 7. â—om p. with â—ers 10-13 â—osuah 5. 2 â— 4 master of the family should circumcise al his males as baptisme is now †Mat. 28. 19. injoyned to the Apostles and Ministers of Christ the which commaundements disable all others whether women or men that have not such calling from God for the administeration therof That Zippora did circumcise her sonne by Moses commaundement appeares not in the Scripture but that “ Exo. 4. 24 â—5 she being greeved at her husbands neglect did it But if Moses ought to do it himselfe the question is whether he might commaund his wife to do it The non-residents in England are condemned for preaching by their substitutes and you deseâ—d that a woman may be a substitute to administer a sacrameÌ„t If Zipporah may circumcise in case of necessitie at the appointment of her husband why may not the midvvives in case of necessitie baptise by the appointment of the Preists You pretend rule but in this you practisâ— it not 4. I yeeld that the Minister shall not preiudice baptisme if the baptisme be the Ans Lords owne ordinance c. In this we agree that the Minister if he be not lawfully called doth not Rep. so farre preiudice baptisme as to make a nullitie of it what is further here to be answered is done els where The 2 obiection you answer is that although baptisme be administred in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subiect yet it shall not be repeated no more then circumcision in the dayes of Jeroboam c. My words were these That â—epl the children in that apostasie are as fit subiects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the dayes of Jeroboam were to receive circumcision And you pervert my wordes and say that I affirme that although baptisme be administred in a false Church vpon an vnfit subiect Is this to confesse that infants are vnfit subiects to say they were as fit as the infants of Israel Your self doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apostasie were capable of circumcision I sayd that the infants of the Antichristians were as capable as they not approving of the state of eyther but arguing that if the former might stand for circumcision then also the other without iterating the state of the Antichristians being alike to the apostate Israelites but I will come to your further answer which is this I say that the Israelites infants in there defection were the subiect that God commaunded Ans to be circumcised so are not the infants in Antichristianisme both for that they are 1. infants 2. members of a false Church 3. the seede of vnbeleevers That the Israelites infants in their defectioÌ„ were coÌ„mauÌ„ded to be circuÌ„cised Repl. can not be proved God is no approver of apostasie When he gave to Abraham and his seed circumcision he did intend that it should seale his covenant unto them and that they should continue therein and not apostate and therefore to speak properly the Israelites in their apostasie could be no fit subiects although upon their repentance the Lord let stand their circumcision And so if the state of this people be rightly coÌ„sidered the dissimilitude between their circumcision and baptisme in Antichristian assemblies wil not prove such as you pretend Your reasons to prove infants in Antichristianisme to be no fit subiects of baptisme are of no weight The first of them is answered in the former part of this writing where is proved that infants are fit subiects of baptisme Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichrists Church and deny them to be members of true Churches but to let this passe I answere that this reason is of no force seing your self confesseth that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. it had bene true baptisme To the third I answer that the infants in Antichristianisme are no more the seed of unbeleevers then the infants in Ieroboams Church were the seed of unbeleevers both were the seed of apostates and that is all you can say of them Their parents although apostating from many truthes and polluted with mens inventions yet were not fallen from all profession of Iesus Christ but stil did and do acknowledge salvation by him retayne and beleeve many mayne grounds of faith excellent truthes so many as the Lord hath his people in * Rev. 18. Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by those doctrines there taught And therefore thus I think of such apostates that in respect of their outward standing they remaine in apostasie having forsaken many truthes pollute Gods ordinances practise the cursed inventions of men yet professing faith in God in Iesus Christ though corruptly I can not hold them as infidels simply but as the Israelites in their apostasie and their seed may rather be termed the seed of Apostates then of infidels or vnbeleevers And whereas you say that the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ did â—â— truely belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Israelits though both in defection I deny it for the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelits the carnal seed of Abraham even in their parents Apostacy and the spiritual covenant did never appertayne to the Apostate parents 2. much les to the infants of them c. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be vnder stode of the blessing of Abraham to come vppon any of the Gentiles in their Apostacy but onely being in Christ as the words are also ver 7. and 9. c. I speak comparatively of the seeds of the apostate Israelites and Antichristians affirming the one as fit subiects for baptisme as the other for circumcision because the Gentiles since Christ have as much title to the covenant with Abraham as the Israelites had This you deny shifting off with your devised carnal covenant It is not for the spirituall covenant or Sacrament to belong to Apostates that I contend I know it belongs to the faithful and their seed though you say no. But this was the end wherefore I did alledge Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is inlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as iust clayme to it for them selves and their seed as Israel could do And therefore did reason thus If the children of Israel could chalendg right to the covenant and circumcisioÌ„ their parents being in Apostacy
then might the infants of Apostats in Antichristianisme do so and this is all that I sayd not iustifying the standing of the one or of the other III. Argument IF the word of God passing through the false Ministery of Anchrist was of force to convert Gods elect in Babilon Then is baptisme passing likewise through theire false ministery of force to seale vp Gods covenant vnto them and so consequently not to be iterated But the first is true Apoc. 18. 4. for in babylon were Gods people converted other ordinary Ministery was there none but that false Ministery of the Papists and therefore it is apparant that God made thereby his word effectuall to al them that beleeved Ergo c. If it be obiected that if God should convert his people by an AntichristiaÌ„ Ministery it were to give ApprobatioÌ„ to a false Ministery and to teach that men might lawfully vse it which is absurd I answere for vs to vse a false Ministery is vnlawfull but it is no more absurd or yet any approbation of a false Ministery for God to worke thereby the good of his owne people then it was his approving of the evil service of Iosephs brethren selling him into Egypt because he vsed their Ministery for the saving of Iacob and his houshold for God can worke good by an evil instrument If it be stil vrged that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptise I say no more had the Iewes to put Christ to death yet was his suffering avaylable to save al that beleeve and so is the Sacrament to al Gods people avaylable to seale vp salvation vnto them Mr. Smyth I answer First the word converteth none visibly vnto me particulerly knowen so Ans can Baptisme seale vp none visibly vnto me c. Rich. Clyfton Although Gods people continuing in Babylon cannot so welbe discerned Rep. yet by their coming thensce they manifest to me particulerly that there they were converted by the word and so appeare visibly vnto me to belong vnto God and to be children of the covenant As for the tyme before we take no publike notice of theire secreete estate before God nor can do †Deut. â— 29. for the things revealed belong vnto vs. Further you say The marke of the Beast is vndoubtedly baptisme whereby they are initiated into Antichrist and receive his mark as Christs servants in baptisme receive his seale upon them c. Oh how fearful a thing is it to blaspheme baptisme is the ordinance of God though it was polluted by Antichrist you may as wel say the word of God is the marke of the beast for Antichrist did pollute it also as you formerly have confessed Your mark of the beast reacheth verie farr even to the Apostles tymes as the Auncients have witnessed of the baptisme of Infants And if this was the mark of the beast then was the mark before the beast which is absurd to affirme for can the beast before it be in esse make â— both great and smale to receive a †mark in their right hand or in 〈◊〉 13. â— their forehead And that this baptising of infants was before the beast was we have shewed out of the scriptures and it may appear out of Origine Tertullian and others that speak of infants baptisme to be in practise in the church before their tyme as in the former part of this writing is observed And it appeares both by the * Revelation And that of the Rev. 13. â— 10. 11. â— 17. Apostle in 2 Thes 2 3. that the man of synne arose not to this height and power to make small and great to receive his marke until there came a departing first And seeing this marke of Antichrist was such as smale and great rich and poor free and bound did receive it can not be the baptising of infants For then onely the smale should be sayd to receive it And therefore the marke must be such a one as shall agree to all persons “ great and smale rich and poor bound and free and be received of them Rev. 13. â—6 Rev. 14. 