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
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
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
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
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
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
such imputation but your self is become faulty in calumniating the ordinance of Christ viz the baptisme of infants accounting it an Antichristian error which I wish you well to consider of and not to adde sinne vnto sinne both in pleading for error and in disgracing the truth and the professors thereof Further you say it will not helpe me that these two truthes have bene condemned for heresie by the Churches in all ages for if the Apostles affoard contrary to the succeeding ages that which is most auncient is the truth I graunt if you can prove that the Apostles age affoards contrary to the succeeding ages for the iustifieng of these your opinions that then you have good warrant of your syde for calling them truthes but if the Churches which have coÌ„demned your positions for error have agreed herein with the holy scriptures then I say the brand of heresie lies iustly vpon them And whereas you alledge that many truthes wherevnto we are come have bene condemned for heretical in as many ages as those truthes which you defend I answer that not many truthes if any which we hold to my remembrance have bene condemned in the ancient Churches for heresies And suppose those Churches did fayle in some things as every Church is subject to erre yet followes it not that therfore they erred in condemning your opinions for haeresie some things I think you wil graunt are heresies which those ancient Churches succeeding the Apostles age did condemne as those of Arius Eutiches Macedonius and the rest and then is not their iudgement so lightly to be passed over that no reconing is to be made of what they have done agreable to the scriptures As for your errors we reject them not onely because the ancient Churches have so censured them but finding them contrary to the word of God therfore we condemne them 3. Whereas I did feare your broaching of these and your former opinions would be offensive and to the hindering of the truth this you passe over in presuming of the goodnes of your cause saying if any be hindred froÌ„ the truth it wil be their sinne but if you feare you say that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground I say it is that which is appointed to perdition and to perdition let it go Indeed if any be hindered from the truth by the publishing of the truth it is their sinne Mat. 11. 6. but if you which haue stood for the truth shall now by publishing of error cause the truth to be the more blasphemed give offence to weak professors that is your sinne and wil be too heavie to be answered at the judgement day if you repent not And as for our Church which you blasphemously call Antichristian know you that I do not feare the fall of it for it is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2 20. which hath a sure promise that the gates of hel shall not prevayle against it Mat. 16. 18. And therefore your Anathema cannot hurt vs but shall rebound back agayn whence it came 4. You say though I haue professed to forsake myne errors vpon their discovery and as I have practised for which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never profeessed my readines to be perverted from the truth which you call heresie and therfore if you did vndertake to write vpon this ground you might well haue spared your paines and saved your self from so grevous a sinne by pleading for Antichristian corruptions c. The ground of my perswasion concerning your willingnes to yeeld vnto the truth did arise partly from that perswasion which I had of your sanâ—tification and partly from the speaches of the messengers before named â—ho did affirme vnto me that if I could manifest by the word of God â—hat it was error which you hold you would acknowledge it And still â—ou say if you be in error it is * Passages page 71. ignorantly And therefore desirous of â—our good I did vndertake according to my small abilitie to manifest â—he truth vnto you by such reasons as I could at that present gather for the confirmation of the same which seing you make so small account of and answer me that I might have spared my paynes and saved my self from sin I am sory in that respect that I did write yet in regard of witnessing the â—ruth and performing a duty towards a brother fallen into error I repeÌ„t â—e not neither yet of committing any grevous sinne thereby as you charge me withall seing I plead for that which is of Christs and not for Antichristian corruptions And as for your errors so often graced by you with the title of truthes which you say you never professed to be perverted froÌ„ I mervayle not greatly therat for heresie is a work of the flesh Gal. 5. 20. that is easily and quickly imbraced but not so left and herein differs froÌ„ the truth to the receiving whereof we are hardly drawen as both you and I had experience but error drincketh as a pleasant potion Rev. 18. 3. without resistance and bewitcheth many that they should not obey the truth described and plainly manifest in their sight Gal. 3. 1. the poison whereof I am sory hath so infected your soule that you seeme to be changed into the nature thereof and to be as confident therein as in any truth of the gospel and though you account my praying to be for an overthrow of the Lords truth which is in deed for the conversion of you and that deceived company with you from your errors yet will I pray stil that God may open your eyes if you belong to him to see your grevous fall glorifie the truth of God which in this your writing so greatly you have disgraced Now I will come to answer the Positions with the reasons thereof and first concerning the former which is this 1. That infants are not to be baptised Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adheâ—nts was one of the first that denied the baptisme of infants 〈◊〉 after him Pelagius the heretique against whome Augustine others of the ancient fathers have opposed and condemned for heresie and that according to the scriptures which by Gods grace we shall together with them also further manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vntertake and then answer the reasons to the contrary Mr Smyth Now in the next place you make a speciall preface to the first point affirming thaâ— baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius c. Rich Clifton I sayd that Auxentius the Arrian was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of infants and then Pelagius whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned for heresie and you answer thus that one heretike condemned
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
whereby you seeme to understand confession you cannot but know that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words was the extraordinary geving of the spirit wherewith he and the rest were indued and not onely that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true beleever as by the text is plainly to be seen which sayth that they of the circumcision were astonied as many as came with Peter because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost For they heard them speak with tongues And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them even as upon us at the beginning Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them viz there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre and it sat vpon each of them and they were filled with the holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinarie for he came not so upon all that were baptised Act. 8. 36 37. 16. 14. 15. 33 seing * the multitude was astonished â—ct 2. 6. â— 12. wondred all and marveyled Therefore that comming of the spirit upoÌ„ Cornelius and his company was extraordinary for Peter sayth The holy Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them baptisme for he seing them partakers of the spirit sayth can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we This visible seale seale of the new Testament say you is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confession That confession is not the seale of the new Testament I have already proved And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old TestameÌ„t thus farre may be granted that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance and so is baptisme now to us a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pagans but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our baptisme Act. 19. â— Rom. 10 10. King 18 â— Exo. 19. â— Psa 107. â— 21. 