9. in that condition and state And it must be such a marke as they that worship the beast and his image shal receive by a †willing and actual consent the which can not be applyed to infants for neither can they worship the beast or give voluntarie consent to receive his marke in their hands or foreheads An. 2. Antichrists baptisme false as I have sayd in the definition is none of Gods ordinance no not in the hands of the most faythful Minister but Gods word is the Lords ordinance though in the mouth of the most vile Iudas or Antichristian yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000. heresies The same Lord that gave his word to his church ordeyned also baptisme 〈◊〉 to be therein Indeed if baptisme had been devised by Antichrist or any man els it were not to be reputed for true baptisme at al but that baptisme which is fouÌ„d to be in the AntichristiaÌ„ assemblies is not Antichrists the contrarie is proved before Answ So that in this respect alâ—â— it followes not that Gods word may convert in popery therefore Antichrists baptisme may seal c. It wil follow that as the word in Poperie so baptisme in that Apostasie retayned since the primitive coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of the church of Rome in the Apostles dayes as the word in poperie may coÌ„vert so baptisme may seal theÌ„ that are Christs being converted for God can as wel blesse the one as the other Gods word doth convert in BabiloÌ„ yet is not the promise any more annexed to that outward ministerie of Antichrist then that blessing * Gen. 1. bring forth fruit and multiplie is by Gods ordinance tyed to unlawful conjunctioÌ„s but it pleaseth the L. by the ministerie of his word ordinaÌ„ce to effect his own work in al such as shal be saved though through the haÌ„ds of apostates 3. You say If Antichrist had retayned the Lords true baptisme c. viz. Answ that he had baptised persons confessing their sinnes and fayth in the Trinitie it should not have been repeated But seeing he intendeth in baptisme to sett an indelible caracter upon them which is the marke of the beast to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth c. hence I conclude that hee hath sett upp his owne idoll of abhomination and cast the LORDS holy ordinance away c. Ergo his baptisme is anullitie or rather a seal of perdition c. Your self by your heresie setts up an idol of abhomination and casts away Rep. the Lords holy ordinance of sealing his covenant to his people their seed And here againe you destroy one of your reasons which you brought against the baptising of infants which was * Caracteâ— pag. 52. because they were members of a false church for you confesse that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their
without this washing with water into the name of the Father c. it cannot be baptisme And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptised may be called an accident as al such formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced yet to baptisme it selfe I meane to the external ceremony it is no accident or adiunct but is of the very essence and being thereof and without which it cannot be baptisme And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident I do not conceive otherwise then as before I have observed in respect of the party baptised els might the ceremony of baptisme be for substance without this washing with water into the name of the Trinitie But whether it be of the essence of baptisme or an accident look with what warrant you do repeate it For suppose I should graunt as much as you desire that this forme of washing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptisme yet the Lord having coÌ„maunded that accident to be but once vsed without repeating how can you iustifie the iterating of such accidentall truthes as you call them for if it were of God in that baptisme administred in Popery as you confesse then can you not repeat it Therefore your iterating of it argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord And so you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptisme as you pretend to do UI. Argument AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sathan and all his instruments shal never be cut of So he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the law Gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the faithful And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were partakers in the Apostate Church and devising a new do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking vpon them to baptise themselves without al warrant from the word for I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptise him selfe without special coÌ„maundement froÌ„ God as Abraham had for circumcision Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptisme Mark 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be sayd the tymes be extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby we may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the world to informe vs in every thing that we ought to do Mr Smyth I answere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus Ans If the gates of Hel shal never prevayl against the Church then there hath alwayes bene aâ—rue Church and antichrist could never make the Church false and so you of the sepâ—ration have sinned most shamefully in callinge the Church of antichrist false verum â—rimum Ergo secundum Rich. Clyfton First I deny that your Argument is of like nature neither wil your false Re. relating of my words give you this advantage for it is one thing to say that God hath preserved the seales of his covenant and an other to say that these seales cannot be abolished through the malice of Sathan I know the outward seales and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Sathan if the Lord would have permitted it For as Antichrist Sathans instrument hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to abolish them out of the church As the worship Ministerie Government Censures c. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptisme and if God had not otherwise disposed could have foysted in a new forme of baptisme in the roome of it 2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16 18. that there should alwayes continue a true visible church upon the earth which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt for the Scripture †2 Thes 3. 7. Reâ— 13. 11 â— 18. 4. speaketh to the contrarie But the promise of Christ to his church is this that the gates of Hell shal not prevaile against it that is against his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Christ this promise the Lord performeth to everie true visible Church so long as they cleave unto him continue faythful and to his invisible for ever even in the very dayes of Apostasie Sathan did not prevaile against the elect of God The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in al the tyme of Antichrist as even Reâ—nerius the Popes Inquisitor acknowledgeth whose Testimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true understanding yet doth it not follow that that church from which we did separate was that true church or yet that this true church was alwayes visible But I come to your second answer which is more properly as you say solvendo That the covenant is sayd to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existance Answ in the world in an established church but in respect of the stabilitie of it in regard of Sathans inalice c. This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not for Rep. I did not intend in saying the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Sathan that there was alwayes a true visible church walking in all the commandements of God but this I mynded and do say that the covenaÌ„t of God could never be cut off through the malice of Sathan but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes yea through the great Apostasie of Antichrist You say There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme and so no true baptisme Ans This consequent will not follow for though the church of Antichrist was no true church yet everie thing therein was not so for the Scriptures though by them abused even in that Church were the true word of God â—ep and so baptisme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned though corruptly administred I deny that the covenant Church or baptisme was visible alwayes An. â—epl Baptisme which was appointed to be a seal of Gods covenant hath ever since the first institution of it been visible that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasie And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen wher is no apparance of Christianitie for in them remaynes some kind of visibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or lesse accordingly as they are more or lesse corrupted For if all visibilitie should cease they should cease to be called Apostate and indeed become no churches And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footsteps of that image of God wherein he was first created so in
member of any Church shall baptise make a Church that without coÌ„maundemeÌ„t from God Now you say a Church can not be erected without baptisme because baptisme is the visible forme thereof consider you that are so barren of proof for the administring of Baptising to your self that you can not shew one good reason to warrant it to be lawful if by condemning reiecting of that baptisme which you received in Antichristianisme you overthrow not your new Church for if a Church can not be without baptisme and you not able to prove your new baptisme from the scriptures which have reiected the old Then is your assembly an idol And so while you condemne other Churches vniustly for false yours proves more false then any But concerning baptisme which you call the visible forme fo the Church I answer 1. the forme of a Church is coÌ„mon to all together 2. If Baptisme be the forme theÌ„ it may come to passe that one man may be a visible Church as he that first in the company baptiseth himself he is a Church being baptised for he that hath the forme upoÌ„ him must needs be the thing formed And so Mr Smyth was a Church when he baptised himself which is absurd to think But coÌ„cerning the matter forme of the Church this you have written That * Paralelsâ— c. pa. 11â— two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament and therefore have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament induced vpon them Againe speaking of the exiled English Church at Amsterdam you say that they have reduced the Church to the Apostolike constitution Differencâ— c. in the Preface which consisteth in 3. things 1. the true matter which are Saincts onely 2. The forme which is the vniting of them together in the covenant 3. the true propertie which is communion in all the holy things Thus you contradict your self here you teach us that vniting of people together in the covenant is the forme of the Church And in this writing that baptisme is the forme Certeynly the holy Ghost * Act. 2. 3. 39. Ephe. 4â— 4. 