31. Esa 29. 13. â—e DaÌ„ ch 9 Exo. 12. â—8 Act. â— 27. c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God and his truth not onely by circumcisision but also †with words to his praise And I make no question but the Proselytes before they were “ circuÌ„cised made confession of their faith Baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale I pray you Sir of what seale is baptisme the manifestation Confession you say is the visible seale of the new testament Doth it manifest our confession it needs not for that is visible If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace it is true but thereby we are assured of Gods promise and so is the visible seale thereof Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to coÌ„firme the consequence of my Argument the first whereof is Collos 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme coÌ„meth in the rome of circumcision this you deny so to be construed and say That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision c. That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcisioÌ„ was the seale I wil further manifest prove both out of this place of the Collossians and also by other reasons First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Gospel proveth that the Church stands no need therof seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvatioÌ„ he answereth that neyther needed they to be circumcised because they were spiritually circumcised And whereas the Collossions might have objected that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof which if we want our state is not so good as their was yea sayth Paul that it is for in stead of outward circumcision you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children under the Gospel the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed this is the meaning of the Apostle and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Now I vvil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant First the sacraments of the nevv Testament have the same end scope in respect of the thing signified with the sacraments under the law For as Paul attributed the same vertue efficacy and effect of our baptisme the Lords supper * 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers so doth he ascribe to the beleevers under the gospel the efficacy of the †Cor. â— Pascall lambe “ Col. 2. 1â— 12. and circumcision therfore in respect of the thing signed there is no difference the same Christ was the Lambe * Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world Also the same instrument and meanes of application the same †Rom. 4 16. c. faith end and effect one and the same righteousnes of faith the same “ Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham the same spirituall circumcision of the hart both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel so that in all these things there is no difference which plainely argues that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments 2 This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and baptisme together in their special vses and ends There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptisme viz to * be signes of the covenant â—o 4. 11. â— c. Gal â—6 Mar. â— 16. conâ—d with â—om 4. 11 Deut. 10. â— 30. 6 â—it 3. 5. â—er 4. 4. â—l 2. 11. â—uk 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 â— 6. 4. 6. â—om 2. 29. â—hil 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 â— Exo. 12. â— Act. 8. â— 16. â— 33. â—at 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 â—2 1 Cor. â—2 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ both of the sacraments of †regeneration “ requiring repentance and mortification both signifying that we are corrupt and by the ¶ blood of Christ to be clensed by both of them such as were * without were received into the communion of the Church And by both of them Gods people were †discerned from
The 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
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
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
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
Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5. Secondly for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament which you say was of another nature then that of the new I answer that former church was of an heavenly constitution a †kingdome of Preists and a “ holy nation the people * saincts as wel as the members of the church of the new Testament And this people being separate from al other nations called out to be the Lords “ peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them and so became the people church and kingdome of God as in renuing of their covenant is manifest Deut. 29. 9-15 Exod. 14. 8. They were †natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by fayth on Christ then to come in whom they beleeved 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation Gal. 3. â—6 Luk. 1 68-75 This old church by their constitution admitted of no prophane person to be a member therof but such as professed holynes They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con 〈…〉 their syn Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch 5. 5. NuÌ„ 14. 40. to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged Num. 5. 7. Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be coÌ„â—idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof with that of the â—d and there wil be no such difference in substance between them as you pretend the matter of them both being holy and living stones and the forme an holy uniting together in the covenant of God to walk in al his commandements els could not the Gentiles be made one body and coâ—heriters with the Iewes Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promises in Christ if the constitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not spiritual Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament 〈◊〉 onely a carnal holynes viz. the circumcision of the foreskin c. I have already proved that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holynes Lev. 11. 44. saying I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and â—e holy for I am holy Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after Gods example who neither is carnally holy or yet delites in carnal holynes without the spiritual Psal 50. 7-23 Esa 1. 11-20 chap. 50. And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not onely the truth but your self for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal holynes carnal yet in your Differencâ— pag. 10. book of Differences you say that the Septuagint Translation was a gree 〈…〉 synn for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles So by your own confession Israel had the covenant of grace els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant can not your hearers mynd how unstable a leader they follow Wel let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer that the Apostle by the law of carnal commandement intendeth not thereby to teach that the coÌ„stitution of the old church was carnal but sheweth the diversitie of Christs priesthood from Aarons understanding by carnal commandement those frayl and transitorie things which the †law commanded â—… 24. 1. â—sa 61. 1. â— 45. 7. in the consecration of the Levitical Preists so called in respect of Christ his anoynting which was “ spiritual Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for justification exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. c. to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath madâ— â—… 5. 3. us free c. testifying to every man that if he be circumcised he is bound to keep the whole law Noting circumcision especially because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification And he reasoneth against it not as it was in it self by the ordinance of God but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it which made circumcision a part of their salvation And he that so esteemes of it as a work to justifie must also sayth Paul keep al the rest of the commandements For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances the whole observation therof Deut. 27. â—6 Gal. 3. â—… RoÌ„ 3. 