5. distinguisheth baptisme both from the covenant and the body But to contend about the forme of the Church is here not to the purpose seing both you and we graunt that a Church must consist of baptised persons you contending for your new devised baptisme we holding that baptisme which wee have already received Further you reason for the erecting of your baptisme That when al Christ visible ordinances are lost eyther men must recover them agayn Ans or must let them alone if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues as the Apostles did then men are FAMILISTS or if they must receive them men must begin so to do And then two men ioyning together may make a Church as you say why may they not baptise seing they can not conioyne into Christ but by Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christs commaundements must be obeyed Ergo this commaundement c. First for the visible ordinances of Christ his Church hath right unto them and his people are to have the vse of them by such means and Ministery as he hath appointed but every man may not take upon him the administration of these ordinances but * they whom the Lord hath given Heb. 5. 4. authoritie and office thereunto God is not the †author of confusion Cor. 14. but of order It wil not follow because the Church is to have baptisme therefore any one may administer it when al are vnbaptised Thus might Ieroboam plead for the * Preists that he made of the lowest of the people King 12 that it was a necessity seing al the Priests of Levi were departed and as at this dâ—y they plead in England for their vnpreaching Preists that eyther they must have such or be without service and Sacraments which plea as we condemne in them so do we the administration of the Sacraments or other of Gods ordinances without warrant from the Lord. And therefore they must be let alone til they may be had by that rule that Christ hath left vs for the injoying of the same For this I am sure of that the word of the Lord is perfect and CHRIST hath left vs certayne direction for the practising of al his ordinances at all tymes Now if the Scripture have not shewed who shal baptise in the Churches arising out of Apostacy then who dare take vpon him to give direction And though we are not to loke for extraordinary men which to do say you were familisme yet must we loke for ordinary meanes men must not do that which they are not warranted by the word though the thing be to be done Secondly for two being ioyned together in covenant with the Lord to walk in his wayes they have * warrant so to do if there be no visible Church for them to ioyne unto although I do not approve that every two Mat. 18 or three shall ioyne together so walk when they may conveniently ioyne to a Church set already in the wayes of God neyther may they attempt any thing beyoÌ„d their measure calling least they fal into the sinne of Corah c. And as for two baptising themselves or one an other that can they not do without calling from God And therefore you not having calling herevnto being as you say vnbaptised I pray you tel me how you are authorised by Christ herevnto conjoyned into his name The Admistration of Baptisme is by Christ †Mat. 19. Ephe. 4. 11 12. commaunded to his Apostles and Ministers of the word as before is shewed As for your reason which is That els they can not conioyne into Christ but by baptisme I answer we may be ioyned into Christ by being vnited in one spirit into his covenant of life And though persons that were never baptised be received into the Church by baptisme yet wil it not folow that such as are baptised in apostate Churches 〈◊〉 must any more be baptied theÌ„ they that being circuÌ„cised were recircuÌ„cised when they ioyned to the Church of the Iewes And baptisme is not our graffing into Christ but the signe or seale thereof and so are those Scriptures which you alledg to be vnderstode And as you say The commaundement of God must be obeyed and so this commaundement It is true being done according to the order and way that Christ hath appointed therefore you break the commaundement to baptise your self others without commission from Christ are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes Pharisees * Mat. 15 3. who traÌ„sgressed the commandements of God by their traditions so you do in this your new baptisme transgresse Gods coÌ„maundement to magnifie your own devised practise Look well to it the Lord
posteriety of such parents as were members of the Church planted by the Apostles els could we not have Apostated 2. That people which the Apostles gathered into Churches were never baptised And baptisme coming in steed of circumcision and being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant it was fit that they which beleeved and became the seed of Abrah should so enter in to covenaÌ„t they their seed as he his seed entered that is as he his were received in by circuÌ„cision so they theirs should be receved in by baptisme Act. 2. 38. 41. 8. 38. But we are a people that ar already baptised the seed of them that were baptised had received the Gospel And although through Antichrists deceaveablenes both we and they were taynted with many corruptions yet had they or might have in that Apostasie and so we also so much faith as thereby both we and they might become the people of God Apoc 18. 4. And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches here it is to be noted that the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the imediate directioÌ„ of the H. Ghost And so serveth for a coÌ„tinual rule of establishing Churches to th' end of the world which forme or frame layed downe by them no man hath power to alter or change 1. Cor. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 6. 14. But the constituting of Churches now after the defection of Antichrist maâ—â— more properly be called a repayring then a constituting of Churches which through Apostacy have bene ruinated or a gathering together of the dispersed sheepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches the patterne whereof is shewed vnto vs in the word For as before hath bene noted our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches And so it wil not follow as is aledged that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessaryly must be by baptisme as in the primitive tyme it was except onely of such persons as have not bene baptised before And herein I take it lieth the deceat of this Argument that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming ouâ— of Babylon and them that came to the fayth from amongst the Gentiles equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an apostate Church the other no Church the one partaker of the word sacraments though with much corruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neyther at all the one professing Christ teaching many truthes of God so many as the elect thereby might coÌ„e to faith Apo 18. 4. The other neyther professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God whereby any might be converted to Christ and become Gods people in that estate of Gentilisme And thus having made playne the different estate of the first planted Churches and ours in Apostacy I answere 1. That Churches now are to be constituted if repayring be not a fitter speach as in the Apostles tymes that all such as are received in as meÌ„bers being vnbaptised must be received in by baptisme but for such as were baptised in Apostate Churches their repentance is sufficient without rebaptization as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vpon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were received of the Church without any new circumcision And therefore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Christ and not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could do no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptised but if they had mett with any that before had bene baptised into the name of Christ as they that received the baptisme of Iohn and as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptised them And therefore the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptised Mr Smyth As in the former point for baptising of infants you are compelled to runne to the old Testament and from thence to fetch the cheif corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new testament of Christ c. and set vs againe to schoole to Moses as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach vs his new Testament but we must go learne the new Testament of the old Testament Christ of Moses the Gospel of the law c. Rich Clifton Before you come to answer my exception against your reason you prefix Answ as it were for a ground certayn thinges which you intreat me and al the Seperation especeally the leaders wel to weigh and ponder and not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors In which your great observation 1. you charge me to be compelled to runne to the old Testament c. What my answere is to this your reason shal be iustified Now where you except about the former point for baptising of infants against my running to the old TestameÌ„t to fetch my cheif corner stone c. If I have done evil herein beare witnes of it but if I have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles who proved that which they taught by the Scriptures of the old Testament why impute you this unto me to disgrace search these * Mat. â— 23. 2. â— 15. 28. 3. 22. â— 32. Joh. 23. 5. 3â— Luk. 24. 2â— Act. 2. 2â— 3. 22. 4 25. 26. 18. 28. Roâ— 4 3 6. 7. 9. â— 11 with dâ—vers otheâ— places quoted in the margent and see if the things of the new testament were not proved out of the old Yet notwithstanding I have used other reasons from the Scriptures of the new Testament to prove the baptising of infants as in my answer is to be seen But my corner stone as you please to call it fetched from the old testament is so ponderous as you can not remove it Concerning the forsaking of the new Testament it is not I but your self Mr Smyth that sinns therin by casting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of salvation And as towching the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Christ himself set us to schoole to learne of them the things †Ioh. 5. 39 that are witten of him and yet this you fault in me as if it were not lawful to prove doctrines and ordinances of the new Testament out of Moses Characteâ— pag. 44. the Prophets But I pray you Sir that findes fault to be set againe to the schoole to Moses why say you “ we must attayne to and learne all that the school-Maister of the old testament could teach vs. Do not you herein set us to school to Moses But it seemes you are past Moses teaching I would wish you were not past Christs also The old Testament is not so abrogated that withal the †writings of Moses and of the 2 Tim. 3. â— 17. Pet. 1. 9. 21. Prophets cease to be in force
opinion of yours can not stand if the essence of baptisme be destroyed For your wish that the Lord would open all our eyes of the separation to see and our harts to understand that all the old Testament was carnal to type out to teach them heavenly things therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs the new Testament c. It hath pleased God and we are thankful for it to open our eyes to discern of your carnal doctrine to understaÌ„d the truth which you labor to obscure by your straÌ„ge expositioÌ„s As for the old Test which you cal carnal the church carnal I tel you agayn and againe that al the ordinances under the old testament were spiritual in their ordination and right vse as the †Rom. 7 law it self is holy spiritual and therefore are called “ Heb. â— ordinances of religion and the Tabernacle Mikdasch to teach that it was of an holy vse for the Lord. The old †Ioh. 1â— Ephe. â— 19. 3. 1 Cor. 10 4. Eph. 4 Church also was a spiritual house notwithstanding that the first testament had ordinances of religion which did shadow forth things to come for in substance both it and the Church under the Gospel are * Heb. 1. 10. the same onely differing in the outward administration of the covenant To the former Church holy things were administred under types and figures to the latter more simply and in the playn manifestation of the truth Now to prove your carnal and typicall Church you say The matter of the old Church was a carnal Israelite and the forme carnal circumcision Re. a carnal seal Gen. 17. 10-14 But the matter of the Church of the new Testament is a true Israelite the forme is the circumcision of the hart a new creature the holy spirit of promise whereby we are sealed which is manifested by confession baptism in water Act. 10. 47. Ephe. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 27. 6. 15. Io. 3. 5. Mat. 3. 6. RoÌ„ 10. 9. Act 8. 36. 37. c. Concerning your carnal matter and forme I haue answered pag. 12. and have also proved that God did require of that his people Israel to be †Exo. â— holy and “ RoÌ„ 2. 29. Dâ— 10. 16 Jer. 4. 4 Ans spiritual And for the forme of the old Church I have shewed likewise that they became * Gen. Deut. 2â— 10 15. a Church people of God by vertue of Gods covenant made with them wherevnto circumcision was added as a seal to coÌ„firme the same which they also received pag. 12. 13. 23. c. The form of the Church can never be wanting the Church continuing to be a Church but circuÌ„cision may be wanting and was wanting to all the Israelites 〈◊〉 in the wildernes by all that space of 40. yeres and yet I hope they were 〈…〉 bers of his “ Psal 43. Church all that time notwithstanding That which you set downe for the forme of the new testament viz. Circumcision of the hart a new creature and the spirit of Christ is internal proper to every true member both of the old Church and new yea this forme if it be so called belongs to Gods people in Babylon and to all the members of the invisible Church but that outward forme of a visible Church which we are to know it by must be visible and such as we can discerne them to be a people of God from all other assemblies But this new creature and inward graces you wil say are manifested by confession and baptisme in water so may it also where baptisme is not had as it might be in Israel when they could not have circumcision Also the forme of the Church must be one indivisible thing common to the whol that gives the being thereof as before I have observed but confession and baptisme as it is particularly applyed to every member as to the * Eunuch Paul c. so may it rest in one man if all the rest should dye or fall away who could â—ct 8. â— 9. 18 not be a Church and yet he hath that which you set down to be the form of the Church Wherefore Gods people ioyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel must have one general form whereby they receive the denominatioÌ„ of a Church that is their solemn eÌ„tring into coÌ„munioÌ„ vnder the covenant of the Lord vniting together to walk in all his wayes to be his â—eu 29. â— 13. â— 18. 20 â—i 1. 5. â— 2. 42 â—ifferenc â—he preâ— people which all that ar afterward †added to the Church must promise to observe And such a coÌ„munion do we hold for a Church so “ did you For as many stones may be heweÌ„ squared so be fit matter for an house yet have not those stones the denomination of an house vntil they be ioyned together in one forme No more people confessing Christ are to beheld a visible Church vntill they be ioyned together in such a forme as Christ hath commaunded But to follow you in your comparison of these two Churches speaking of the Iewes thus you say Their carnall Church in the matter and forme came by carnall genealogie and so they all of them were gendered vnto bondage vnder the rudiments of the world Gal. 4. 24 -25 vnder the carnal Testament Our Church in the matter forme thereof is by spirituall generation that is the genealogie of the faithful of Abraham the father of vs all Gal 3. 7. 9. 14. RoÌ„ 4. 10. 11. Their parents in that carnal Church was carnal Abraham and carnal Agar c. our spiritual parent is AbrahaÌ„ spiritual c. Their Ministery was a carnal Ministery by carnal genealogie c. First I deny that eyther the matter or forme of the Church of the â—â— Iewes came by carnal genealogie as you apply it They were made a Church and people of God through the everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham and his seede els could not the Proselyts and their children have bene matter of that old Church seing they descended not by carnall genealogie from Abraham Agayne that Church must be of the same nature with the covenant which gives the being thereof but this †Deut. 13. coÌ„f wâ— Luke 1. 7â— 73. 74. Cor 6. 1â— covenant is spirituall Ergo the Church also is spirituall That place of Gal. 4. 24. 25. which you cyte to prove that old Church to be carnal you missaply as before I have shewed pag 14. Secondly I deny that Hagar was the mother of the Israelites after the flesh though Abraham was their father neyther was Ismael the type of the Israelits as they were by nature the seede of Abraham but of such Israelits and others vnder the Gospel that by the works of the law sought to be iustified whereby they came in bondage to the law as the Apostle witnesseth See the exposition of Gal. 4. 24. 25. in pag. 14.
As for the spiritual genealogy both vnder the law and the Gospel I do approve to be the true seede of Abraham but not in your sense that excludes the infants of the faithful from the covenant which of vs are to be * Mat. â— Act. 3. accounted the children thereof as wel as these that outwardly professe their faith And concerning the Ministerie of the old Church although none could be Preists †Exo. 28. but of the line of Aaron yet was the “ Num. 6-19 Dâ— 33. 8-â— tribe of Levi chosen by God himself for that office And God * sanctified them to the service of his name and to the Ministery of holy things Lastly you charge vs with an introducing of a carnal line into the Church to be baptised by succession fetch baptisme vpon the carnal line through the Church of Rome c. “ Numb 19. 1 Cor. â— 13. Of this I have spoken before and I answer further 1. that we do not introduce any other carnall line into the Church to be baptised then the Lord himself introduceth that is the children of the faithful And this is not as you say to set up Iudaisme in the new Testament seing all the people of God of al nations and ages are bound vnto it for we know no other covenant by which we become the People Church of God but that same which was made with Abraham and his seed Concerning the carnall lyne as you cal it though in respect of vs it may seeme to stop in Apostacy yet the Lord continueth his promise to his elect therin Neyther by this our retayning of baptism do we iustify Rome to be a true church nor make our selves Schismaticks seeing we cast of her adulteries and keep that which is Christs ordinance by her polluted Also you charge us To be fallen from Christ and become a new second image of the beast never heard of before in the world For being fallen from Christ look that it be not your owne case Of the image of the beast I †read but not of a â—ev 13. â— 15. â— 9. new second image and therefore no marveil though it be never heard of in the world as you say and if it had been by you unspoken of also by so applying of it unto us your sinne had been the lesse And thus much in answer to your premised ground Next you set down the summe of my exception First I say that the new Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affairs â—l and occasions that befal in our tyme in the new Testament as the old Testament was for the occurrents that befel under the old Testament seeing Christ is as faythful as Moses and the new Testament as perfect as the old Gal. 3. 15. and therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostalike constituting of Churches and our constituting of them in respect of the persons to be admitted into the church and in respect of baptising and not baptising or rebaptising of them he could would have done it c. The sufficiencie of the new Testament we acknowledge of the books Answ thereof for that use wherefore they were written But it seemes that you confound the new Testament or covenant of grace with the books thereof for you reason thus that the new Testament meaning the bookes thereof are sufficient for direction of al affaires of the church And your proofe out of Gal. 3. 15. is of the covenant it self and not of the books thereof And afterward you alleadge as a reason for the same end that the new Testament is perfect and sealed with the blood of Christ thus deceiving the Readers with an homonomy of the word Testament The books of the new Testament were al unwritten when Christ sufferred and had sealed the covenant of Grace This Testament had been perfect if there had been never a book written The historie of the Gospel was written * Ioh. 20. 31 Rom. 1. 1. 2. 16. 25. 26. that we might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ promised and foretold in the holy Scriptures of the Prophets and that beleeving in him we might have eternal life Concerning the faythfulnes of Christ it consisteth in “ Luk. 1. 70 24. 27. â— Pet. 1. 10. â—1 12. Act. 26. 22. 13. 29. fulfilling of those things which Moses and the Prophets had sayd should come to passe And if he give us direction for all the affaires and occasions that fall out in our tymes eyther out of the books of the new Testament or old we ought to be thankful to God and accordingly to use them and not bynd him or our selves onely to the writings of the Apostles Seeing Christ is the Author as wel of the doctrine writings of the Prophets as of the Apostles 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 1 Pet. 3. 18. 19. Againe concerning the difference between the Apostolicke constituting of Churches and ours which you charge us with I answer we plead for no difference neyther do we practise contrarie to the first planting of the church witnesse Mr. Smyth Differences in the preface lin 12. â—ns â— for as then such as were to be received into the Church did confesse their fayth and so with thir families were baptised so wee hold that all such that are unbaptised and to be added to the church must enter thereinto they with their families after the same manner as in the Apostles tymes And we do acknowledge that all churches which have Apostated are to be reformed according to the patterne and platforme layd downe by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures But this difference we put between persons that were never baptised and such as have received baptisme in an Apostate church affirming that the former are to be adjoyned to the Church by baptisme the latter not to be againe baptised which if it had been necessarie the Lord no doubt would have coÌ„manded when he bad his people to goe out of Babylon But seing he sayth not a word of the renuing thereof we are to content our selves and to practise as the Holy Ghost †2 Chr. â— 5. 13. else where doth teach us by the example of the Israelites in an other like case Now if you can shew us eyther commandement or example or any good reason in all the new Testament to rebaptise them which have been baptised in Apostate churches we will receive it and practise it if not why do you plead for it without warrant do rebaptise your selves also affirme so confidently that all things be so manifest in the APOSTLES writings that upon every occasion that falles out in our tymes we have direction for it Lastly it is not wee that adde to this new Testament as you charge us or that bring in a new CHRIST a nevv Church a nevv Covenant a nevv Gospell and a nevv Baptisme but you your selves are guilty of this sinne for you by