20. â—al 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promise no * life And because no man can be “ justifyed by the works of the law therfore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them and calleth them †beggerly rudiments And now if a papist or any other should contend that a man is justified by Baptisme as by a work wrought we might so speak to them as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians that if you receive baptisme to be made righteous thereby ex opere operato you are bound to keep the whole law for baptisme being made a work to justifie is perverted And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision in this place as a work urged to justification the very next verse viz. ver 4. sheweth wherein he sayth ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are iustified by the law And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth 2. The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self true is nature and reason The constitution viz. the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. the constitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Test is the truth c. Heb. 10. 1. 9. 19. 23. I answer first to your Major that one and the same thing may both be the type and the truth for Isaac was a type of the faythful as your self doth affirme yet was he also faythful and so was both the type and the truth Secondly to your Minor the constitution viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type c. of the church of the new Testament in that sense as you take matter and forme for the matter of that former Ch. â—as not to be ceremonially but truly holy as before I have proved and these †Deu. 2â— 9. 14. â— Esa 5. 4. â— 15. 24. 3. 4. 5. Esâ— 58. 2 7. â— 14. Deu. â— 12 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further
confirme Their * Deu. 2â— 10 13. “ Gal. 3. â— coâ—enant was to be the Lords people is the same that we are entred into els could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise through fayth if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed Also Peter affirmes it to be the same Act. 2. 39. If then the Lord required of Israel true holynes and made no other coâ—enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people but that everlasting covenant and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Testament true holynes of the members and communion in the covenant and Gospel then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this but even the same with the church under the new Test I speak of the substance of this covenant and not of the outward administration thereof which was divers wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption Heb. 10 â— In the former Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle sheweth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect because they were yearly renued proveth also that Christs sacrifice is one and perpetual here it must be minded that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their coÌ„stitution no spiritual promise but onely carnal typical things Heb. 9 â—â— 23. In that other scripture Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed between the legal sacrifices and purifyings the purging of synne by the blood of Iesus Christ between the old Testament and the new c and so shewing how the truth answereth unto the type concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sinnes of many by the sacrifice of himself And this is that which the Apostle intendeth and not to shevv that the constitution of the old church vvas the tipe of the constitution of the nevv 3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected â— produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Testâ—â— Iustification and fayth and sanctification and repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament Heb 9. 9. Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo c. Deut. 29. â— Ier. 13. â— â— Luk. 1. â— 74. 1 pet â—â— 9. 10. â— 2. 12. â— 22. Gen. 17. 7 â—om 4. 11 â—a 26. â— Heb. 4. 2 â— 11. 30. â— Cor. 10. 3 â— Ezech. 18 â— 32. Ioel. â— 3. â—b 9. 9. â—â— 2. 15 The assumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before for the members of that church might have and had fayth repentance justification sanctification seeing the †Lord was their God in that standing he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ therfore it must follow that they were partakers of fayth justification c. in that their coÌ„munion Again as the covenant was geven to Abraham so was “ it to his seed but to Abraham it was geven †for justification therefore to his seed I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test Also I have proved * before that God required of the Israelites “ fayth and repentance and that they did repent beleev so consequently justification sanctification were effected accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof and required in the constitutioÌ„ Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument yet this I will further add that the Apostle having described the partes of the Tabernacle c. in ver 9. sheweth the use of those things to be a figure for the present preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ in whom they beleeved the same to be fulfilled And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh were such as by Moses were given to that church long after the constitution thereof In that other scripture Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reasons not about the constitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether justification was required therein but having to deal against the false teachers that taught the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law affirmeth the contrary in these two verses saying we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law but by the fayth of Jesus Ch. c. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by fayth without works doth not deny the church before the coÌ„ming of Christ to be justified by fayth but teacheth that both that church and this under the Gospel were saved not by works but by the free promise of God in Christ received by fayth And thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire 4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members presupposed not â—â—th and repentance to the members and so not real or true holynes But the old Test â—e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the â—hurch of the old Test Heb 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. c. First concerning the major The old Testament though it brought not perfection yet did it require fayth in Christ to come 2. Touching your â—inor first I require what you mean by the old Testament whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator if the former then is your minor false for those books conteyn as wel Gospel as law the promise made unto the fathers in Christ to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance aswell before Christs incarnation as since But iâ— you â—ind it †Rom. â— Heb. 10. of the law onely administration of Moses it is true that perfection and life came not by the law nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law but withal you must know that the Iewes were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ as * pa. 23. ◠“ Gen. 3. â— 12. 3. â— 17. 7. 21. Esa 1. â— 7. 14. â— 9. 6 GeÌ„ â— 10. Numâ— 24. 17. Gâ— 3. 8. 14 before is proved 3 For the church of the old Testament it could bring or publish life to the members thereof seing it had the promises “ of the Gospel and so presupposed fayth repentance true holynes as you speak To the scriptures first to Heb. 7. 19. I answer that the law indeed maketh nothing perfect nor could give lyfe but I have told you againe and
that is which by the works thereof †seek justification â—l 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. â—or 3. 7. and so were some members of the old church under the law as the Pharisees that * sought to justifie themselves as now they ar that do the like but to hold that the whole church was under condemnation without faith in Christ is an error to be abhord That scripture 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death coÌ„pareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that coÌ„tinued not in al things to fulfil it then much more the ministration of righteousnes shal exceed in glorie which bringeth salvation to them that beleev This is the meaning of the Apost and not to shew that Israel was under condemnation seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ And as they so wee under the Gospel have the law to accuse condemn us if we transgresse it but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Christ are freed from the curse of the law so were the Iewes also Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur eyther before or since Christ but to the “ faythlesse and disobedient both â—s 1 Tim. 1. â— 10. under the old Testament and under the Gospel Finally you say the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iustification by fayth in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iustification Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the disputation of Paul concerning justification is a notable error For where Paul reasoneth against such as mainteyned justification by the works of the law he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holynes for albeit some of the Iewes fel into this error to hold justification by works of the law yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then as wel as now And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification yet fayth in Christ could effect it which I have proved that the old church had in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could â—ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament iâ— the matter or constitution of it was not really holy but onely typically c. I have shewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes not to make them holy and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given and therefore your bould defence against al men that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically hath in it more boldnes then truth the contrary is proved †pag. 23. c. before And therefore your inference is false fiz that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant c. but onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham and afterward assumed written â—mplified by Moses Ioh. 7. 19-23 with Heb. 8. 8. 9. That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed see pag. 20. c. concerning these scriptures in the former Christ charging Iohn 7. 19-23 the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabboth day proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practise reasoning thus if you may circumcise on the Sabboth and not break the law then why may not I as lawfully heal a man this is that Ch. intendeth now because it is sayd ver 22. that Moses gave them circumcision c. it seemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test were given first to Abraham and afterward assumed written by Moses but thaâ— cannot be proved by this place For circumcision was a signe of the promise in Christ not of the law as before is proved In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apostle sheweth that Christ is the Heb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Priests and ther fore his ministerie more excellent then theirs this first hee proveth because this covenant was established upon better promises and then he sheweth the excellency of it compared with the former And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of Ieremy Now concerning the first Testam it was made with the church when the Lord gave his law in Sinai the people did covenant with him saying Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do of Abraham we do not finde that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse as Israel did Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law the covenant of works or old Testament was not first made with him and after examplified by Moses but â—xo 19. 5 24. 3. Lev. 34. â— Dâ—u 5. â— Heb. 9. â— 23. it was †made with Israel as further also may be shewed by the description thereof in Heb. 9. 1-10 which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme. Agayn the Apostle * sayth when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law he toke the blood of calves and of goates and sprinckled al the people saying this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you c. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministerie of Moses And Paul sayth that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham his seed in respect of Christ Now if the law had been geven to Abraham the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of tyme had been of no force And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs Next followes your answer to my objections wherein stil you afferme That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy but tipically that their holynes was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trained or schooled to Christ c. What is here sayd is answered elswhere here I deny that the Iewes holines was onely typical though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Christ whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Israel was called a holy â—od 19. 6 people you answer thus I say that eyther the meaning is that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes or that they by atteyning the end of the law should attayne true holynes in Christ so that this place
relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal then any relation of adoption or servitude why the wife shal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage happely it wil be sayd that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted because of her unbeleef and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of fayth It is true that neyther the wife nor servants if they refuse can be admitted because of their unbeleef but the case is not alike of men and women growen to years as of infants borne in the church the former eyther consent or refuse actually infants do not refuse and therefore being the seed of the saythful are to be admitted to Baptisme But it wil be sayd that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed onely I say it was made by your confession with him and his adopted infants c. We say as the scripture teacheth us that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed the faythful their children Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby the whole family of the faythful if they refused nor as before is proved And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant and those that are further off why shal not these that are nearer as his wife I have answered before her unbeleef hinders her to be one flesh makes them not one in the covenant which is by grace not by mariage But you wil say because infants do not refuse the covenant they may be admitted to baptisme c. but wives refusing may not I further insist that as infants do not resist so they do not consent and that al the children servants and wives that do not resist may be admitted though they cannot make declaration of their fayth c. c. We do not make the infants not refusing the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant but the Lords dispensation and coÌ„mandement in children there can be neither actual coÌ„sent or resisting the one of which Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3 1. â—am 2. 18. â—2 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares who also are to †live by their own fayth also * confession is of such required so is it not of infants Then I say there is no reason why fayth and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification c. more then of an other except God be an accepter of persons To this I have answered before and again do answer that there is one and the same way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers they receiving the covenant after the same maÌ„ner that he did beleeving that God is their God and the God of their seed Also fayth and repentance is required not onely of such as are of yeares and to enter into the Lords covenant but of al that are in the covenant they being the condition thereof on our part to be performed continually and therefore we must know that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise and not any act of theirs fayth receiveth grace but causeth it not and repentance is the fruit thereof required of every one as they are of understanding And further the covenant is onely with Abraham and his seed not with adopted children c. and therefore fayth and repentance must necessarily be had and so â—y cannot be baptised til they shew their fayth c. I have proved already that God in saying I wil establish my covenant beâ—en me and thee and thy seed included Abrahams family or els shew unto â—e wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision if they â—ere not with him in the covenant Agayn fayth and repentance is required of the elder sort not of infants Ergo c. As for partaking of the covenant actually how children are thereof capable I have proved oft ynough and therefore it needs no further answer And whereas it may be justly objected against you that if infants be denyed to be within the covenant they cannot be saved you labour to remove this exception saying we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be â—verted but leave the secret of them to the Lord Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or against your opinions is the condition of infants such a secret that God hath not manifested his wil concerning them Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants when he was to circumcise them Gen. 17. 