your nevv devysed baptisme have rejected the seal of GODS Covenant and consequently the covenaunt it self and so the Author of it And as IEROBOAM †forged the eight moneth out of his owne hart for to keep a feast unto â—in 12. the Lord so have you forged a church of your own invention and the receiving in of members into it And that which you would impute unto â—v 22. â— us is fallen upon your selves even that * woe for adding to the word Secondly I affirme that as the holy Ghost sayth the Antichristians are in condition equal to Pagans not called Israelites or Samaritanes but Babylonians Aegyptians Sodomites Gentiles But the holy Ghost knoweth what and how to speak And therefore as the Babylonians Aegyptians Sodomites and Gentiles washings were nothing no more is the Baptisme of Antichristians any thing c. I have Answered to this before pag. 150. 151. And shewed that the Iewes which were called the people of “ Gomorah and their Rulers the Princes of Sodome should then stand in the same estate with Pagans and 〈◊〉 10. in condition be equal unto them and their circumcision voyd if the holy Ghost in so terming them did mynd as you doe This is a strange kind of reasoning that because the Antichristians resemble the Gentiles in some filthie practises for the which the spirit calls them Sodomites c. therefore their condition in al respects is as theirs Christ called Peter Sathan shal we thereupon conclude that therefore Peter was as Sathan in al respects because in his counseling his master to favour himself he was like him Of Iudah it is sayd that she was more †corrupt in al her wayes then Samaria and Sodome shal we say because the Lord thus speaketh that Iudah was now to be recircumcised If the holy Ghost calling the Antichristians Sodomites c. should teach us thereby that he esteemeth no otherwise of the church and Baptisme then of the Synagogues of Babylon the washings of Aegypt then of the worship of Sodome and the Pagans as you say then must he needs teach us the like to esteeme of the churches of the Iewes and of the circumcision when he calls them the people of Gomorrah and more corrupt in her wayes then Sodome as before I have observed For your comparison of the Gentiles washings with the baptisme of Antichristians affirming that as the former were nothing no more is the other This is not to compare things alike for the washings of the Gentiles were of mans invention and baptisme is the ordinance of Christ And therefore it wil not follow that because mens devises are nothing when any of theÌ„ turne to God that baptisme also God ordinance prophaned in Popery is therefore nothing when any such Apostates repent and returne to Sion No more is this a good reason to prove that the Holy Ghost did fore see that the Antichristians would abolish true baptisme by baptising Infants because he calleth persons Apostating Babylonians Sodomites Gentiles Thirdly whereas you say that repayring the Church now after the Apostasie of Râ—pl Antichrist is a fitter speech then constituting herein do you both tax your selves of the vse of that word constitution and playnly signifie that you incline to maintain the Churches of England or Rome to be true churches wherein whether you do not forsake your first fayth and turn with the dogge to the vomite look you unto it c. If it had pleased you to have taken my whole answer you had neither Ans cause to have excepted against the word repayring nor yet have gathered thereby any inclination in us to maintayn any thing that is corrupt eyther in the churches of England or Rome much lesse as you say to forsake our first fayth and turne with the dogge to the vomite But you that thus speak it were good to take heed you be not the dogge that vomits out your blaspemous errors to the dishonour of God and offence of his people If the word of repayring had been so faulty you had done better to have manifested the untrunes thereof then to have bewrayed your evill thoughts in the unjust censuring of others But concerning repayring or reforming let the indifferent Reader judge if it be not more proper to us then to constitute or plant for who knoweth not that there is but one constitution or planting of the church under the Gospel which is founded by the Apostles And other forme or frame can no earthly power devyse then that which the Apostles have left us And seing at the first they did constitute churches in divers partes of the world and those churches ruinated by Antichrist shal not the restoring of them to the first patterne of the Apostles be properly called a repairing seing they did not cease utterly to be no churches but are churches in corruption or ruine But I wil not contend about words for that which I strive for is to have the church in that forme as the word prescribeth both for people worship goverment and what els appertaynes thereunto Fourthly I say that the Iewes that were converted to the sayth new Testament Rep. of Christ by Christ Iohn and the Apostles in your account were in a farre better estate then Antichristians for they as you say were of the same body with the church of the new Testament and their circumcision was a seal of the new Testament as you say and they were in Christ Iesus as you say and were washed I doubt not many of them into the Messiah c. and why might not they by Iohn Christ or his Apostles be admitted into the church without baptisme If therefore Christ Iohn and the Apostles would needs baptise them and so by baptisme constitute them into the new Testament that had al these prerogatives in your iudgment much more wil they have us to constitute Antichristians converted into the true church by baptisme This your reason is alike the rest nothing good for albeit that the Ch. â—ns of the Iewes was a true church yet had it not Christ exhibited in the flesh afore this tyme wherefore it was meet seing the Priesthood and ceremonial administration of that Church was changed and the †old was to cease â—eb 8. 13 that the Iewes as wel as the Gentiles should be partakers thereof alike that therby they might acknowledge Christ their Messiah to be come whoÌ„ they looked for And as it was required of the meÌ„bers of the old Church that they should * beleeve in the Messiah to come So was fayth “ required â—en 15. 6 â—m 4. 11. â—k 2. 25. â—or 10. 3. of them that should be admitted into the church of the Gospell wherein both Iewes Gentiles should be alike received baptissd into his name As for the Apostate church of Antichrist it is such a one as acknowledgeth Iesus Christ to be come professeth the Gospel though corruptly And baptisme received in the Apostate church hath
of the Israelites was not false The churches of Antichrist were false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised which was not that one seed unto the which the promise was made that is the faythful c. I have shewed before how wel you agree with your self concerning the Ans church of Israel which here you say was nor false and yet have published to the contrarie As for your grounds or reasons of the trunes of the Israelitish church and falsenes of Antichrists whatsoever you can plead for the one the like may be alledged for the other If Israel in her defection be accounted a true church then must Rome also in her Apostasie Certayn it is that both are to be esteemed Apostatical Churches and this is that which we testifie And towching Israel if the carnall circumcision alone of the Israelites had ben the sufficient coÌ„stitution of that church to keep it free from being Apostate they continuing it why should the Lord bidde tel her †Hos 2. â— that she was not his wife nor he her husband Or did the * 2 Chro. 13. 14. Priests and Levites wel to leave their suburbes and possessions to leave that church to goe to Iuda and Ierusalem but hereof before 2. For the matter of the Antichristian churches which you say was false because they consisted of the carnal seed baptised I answer that they were not therefore false or Apostatical because infants were baptised whose baptisme is proved lawful already but for that they brake covenant with God forsoke their first love as now you do and followed strange lovers “ Rev. 17. 2-6 16. â— 18. 2. 3. 