12. And doth not †Mar. 10. 14. Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them manifest unto us how we ought to account of the infants of beleevers The prophet Malachy sayth * Mal. 2. 1. did not he make one seeking a seed of God Act. 2. 39. the promise is to children as Peter there witnesseth and Ier. 31 1. God promiseth to be the God of al the families of Israel and children are a part of the familie 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy Now if God had given you eyes these scriptures †Gen. 17 c. Deuâ— 29. 10. 15. might teach you that the state of the childreÌ„ of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend Moses shewed the state of children under the old T. you say “ Caracter pag. 6. 3. the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of al affaires c. as the old How is it then that the state of children is now more secrete then formerly it was Thus you might see your speeches contradictory if your right eye were not blynded Secondly I desire you to prove unto me by scripture that in this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes signifieth true sanctification c. And I desire you to prove unto me that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified you keep not to the state of the questioÌ„ that place is to be understood of the general holines pertayning to the â— every meÌ„ber thereof in respect of the covenant your demand is of Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded and is to be understood of the general face of that church which was called holy because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people in Exod. 32. 9. 33. 3. the Lord cals them a stifnecked people in regard of personal sinnes which he found to be in some of them not in all the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part whereof they repenting the Lord forgave them The personal sinns of some meÌ„bers do not disposses the face of the church of holynes â—he labouring to reforme such faulty members Concerning the holynes of children of the unbeleeving wife before is shewed Finally you say God hath sayd to al the faythful I wil be thy God and the God
meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not Neyther wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlasting covenant for berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance but a covenant that continueth his proper tyme. c. I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting tyme as in these places Psal 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal 145. 13. Esa 45. 17. and so in divers other places Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting vid videlicet to be God to Abraham and his seed after him and therfore gnolam must needs be understood for ever unles you wil say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tymâ— for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words I am the God of thy father the God of Abraham c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant And though gnolam do sometymes signifie a tyme that hath an end as it doth in the type â—t it noteth tyme everlasting in the truth of those types and therefore â—s Canaan called an everlasting possession Gen. 17. 8. But be it granted say you that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. â— the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ what then â— it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful whether Iewes or Genâ— beleeving actually as Abraham the father did therfore it is made with the faithâ—â—an c. and with his children begotten of his bodie c. I denie it utterly Yes it †Act. 2. 3â— wil and must follow els are not the faithful partakers of Abraâ—ms covenant for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed and the beleeâ—ers onely to themselves then is it not the same neither in the giving nor â—â—iving thereof as before is proved And if you graunt Abrahams inâ—â—s as Isaac c. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant â—ade with him in Christ for to deny it by any colour of scripture you â—an not then must the same account be made of al other infants of beleeâ—ers seing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed â—â— the same fayth that Abraham did to him and his Because the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz. Christ or the 〈…〉 al beleevers The words of the Apostle are these * Gal. 3. 1â— but to thy seed as of one which is Christ Some understand by seed the church Christ mistically as 1 Cor. 12. 12. gaâ—hered of Iewes and Gentiles which grow together in one body in Christ of the seed of Abraham as ver 18. According to which exposition both â—ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise â—ade unto them that are partakers of salvation yea infants els are * Eph. 5. 2â— 26. they â—ot sanctified by Christs death But if by seed be understood the redeeming â—eed which is C. it is he in whoÌ„ both the elder people infants ar blessed But you to prove that by one onely actuall beleevers is to be minded â—edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted that Paul intendes not to shew â—hat none are in Christ save onely actual beleevers for that were to conâ—mne al infants but he speaking to the church and such of them as were â—apable of instruction and having exhorted them not to faynt because of â—is troubles prayeth the Lord that they may be strengthned with his spirit that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith that is bring forth the fruits of the spirit testifiing their fayth and so continue constant Now it is to be observed that RoÌ„ 8. 9. 11 â— Joh. 3. 24. Christ dwelleth in al his by his spirit and thereby joyneth them unto him and so in infants els are they †Rom. 8. 9. not Christs this should you have minded as wel as the other and haue knowen that actuall beleeving and the practise of other Christian duties is the work of the spirit as the act of reasoning is of the soule in the elder sort required of them and not of infants as oft inough hath bene shewed But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle you thus obiect 1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one seed the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten which is an other seed c. then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many and that is directly against the Apastle Gal. 3. 16. I answer that the covenant is made with the faithful and their seed as of one kind God of his free grace estating the beleevers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life both of them becomming * spiritual or Rom. 7. 4. â—ct 2. 39. â—zech 16. â— 21. â—sal 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. â—phe 2. 14 â— holy seed and sonnes of God by vertue thereof and not two contrarie seedes as you would pretend and therefore the Apostle is not contrarie to that we affirme for as he sayth the seed is one so say we whether Christ our Saviour be thereby understood or the Churches united into †one or all beleevers who together with their children are after a spiritual maner the sonnes of God Therefore that one seed is of persons actually beleeving c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actually infants do not beleeve actually Ergo c. Your conclusion ariseth from false premisses which are answered before to the former Proposition of this argument I answer that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeve but in no place of the scripture is added of them onely that actually beleeve which you do insinuate therefore there lyeth deceipt in your proposition God promised his blessing to Abrahams seed which coÌ„prehends his infants “ to blesse the house of Israel not only the elder sort That promise of blessing the families GeÌ„ 12. 3. 28. Ps 115. â—2 14. Act. 31. 25. Esa 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth childreÌ„ for they ar of the family Againe Abrahams covenant was onely to Abrahams one seed that is to all beleevers Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo c. This Argument is the same in effect with the former the maior in your understanding is false the faithful and their children in respect of the covenant are but of one seed Children though they cannot actually beleeve yet are they accounted of the beleevers and partakers of the promise with their parents Again They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham Infants cannot do the works of Abraham Ergo c. The Proposition is false in your understanding Paul saith if any would not â—â—k he should not eate 2 Thes