9 24. shed the bloud of the Saincts were a cage of every unclean and hatefull bird c. and these are the sinnes which they are charged with but never is it imputed to them for sinne their baptising of Infants Wherefore an Edomite or Ismaelite coming to be a proselyte of the Iewes Church Rep. that had omitted circumcision is a true president of the Antichristian Apostasie c. This is against your self for if they were uncircumcised they ought to Answ be received into the Iewes Church by circuÌ„cision And so if any be unbaptised they ought now to be received into the ch by baptism But tel me if an Edomite or Ismalite having circuÌ„cisioÌ„ becoÌ„ing a proselyte was recircuÌ„cised Now if the Edomites Ismalites turning to the fayth eyther were uncircumcised or being before circumcised were not recircuÌ„cised what is this to the purpose to prove that Antichristians must be rebaptised You adde also so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church Why say you not rather the Proselytes were types of the Gentiles that under the Gospel are converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church As for their being types of Antichristians you know there is a great difference seeing the Proselytes were uncircumcised afore their convertion but the Antichrists are baptised already But if this be your thought that Proselytes their entrance into the Iewish Church were types of Antichristians converted and admitted into the true Church then I trust you wil that the thing typed be answerable to the type But you know when a Gentile or Edomite was coÌ„verted to the profession of the Iewes and became a proselyte he vvas received 〈◊〉 12. into the church of the old Testament vvith his familie and †al his males must be circumcised as vvel as himself Why admit you not that the Proselytes of Antichristianisme as you call them should enter into the church with their children according to the type propouÌ„ded by your self Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have received us into the Church without baptisme I answer if such an example had been left us we would then have rested satisfied but seeing the Apostles have left no such example or precept therefore you are stil in your Apostasie having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are still unseparated do still retayne the mark of the beast and are subiect to the woe that the Angel threatneth to persons so marked Example is left of such as vvere circumcised in the Apostasie of Israel were not circumcised againe when they came to the church of Iudah and â—s this is written for our learning RoÌ„ 15 4. That baptisme is but †one not to be iterated the scripture teacheth no precept nor example for rebaptising And therefore we may not forsake our baptisme howsoever you cal â—ph 4. 5. or esteem it seeing we know it is not to be repeated but upon our repentance it sealeth unto us the covenant of salvation is effectual for the confirming of our fayth As for Apostacy whether we stand therein or no let it be tryed by the word we know you an unequal judge that hath apostated from the fayth And for the marke of the beast and the woe that followes we know it is due to them to whom it belongs And if this marke were the baptising of infants as you say it is then the Angel should threaten the woe to such as keep the commandements of God and fayth of Iesus which is directly contrarie to the Angels speech intendement But it were good for you to take heed lest while you shoot of such thundering peeces against others they do indeed recoyle upon your selves Of M. Smyths second Reason for Anabaptisme of elder people R. Clyfton Now let us come to the 2. Reason which is this 2. Because true baptisme is but one but the Baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme and so not that one baptisme of Christ But al the members of Christ must have true baptisme Answer 1. There is but one fayth and one baptisme Eph. 4. 4. and therefore it is sufficient to be once baptised as it was to be once circumcised 2. That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt and do also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme and what then must it follow that now such as are baptised must be rebaptised els cannot be members of a visible church I deny it and do further answer 1. That the baptisme which we received in the Apostate church is no more Antichrists then the word that we received therein For Antichrist did never ordeyn a new kind of baptisme but did onely pollute with his inventions that holy ordinance of Christ And therfore if this baptisme that we have received be called the baptisme of Antichrist it is to affirme an untruth seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Christ who commanded his Apostles to baptise all nations with water in the name of the Father and of the Sonne of the H. Ghost Mat. 28. 19. And the same baptism for substaÌ„ce is stil reteyned in the Apostate churches and none other 2. This baptisme may in
some respects be called true baptisme as before I have noted in my first reason against rebaptising for 1. it hath Christ 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 and of the sone and of the holy Ghost all which is practised in the popish Church Neyther is any baptised into the name or fayth of Antichrist but into the fayth or profession of Christ And therefore our baptime is the baptisme of Christ and to us that repent true baptisme and so consequently not to be iterated M. Smyth I make Answer that seeing Infants are baptised which is the false matter of baptisme and seing in them there is not the question of a good conscience unto God 1 Pet. 3. 21. nor the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience Heb. 10. 22. which is the forme Seeing they cannot expresse credis credo abrenuncias abrenunci◠which is the forme of baptisme even the mutual contract betwixt God and the partie baptised expressed visiblie in confession therefore the baptisme is not Christs but antichrists c. R. Clyfton This is the summe of your reply to my answer that Baptisme administred in the Antichristian assemblies is of no use to the penitent and is not baptisme at all because both matter is false and the forme is wanting Of the matter whereof you speak which are Infants and of the lawfulnes of the baptising of Infants I referre you for answer to the former part of this writing Also for the matter forme of baptisme to that which hath been spoken thereof in this latter part Onely thus much concerning that which you here insert to the forme To be the question of a good conscience vnto God the hart sprinkled from an evil conscience to expresse Credis Credo abrenun 〈…〉 abrenunci◠I wil answer first that which the Apostle speaketh to such as were of yeares he applyeth to infants 2. In a good and true understanding we may and ought to think that children have their harts sprinkled from an evil conscience by the spirit of God in the bloud of Iesus Christ els how could we hope they should be saved seeing by nature they are the children of wrath Eph. 2. 3. but yet by grace the kingdome of heaven appertayns unto them Mat. 19. 14. 3. Although a good conscience be it which ministreth assurance of comfort to the baptised yet is not that the forme of this sacrament as now we speak of it First because hypocrytes in the church receive the outward signe as S. Magus did of whō it is sayd that he was baptised yet neyther Simon nor any hypocrite are sprinkled from an evil conscience 2. That which is required in the receiving of every sacrament and in al parts of the worship of God in the whole course of our life cannot be the proper forme of one particular sacrament But a * Deut. ◠16. 1 Cor. ◠28. 29. 3◠good conscience is required to be in the receivers of every sacrament c. 3. There is an outward baptisme wherof “ Mat. 3. ◠Tit. 3. 5. Iohn and the Ministers of the Gospel are the disposers and “ there is an inward baptisme which the Holy Ghost ministreth which is †Hebr. 1◠22. 23. the sprinkling of the hart from an evil conscience and is indeed the thing signified by the outward washing But we must confider of Baptisme as it is external and so to have an external forme matter Lastly for the meaning of * 1 Pet. 3. 2◠that place of Peter I take to be this That the Apostle in applying the former example to the tymes following the coming of Christ would teach that the peservation of Noah in the waters was a figure of our baptisme which is a type of our spiritual preservation from the floud of Gods wrath saying that baptisme that now is saveth us also by the resurrection of Iesus Christ And least any might attribute overmuch to the outward Ceremonie by way of correction he advertiseth us that salvation to speak properly stands in the forgivenes of our sinnes c. by the death of Christ and that baptisme saveth in that it testifieth and sealeth the same unto us And this remission of sinnes is partly signified in putting away the filth of the soule closely insinuated when he sayth not the putting away of the filth of the flesh And partly in declaring the effect thereof to wit the confident demanding which a good conscience maketh to God For when we are washed from our sinnes we may cherefully and with a good conscience freely call upon God Now this being as you see the effect of remission of our sinnes internal how shall it be the outward forme of Baptisme which is an outward ordinance of Christ To your credis and credo I have answered before Neyther is that which is spoken to them of yeares to be misapplyed to infants as I have shewed divers times heretofore Of Mr Smythes 3. Reason for Anabaptizing of Elder people The third Reason 3. Because as the false Church is reiected and the true erected the false Ministerie forsaken and the true received So false worship and by consequent baptisme must be renounced and the true baptisme assumed Answer First I grant that we ought to separate from all false or apostate Churches Apoc. 18. 4. and to adioyne our selves to a true Church reformed according to the patterne of the Apostles 2. Also every false Ministerie is to be forsaken Mat. 7. 15. 2 Iohn 10. Gal. 1. 8. and the true Ministers of God to be received Ier. 3. 14. 15. as did the faithfull in Israel that forsooke the false Preists set vp by Ieroboam and returned to the Preists of the Lord to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. 3. It is our dutie likewise to renounce all false worship 2 Cor. 6. 14-17 Esa 30. 22. and to worship the Lord as he taught vs in his word And thus farre do I approve of this reason but the consequence I must deny viz. that because false worship is to be renounced therefore baptisme also For 1. we are to consider in that baptisme received in apostate Churches two things first that which is of God therein secondly that which is of man that which is of God is the substance of baptisme as before is observed viz. the same matter and forme which the Lord instituted and likewise the same end which is the profession of the faith of Christ and this is not false worship and so consequently not to be renounced Againe that which in the administration of baptisme is devised by man are those vnwarrantable ceremonies of crossing annoynting and such like these are to be renounced as vayne worship Mat. 15. 9. Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men and not with their pollutions to be renounced For if pollution might warrant
men to caâ—â— away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought agayne to Ierusalem nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord. 2. I answer that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes And therefore we may no more renounce it and to assume a new then they that returned to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision be recircumcised It is obiected of some that this comparison holdes not for Israel was a true Church and therefore their circumcision was true But an apostate Church hath nothing tâ—ue neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing and it is not true baptisme to such This obiection in part I have answered before and now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church but a false seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie 1. King 12. 30 -33 and 18. 19 -21 and so became an Harlot Hosea 2. 2. Secondly in the Apostate Church there be some things true in the substance as the word and Baptisme though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises 3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of â—â—ch a Church 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves and their seed And though in regard of the former estate they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly yet even to such members considered a part from such standing and as they are the seed of their forefathers so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes Rom. 11. 28. this appeareth in that he sayth come out of her my people Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed but that to them belonges the covenant yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea Bondage hinders not Gods grace But some may reply that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors Exod. 20. if we respect herein Gods mercie even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers Neyther do the members of an apostate Church cast of all profession of faith for they beleeve the scriptures and in Christ c. though withall they professe divers errors and worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church had forefathers that beleeved I answer it can not be denyed seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons as the Lord hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better And further intreat that the truth which I contend for may not by my weak defence beare any reproch but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written and both he and they that so practise may seriously coÌ„sider of that which is done and glorifie God by repentance March 14. 1608. Rich Clifton Mr. Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last Argument which may be framed into this forme As the false Ministerie worship are reiected the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed So the false worship and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something for the further clearing of the point 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised 2. He never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptised 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist R. Clyfton Concerning the causes of baptisme they have been formerly spoken of Answ To these particulars thus I answer brieflly to the first that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing To the 2. touching Pagans that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes fayth I am farre from approving 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful as you cal it I have before proved that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them and have removed al your objections to the contrarie The matter of baptisme is false 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should â—ep be baptised without his own confession c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22. This is true of such as are of yeares and now at the first to be received â—s into the church but not of their infants or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth Towching the places of 1 Pet 3. 21. Heb 10 22 I have answered unto in the former section Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them for Christ wil not contract â—ep in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age Gal. 4. 14. It is strange how you apply scriptures would any that is a Scholer or â—ns made conscience of the truth ever have applyed this place of the Galathians to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful The similitude that the Apostle useth comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors might teach you that the Lord did contract with that church how els could it ever have been
which the Apostle also speaketh Rom. 11. chap. and how he conveigheth the same to the seed of beleevers then it may be sayd that God loveth the children for the fathers fake with whom the Lord had made his covenant so to love them Not for that the children shal be partakers of that covenant because of their parents fayth or because of Gods covenant made with their parents and their carnal infants but because God elected them in Christ to life invisibly c. The children of beleevers are partakers of Gods covenant because the Lord of his free gift and mercie giving it vnto their parents includeth their seed with them as before I haue proved And thus we are to respect the external dispensation thereof and of this is our question and not of the particular election and reprobation of this or that person For so all are not †Israel which are of Israel And many â—â—â— 9. 6. Mat. 20. â— 16. 25 11. â—k 13. 24. â—â— Mat. â— chap. 1. 2. 19. Act. 3. 25 to vs are visibly within the covenant which are not elected * to salvation Hypocrites will ly lurking in a visible Church which shall not be discerned until the last day yet the holy things of God are administred unto them and they of vs are to be reputed members because visibly they appeare to vs so to be And should we not then thus reckon of the children of the faithful the promise being made indefinitely to “ them and to their seed Neyther is it the carnal lyne that is beloved of God for his mercie sake but the spiritual line c. I answer God for his mercie sake loveth the line of the faithful because of his promise as I haue sayd to chose out therof eveÌ„ out of their carnal line so to call it such as he wil save by Iesus Christ And al this line of the faithful so loÌ„g as they continue in the Church to vs is holy spirituall though in Gods electioÌ„ none be holy to him but those that he hath chosen which two things you confounding make all this doctrine obscure unto your hearers But what is this to prove that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant for the carnal line descending from a beleeving auncestor Re. I do not say that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant unto vs considered according to their outward standing but this I say that Ans in an apostate Church there be though to us unknowen until they come out thence of Gods people that are descended of beleeving auncestors and are beloved and come under the covenant because God wil be found faithful in his promise †Ex. 20. shew mercy to thousands of them that love him Or if it were graunted how doth it follow that the baptism visibly receved in the Re. Antichristian false Church is true baptism sealing vp the covenant to them that the Lord converted in the false Church I answer that while they remayne in that estate they can not make this comfortable vse thereof vnto themselves but when such as be converted Ans in that false Church do separate from the same and turne to the Lord having right to the covenant they have right also to the seale and to all the holy things of God in that they are the people of God And so as the word converteth so baptism sealeth because the efficacy thereof is of God which can no more be hindered by the wickednes of man then the word could be hindered from converting them that belonged to the Lord. Lastly whereas you fetch the Title to the covenant and to baptism for infants in Re. the false Church from some ancestor beleeving 40. generations happily before according to that Exod. 20. 6. I answer three things 1. You must prove that some of our Predecessors had that actual faith and were members of true Churches and this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptisme thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant and baptisme by his carnal line 2. You must by the same reason receave by baptism if you can come by them all the infants of the Thessalonians Galatians Collossians Philippians and Churches of Asia that did sometime beleeve 3. I deny that you expound that place Exod. 20. truely for the Lord directly doth require that they vpon whom he sheweth mercy should feare him and keep his commaundements c. To the first particular I answer in that our Predecessors were all in apostasie Ans yt argueth that they descended from beleevers Apostasie must be from the faith once publikly defended And where there is a publik face of an Apostate church there was formerly a publike face of a church professing the truth from which they are fallen And even their retayning of baptisme to this day is a confirmation thereof Againe this is witnessed by them that came out of Babylon that they are descended from beleevers whose seed the Lord now remembreth in his mercy to do good unto But we are not to stand upon particulars the general estate sheweth what was the precedent estate of Antichristians neyther are we to inquire any more into the particular condition of their Predecessors or parents that come out of Babylon then they of Ierusalem did inquire into the particular estates of the forefathers of those Israelites that left the Apostate church of Ieroboam to joyne unto them For receiving in without baptisme you are answered before To your second particular I answer that the estate of them must be considered whether these be in Apostasie as Rome is or be quite fallen from the fayth and be no churches at all but as infidels that beleeve not in Iesus Christ and his word if their estate were but apostasie and that they beleeved the Scriptures worshipped God and reteyned baptisme though all these in a corrupt manner then should we do alike unto them as we do to the papists But if they were become infidâ—ls and the candelstick removed from them so that no stepps of a church remaynes amongst them then are we to receive both parents beleeving and their children into the church by baptisme as the Apostles in the like case did Accordingly for receiving the infants of the Thessalonians c. if we can come by them we hold it thus if their parents returne to the Lord and his church or if some of the faythful undertake their education as their own children In the third particular you deny that I expound the place of Exod. 20. 6. truly My words are set down before pag. 213. And my meaning was this that concerning those that ar born in an apostate church the Lord remembreth his covenant made with their forefathers that beleeved doth cal of their seed whom it pleaseth him to the knowledge of his truth fayth in Christ not regarding their immediate idolatrous and apostate Eze. 18. â— 17. â— Chro. 30. â— 11.