not that onely they that beleeved were baptised but that they preached to al that were in his howse and waâ— baptised with al that were his Next you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants the former is this The Apostles practise is our instruction but the Apostle in baptising howsholds First Preached to all that were in the family and then they beleeving were baptised Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised This argument might have bene granted had not the conclusion contayned more then the former propositions viz. this word onely which ought to have bene placed in the one of them and if in the assumption then were it false to say that onely they that beleeved were baptised and â—o more the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before And it is to be further observed that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church Your other Argument is this That which the Apostles practised in one family they practised in all families that they baptised But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. c. This argument also may be granted and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants except your heretical collection which I deny And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this the rest of my argumeÌ„ts OF THE TESTIMONIE OF THE fathers concerning the baptising of infants HErevnto I will adioyne some testimonies of the fathers not to prove that children ought to be baptised which is to be done is by the scriptures already proved but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches Augustine as I find alledged writing to Ierome epist 28. sayth Cyprian not making any new decree but firmely observing the faith of the Church iudged with his fellow Bishops that as soone as one was borne he might lawfully be baptised See Cyprian epist to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. 24. sayth that the baptisme of infants was not derived from the authoritie of man neither of counsels but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles Ciril vpon Lev. Cha 8. approveth the baptisme of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptisme Origine vpon the Rom. sayth that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum 3. sayth that baptisme agreeth to everie age to every condition of life to all men if thou hast an infant it is sanctified from his infancy yea from the finger ends it is consecrated After he sayth some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne what shal we baptise those he answers yea verily Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha 11. Speaking of baptisme sayth neyther old man nor Proselyte nor infant is to be excepted because every age is guilty of sinne and therefore stands need of the Sacrament These many other of the fathers do beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the lawfulnes of the baptising of infants Mr. Smyth And for conclusion you produce the fathers I say that the producing of fathers who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies shall availe you nothing in your cause and you that deny the testimonie of fathers contrary to the Scriptures how can you with any colour produce fathers against vs in case contrary to the Scriptures c. R. Clifton I plead not for the errors of the fathers but for the truthes which they held according to the Scriptures And where you charge them to hold pleÌ„tie of antichristian heresies you tax them very deeply and you that so censure others had need to judge your selfe otherwise the Lord wil find out a sentence against you Also I desire you to shew where I produce the testimonie of the fathers contrary to the Scriptures you are growen to be very careles what you affirm For my producing of the fathers against you I do not recall that I have done seing theire testimonie is the truth who shew the practise of their times according to the Scriptures I know the device of your producing of fathers viz. 1. to set a glosse vpon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy c. what would you answere would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt tymes c. even so say I to you c. Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptising of infants antichristiaÌ„ heresy †Esay 5. wo to him that speaks evil of good 2 with sinne in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a glosse vpon my antichristian heresy c. for were it a falseshod that I defend as I know it is not yet know you that my soule is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf It is one thing to produce the testimony of the fathers witnessing the truth according to the scripture another for the defence of errors the latter we reiect you take vp but the former we approve and you condemne And although we are not to build our fayth vpon the fathers yet for matter of fact done in their tymes we may give credit to their report and so theire testimonie serves to prove something namely to shew the practise of their tymes to which end I did alledge them and that is not to confesse that they prove nothing as you charge me And say Remember that and let al men take notice that you produce testimonies that you say prove nothing And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers forsooth to shew the practise of ancient Churches But all these Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession c. Yea Sir I do produce them to shew the practise of Auncient Churches whose testimonies is not so lightly reiected save of you and such like that condemne all Churches for antichristian except such heritical Synagoges as your owne is As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred yeares after Christ albeit some devises of men crept in and as they grew elder so increased yet that they were Antichristian where have you my confession it is strange that you dare affirme such untruthes And for anticihrstiaÌ„ antiquitie vniversality I could wish you were as free froÌ„ Anabaptistical novelitie as I am froÌ„ approving of any error or superstito eythâ—â—oâ— the antiquitie or universalitie of it the truth we defeÌ„d needs no such Popish propps but yet antiquitie when the thing is found to be true that is ancient is not lightly to be regarded seing the truth is
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
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
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
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
sinnes c. it should not have been repeated So that to be members of a false church shal not hinder the efficacy of baptisme Againe if Antichrist intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace ex opere operato to infants and therefore setteth upp his owne idoll as you say what say you to his baptising of the Indians which are of yeares For he intendeth the same thing And yet his so baptising of the elder sort c. you wil not have repeated So by your own opinion to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace ex operâ— operato is no good reason to prove the â—â—erating of childrens baptisme for then should it do so in the elder people confessing their sinnes c. As for the promise made by others for the partie baptised I place as a devise of man amongst the accidental corruptions of this sacrament CoÌ„cerning persons coÌ„fessing their sins fayth whoÌ„ you make the onely subject of baptisme I hav aÌ„swered before And here tel you that the scripture meÌ„tioneth †1 Cor. â— Act. 16. persoÌ„s that were baptised yet sayth not a word that they coÌ„fessed their faith syns And you caÌ„ never prove that al in the familie of Stephanas Lidiah c. did confesse their sinnes and fayth but to al that you say here answer is given before IIII. Argument THose holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people through the hands of prophane persons are not to be rejected for the authors sake Ezra 1 11 But the scriptures and baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people Therfore not to be rejected for the Authors sake If it be objected against the Minor it is not true baptisme but false that is administred in the AsseÌ„blies of Antichrist I answer though it may be sayd to be false in regard of some humane devises used in the administration thereof yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter forme and author thereof which causeth it to have a true being Mr Smyth I answer directly that if it could be proved that baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist Answ is appointed by Christ and that water is the true matter of baptisme and the true forme is washing into the Trinitie I would yeeld unto you but this you have not proved c. but to deal something more fully c. â— water is not the matter of baptisme but onely the instrument c. R. Clyfton First I have proved that baptisme which is administred in the Antichristian Rep. churches is not to be iterated but that Christ appointed baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist I do not affirm onely this I say that Christ ordeyned this sacrament for his church which becoming Apostate yet reteyning the same is notwithstanding baptisme because it is of God And so I affirme that Christ is the Author of baptisme which the Antichristians pollute by their administration thereof as God was the author of that circumcision observed in the apostate church of Israel And therefore as circumcision received of the Israelites in their Apostasie stood as the seal of Gods covenant to so many as repented So baptisme received in Babylon confirmeth the promise to al Gods people departing thence and returning to walk in the wayes of the Lord. But concerning the matter and forme of baptisme you charge me to have sayd in my answer to your second Argument That water is the matter and the forme washing with water into the Trinitie In calling water the matter if so it had pleased you you might have understood my meaning viz. that I understood thereby the outward signe or element whereof in Poperie was no change They used the same which Christ ordeyned And in calling it the matter I did not intend the subject or partie baptised which I know must be also one that beleeveth or the seed of such but considering what Christ ordeyned to be observed in this Ceremonie I found these water and the baptising therewith into the name of the father c. The former I called the matter or element wherewith the partie is baptised meaning that material outward signe that Christ ordeyned in this sacrament as in the other he hath done the like For it was not in my thought to intend that if the water be administred with this forme of words that it is baptisme without a fit subject to be baptised Nay I hold it an error in the Papists which baptise their bells and wil have bread consecrated as they speak to be a sacrament though it be never received but layed up in a box Concerning the subject of baptisme or matter as you terme it I wil not contend but in that you denye the Infants of beleevers to be fit matter of baptisme the contrarie I affirme and have proved before 2. I say that washing into the name of the father of the sonne of the Holy Ghost Ans is not the forme of baptisme for to wash a Turke Jew Foole madman or Infant into the Trinitie is not true baptisme c. I answer first I know that formes can not consist without their subjects Re. therefore I say the forme of baptising is reteyned in Poperie applied to infants though corruptly in that standing Secondly I stand not to defend that to baptise an unfit subject is true baptisme but this that the baptisme of Apostates is not to be iterated when they repent and turne to God no no more then the circumcisio of the Israelites in the like cause 2 Chro. 3â— 6 -11 21. as before I have shewed 3. That infants are to be baptised I have already proved And to baptise a Iewe Turke Foole c. continuing in their infidelitie madnes c. we do not affirme it lawfull nor yet the baptisme of Apostats for all such abuse that holy ceremony being guilty thereof as they are of the body and bloud of Christ that receave it unworthely 1 Cor. 11. The true forme of baptisme consists in 3. things 1. washing with water 2. a new Ans creature 3. into the name of Christ or into the Trinitie This might also be graunted saving that by new creature you mind onely â—p such as are of yeares and so appere to vs new creatures by their profession excluding infants who also must be so accepted of vs inrespect of the covenant whereof they are partakers as wel as theire parents Also the children of the faithful may be estemed new creatures seing they are holy and are so to be accounted til they manyfest themselves otherwise which may be the case of old persons as of S. Magus c. And the Apostle in the place alledged speaketh of such as are of yeares and by the speach of a new creature implyeth a special vse and fruite of the thing signified by the outward signe and so is not a part of the external forme of baptisme †as by
member of any Church shall baptise make a Church that without coÌ„maundemeÌ„t from God Now you say a Church can not be erected without baptisme because baptisme is the visible forme thereof consider you that are so barren of proof for the administring of Baptising to your self that you can not shew one good reason to warrant it to be lawful if by condemning reiecting of that baptisme which you received in Antichristianisme you overthrow not your new Church for if a Church can not be without baptisme and you not able to prove your new baptisme from the scriptures which have reiected the old Then is your assembly an idol And so while you condemne other Churches vniustly for false yours proves more false then any But concerning baptisme which you call the visible forme fo the Church I answer 1. the forme of a Church is coÌ„mon to all together 2. If Baptisme be the forme theÌ„ it may come to passe that one man may be a visible Church as he that first in the company baptiseth himself he is a Church being baptised for he that hath the forme upoÌ„ him must needs be the thing formed And so Mr Smyth was a Church when he baptised himself which is absurd to think But coÌ„cerning the matter forme of the Church this you have written That * Paralelsâ— c. pa. 11â— two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament and therefore have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament induced vpon them Againe speaking of the exiled English Church at Amsterdam you say that they have reduced the Church to the Apostolike constitution Differencâ— c. in the Preface which consisteth in 3. things 1. the true matter which are Saincts onely 2. The forme which is the vniting of them together in the covenant 3. the true propertie which is communion in all the holy things Thus you contradict your self here you teach us that vniting of people together in the covenant is the forme of the Church And in this writing that baptisme is the forme Certeynly the holy Ghost * Act. 2. 3. 39. Ephe. 4â— 4. 5. distinguisheth baptisme both from the covenant and the body But to contend about the forme of the Church is here not to the purpose seing both you and we graunt that a Church must consist of baptised persons you contending for your new devised baptisme we holding that baptisme which wee have already received Further you reason for the erecting of your baptisme That when al Christ visible ordinances are lost eyther men must recover them agayn Ans or must let them alone if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with miracles and tongues as the Apostles did then men are FAMILISTS or if they must receive them men must begin so to do And then two men ioyning together may make a Church as you say why may they not baptise seing they can not conioyne into Christ but by Baptisme Mat. 28. 19. compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christs commaundements must be obeyed Ergo this commaundement c. First for the visible ordinances of Christ his Church hath right unto them and his people are to have the vse of them by such means and Ministery as he hath appointed but every man may not take upon him the administration of these ordinances but * they whom the Lord hath given Heb. 5. 