in force to the faithful and their seed Rom. 9. 6. 8. 15. 11 1. 2-5 2. Christ speaketh to such of the Iewes as by their works did shew themselves to be of the Divil he intendeth not to teach that this was the constitution state of the whol Church under the old Testament as much as Christ sayd to these Iewes may be sayd to us under the Gospel as of those Antichristians whereof Iohn speaketh 1. Iohn 2. 19. and therefore all that you have sayd proves nothing for the question in hand Againe to prove the Disciples to be baptised you cite Ioh. 4. 1. 1. 35. 40. I answere in the latter place is no mention of baptisme and in the former it is sayd that Iesus baptised moe disciples then Iohn which in verse 2. is explaned that he did not baptise but his disciples shewing that Christ baptised disciples by the hands of his disciples So I think they were baptised of Iohn as Christ was but I wil not contend there about And for that you answer concerning the Eunuch that some mention should have bene made eyther of Philip or of the Eunuch towching his children It is nothing that you say for what occasion was there to speak of his children And it is for you to prove that the Eunuch had children seing he was one as it is like that was made chast by man Mat. 19. 12. the rather because in regard of his honour and auctoritie he was called Cheiffe governour as also in respect of his country an Ethiopian Act. 8. 27. see Esa 56. 3. 4. 5. Now to your second reason The 2. reason against baptising of infants answered R. Clifton But having thus discovered the weaknes of this first reason let vs come to the next which is this Reason 2. Because Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptise them Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 4. 1. But infants can not by doctrine become Christs disciples and so can not by the rule of Christ be baptised Answer 1. The Apostles were indede commanded to make Disciples and to call vnto the faith and felowship of the Gospel not onely the Iewes but the Gentiles throughout the world and gave them power to preach the Gospel which before had bene preached to AbrahaÌ„ Gal. 3. 8. And to baptise all that did receive it And this we grant that fayth must go before baptisme in al such as are to be made Disciples and brought into the covenant of God So went fayth before circumcision Abraham first beleeved after was circumcised And likewise must al they which with AbrahaÌ„ enter into Gods covenant first beleeve and then be baptised as the Eunuch Act. 8. 37. Lydia Act. 16. 15. the Keeper of the prison verse 33. but when such have receved the fayth then are their infants and houshold capable also of baptisme as Abrahams family was of circumcision he beleeved the promises Gen. 17. therefore it is written that when God opened the hart of Lidia that shee did attend to the word that Paule preached and beleved not onely she herselfe but all her household were baptised and yet is there no mentioÌ„ of the fayth of any of them save of Lidias onely And so the Keeper beleeving all that appertayned vnto him were baptised And this is proportionable to the example of Abraham whose fayth we find sufficient to interest all his in the covenant and make them capable of the seale 2. Christ taketh the same course in giving out his commission to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to bringe the Gentiles into Gods covenant that the Lord tooke with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the father of many nations c. he did not first command him to be circumcised but preached to him the Gospel or covenant and he beleeving was circumcised and his houshold So here is a commandement first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ and for baptising such as beleeved with their families for it is included in this commandement els had not the Apostle baptised the families of Lidia and of the Keper as before is observed And it is wel to be minded that there is no mention made of the faith of any in the familie of Lidia save of Lidias onely for it is not sayd all in the house that beleeved were baptised which had bene necessary if this commandement of Christ should be expounded after the mind of the Anabaptists 3. If children shal be excluded from baptisme because they can not be made Disciples by teaching and so beleeve then by as good reason may they be excluded froÌ„ salvation for he that sayth he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved sayth also he that beleeveth not shal be damned Mar. 16. 16. if therfore want of fayth be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme then likewise the want of faith is sufficient to exclude them from salvation If the former be held to be the meaning of Christ then must also the latter be graunted a thought whereof is to be abhord Lastly generall rules must be taken with their sense and meaning It is a generall rule given by the Apostle 2 Thes 3 10. that if any would not work he should not eate Yet if any should gather froÌ„ hence that the impotent infants should not eat because they do not work this were to offer violence to wrest the Apostles doctrin So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples and baptising them now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme because they cannot receive instruction which is intended onely of them that are capable thereof is to diminish the commandement of Christ alike as he that should say infants can not beleeve and therefore cannot be saved Againe it can never be the true meaning of a scripture when it is so expounded that the exposition contradicteth other scriptures or any sound conclusioÌ„ gathered out of the Scriptures as this exposition of the Anabaptists doth upon this place of Mat. 28. 19. as my former reasons for the baptising of infants do playnely manifest Mr Smyth Next followeth your answer to my 2. Reason which reason of mine is framed thus They that can not by teaching be made Christs disciples ought not to be baptised Infants by teaching can not be made disciples Ergo c. Your answer to this Argument of myne consisteth in 4. particulars c. to the first particular of your answer I say that you erre mistaking the Scripture for AbrahaÌ„s faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessarie antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or patterne of iustâ—fication And circumcision in Abraham was not a seal of his iustification or of the everlasting covenant of God c. R. Clifton I answer 1. to the former proposition of your argument that it is false for infants of
churches degenerate from the truth remaynes some remnants of Gods ordinances that were given to his church The covenant is spoken of and preached in those Apostate churches And baptisme likewise administred but not in that puritie and light as they are in true churches And as in the heavens when the sunne is shadowed with clouds or mist the proportion of it may be discovered in the mist or cloudes be perceived to be the sunne So is the covenant of God and the seal thereof wading through those foggie mysts of Popish errors and Antichristian superstitions discerned seen to be from heaven of al the people of God whose harts the Lord opens to apply them aright Which if it were not so God could not have his people in Babylon or church in the wildernes As you take upon you to set up a true church as you say but we say a false church An. wil not be sayd to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel c. for you in your self conceitednes wil reiect them as Heretiques if there be any that dare so say of you forsooth So the Anabaptists as you cal them do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had â—verthrowen To passe by the manner of your speeches which well might be amended Rep. I answer first that for the setting up of churches it is the Lords work and not ours †Ioh. 10. who gathereth his sheep into his fold and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to joyne together to walk in his ordinances who also inableth us hereunto accepteth us to be his people and * Eph. 2. to be citizens with the Sainctes and houshold of God Therefore it cannot properly be sayd of us that we sett up a church but that God buyldeth us up to be his Temple And being thus “ Mat. â— 20. gathered together in his name we have the †Mat. 2â— 20. promise of his presence and are assured of our standing and that we are a true visible church of Iesus Christ though it please you to call us a false church and doubt not to approve our calling against you and al our adversaries And whereas you account it self conceiptednes in us to reject for Hereticks such as bring in damnable Heresies it were good for them whom we so reject to look into their estate and not wilfully to abyde in their errors to their perdition For the Anabaptists whom you say do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new baptisme What they do both their writings and practise shewes but howsoever they perswade themselves to retayne the old covenant and Gospel yet is it not so for whosoever receives not that Gospel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham and pretends to receive a Gospel or covenant they receive a new covenant and Gospel But the Anabaptists receive not the Gospel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant Therefore it is a new covenant and Gospel which they receive For that Covenant which was given to Abraham was given to him and to his seed to the Iewes and their seed but the covenant which the Anabaptists plead for is a covenaÌ„t that should be made to the parents and not to their seed therefore is not the same but a new and strange Gospel never heard of in the dayes of Abraham Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a sealed covenant to * Gen. 1â— 10. 13. The Aâ— baptists â—ny baptisâ— to be a seâ— of the covâ—nant indeed tâ— have no outward sâ— led covanâ— at al. him and to his natural seed but that covenant which the Anabaptists wil enter into and receive is an unsealed covenant at least but sealed onely to the parents and not to their seed and so is not the same but a new Gospel In my former answer I sayd that it can not be shewed that any man did ever baptise him self without special commandement from God c. and you thus replie I say as much as you have to set up a true Church wherein you answere not directly to the point but shift it of with saying that you have as much power to set vp baptisme or baptise your selfe as we to set vp a Church for suppose we have not this power to set vp a Church then how is your action of baptising your selfe iustified But how we have power for that we have done I have formerly shewed viz. that we have power by the Lords commaundement to * come out of babylon to obey the truth reveiled â—ev 18. vnto vs and to ioyne together in the †feloship of the Gospel to walk in al the wayes of God This is that we can do and all that we do is by Phil. 1. 5. divine commaundement for if the Lord had not so inioyned vs our coming together should have bene but an assembly of our owne devise and no Temple for the Lord. Now if you wil make your argument which stands vpon comparison answerable you must bring like warrant from the Scripture that you being vnbaptised may baptise your selfe or els that which we have done shal be iustified to be of God and your baptisme prove but a vayne fansie Further I desire it may be shewed that baptisme which is a part of the worke of the Ministery can lawfully and by warrant from God be administred by any but eyther by extraordinary authority as by Iohn Ananias the Apostles Prophets Evangelists or ordinary as by Pastors and Teachers Or that a person vnbaptised without speciall commaundement from heaven for ordinary rule there is none may baptise himselfe and having so done without any further calling to office take vpon him to baptise others And to do this I would knowe if it be Cor. 4. 6 not †to presume above that which is written For if you that baptise your self being but an ordinary man may this do then may an other do the like and so every one baptise himselfe You that stand so much for commaundement and example shew vs eyther of these two if you can or any sound reason out of the word or els consider wel if that you be not fallen into that which you would condemne in others viz. the practising of an vnwarrantable action But you say A true Church cannot be erected without baptisme c. If this be so as you say then eyther that baptisme which we receaved in the Antichristian assemblyes is baptisme or els one that is no member of a Church may induce the forme as you cal it vpon Disciples to make them a Church and this have we neyther commaundement nor example for He that was the first Minister of baptisme stode then a member of the Church of the Iewes had also commaundement to baptise but this new doctrine teacheth that one that was never