4. authoritie and office thereunto God is not the †author of confusion Cor. 14. but of order It wil not follow because the Church is to have baptisme therefore any one may administer it when al are vnbaptised Thus might Ieroboam plead for the * Preists that he made of the lowest of the people King 12 that it was a necessity seing al the Priests of Levi were departed and as at this dâ—y they plead in England for their vnpreaching Preists that eyther they must have such or be without service and Sacraments which plea as we condemne in them so do we the administration of the Sacraments or other of Gods ordinances without warrant from the Lord. And therefore they must be let alone til they may be had by that rule that Christ hath left vs for the injoying of the same For this I am sure of that the word of the Lord is perfect and CHRIST hath left vs certayne direction for the practising of al his ordinances at all tymes Now if the Scripture have not shewed who shal baptise in the Churches arising out of Apostacy then who dare take vpon him to give direction And though we are not to loke for extraordinary men which to do say you were familisme yet must we loke for ordinary meanes men must not do that which they are not warranted by the word though the thing be to be done Secondly for two being ioyned together in covenant with the Lord to walk in his wayes they have * warrant so to do if there be no visible Church for them to ioyne unto although I do not approve that every two Mat. 18 or three shall ioyne together so walk when they may conveniently ioyne to a Church set already in the wayes of God neyther may they attempt any thing beyoÌ„d their measure calling least they fal into the sinne of Corah c. And as for two baptising themselves or one an other that can they not do without calling from God And therefore you not having calling herevnto being as you say vnbaptised I pray you tel me how you are authorised by Christ herevnto conjoyned into his name The Admistration of Baptisme is by Christ †Mat. 19. Ephe. 4. 11 12. commaunded to his Apostles and Ministers of the word as before is shewed As for your reason which is That els they can not conioyne into Christ but by baptisme I answer we may be ioyned into Christ by being vnited in one spirit into his covenant of life And though persons that were never baptised be received into the Church by baptisme yet wil it not folow that such as are baptised in apostate Churches 〈◊〉 must any more be baptied theÌ„ they that being circuÌ„cised were recircuÌ„cised when they ioyned to the Church of the Iewes And baptisme is not our graffing into Christ but the signe or seale thereof and so are those Scriptures which you alledg to be vnderstode And as you say The commaundement of God must be obeyed and so this commaundement It is true being done according to the order and way that Christ hath appointed therefore you break the commaundement to baptise your self others without commission from Christ are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes Pharisees * Mat. 15 3. who traÌ„sgressed the commandements of God by their traditions so you do in this your new baptisme transgresse Gods coÌ„maundement to magnifie your own devised practise Look well to it the Lord
hath thus pronounced upon such transgressors †Mat. 1. 5â— In vayn do they worship me teaching doctrines mens precepts the Psalmist sayth “ Psal 11â— 21. cursed are they that do erre froÌ„ thy coÌ„maudemeÌ„ts the which iudgemeÌ„t of God you may behold in your selves if God so open your eyes who of one company are now at least divided into 3. ech one refusing communion with other stil increasing in nevv errors But for the baptising of a mans selfe you say There is as good warrant as for a man churching him self for two men singly are Ans no Church joyntly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church vpon themselves So two men may put baptisme vpon themselves This phrase of Churching a mans selfe is not the phrase of the holy Scripture Repl. it is the Lord that †Mat. 2â— 19. Act. 1 46. 47. Eâ— 4. 11. 12. calleth men out of the world gathereth theÌ„ together by his word and buildeth them vp to be his Church as Christ sayth * Ioh. 10. other sheepe I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall heare my voice And they whose harts the Lord openeth do willingly obey his voice and beleeving †Act. 2. 42. walk together in his wayes as before I have observed To passe by your strange phrases the scripture thus speaketh that the Eunuch Cornelius and others received baptisme administred unto theÌ„ by the Ministers of Chr. but that they or any other did ever put baptisme that is as I understand you administer it upon theÌ„selves I never read thereof in the scriptures unlesse we should think that Iohn B. did it who if it were so had his calling extraordinarie from heaven As two persons unchurched have power to assume the church ech of them for himself Ans with others in communion so each of theÌ„ unbaptised have power to assume baptisme for himself with others in coÌ„munion These things would do wel if they were proved Concerning 2. persons or moe coÌ„ing into coÌ„munioÌ„ together I have before set down what I think And now for assuming of baptisme if you mean therby receiving of it being lawfully administred theÌ„ I grant that they which are unbaptised †may â—cts 10. 8. 12. â— ought to receive baptisme in the coÌ„munion of the Saincts But that 2. persons or moe may take and baptise theÌ„selves or one another in your coÌ„munion I abhorre as an humane invention As for the exaÌ„ples of Abr. and Iohn B. administring the Sacrament upon theÌ„selves if so it were yet serve â—en 17 â— 13. â— 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. â— 25. 27. â— 13. 15 nothing to your purpose for AbrabaÌ„ had a * special coÌ„mandement to circumcise so had Iohn for his “ baptisme warrant froÌ„ God But wil it follow because these 2. administred the SacrameÌ„t upon themselves therfore who list may consecrate his hands to that office What is this â—ls that you plead for but to overthrow that order that Christ hath â—et down in his Church to make every one a Minister of the Lords Sacraments CoÌ„cerning the Proselytes that they did every one circuÌ„cise theÌ„selves is not proved by that of Exo. 12 48. for it is sayd there when a stranger shal dwel with thee wil observ the passeover of the Lord every male shal be circuÌ„cised unto him This scripture saith not that every one did circumcise himself but that every male should be circumcised Neyther if the Lord had sayd as the Translation is let him circumcise al the males that belong unto him had this proved that al the Proselytes had done it themselves for it is sayd of Iosua that the Lord bad him make sharp knives †return circuÌ„cise the sons of Israel the second tyme. And 〈◊〉 5. 2. yet wil any think that Iosuah did himself circumcise every uncircumcised male in Israel or rather that the Lord commanded him to see that it were done And so that coÌ„mandement given to Proselytes was that they should cause al their males to be circumcised or els they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Passeover But graunt that this was a special precept to the stranger to circumcise himself and his familie the Lord laying this upon him he had good warrant so to do but seing the Lord hath commanded the administration of baptisme to the Apostles and Ministers of the word now it is to presume above that which is written for any man to take upon himself to administer baptisme to himself or to others Neyther is this to follow the example of the Proselytes if they had done as you alleadge for then the Master onely and none els circumcised and he circumcised but his familie But this new opinion inableth any man be he Master or servant to baptise himself and also to baptise others that are not of his familie Note wel how this example serves to your purpose Howbeit for circumcision I take it that it was administred by the Levites after that they were called of office because †Num. 8. 14. 18. they were appointed in the roome of the first borne of Israel for the service of the Lord. And as I have heard the Levites amongst the Iewes do circumcise at this day But one thing more I would aske you whether by two assuming baptisme in communion you mean that two consenting together may the one baptise the other at one and the same instant or that one shal baptise the other first and then he that is baptised baptise him that was his baptiser and what rule or warrant you have so to do and do not with obscure termes seek to set a colour upon your errors to deceive the ignorant As concerning the administration of the Lords Supper to a mans self in communion with others prayer prophesying praysing of God uttered for a mans self as wel as for others of every unclean person washing himself at the door of the Tabernacle going to sacrifice of every master of a familie administring the passeover to himself all his familie the Priest dayly sacrificing for himself others All these proves not your desyre For as touching the administration of the Lords supper it appertaines to the Ministers of Christ to do it not to every man And by vertue of their office they do administer and as they are members of the church they participate of those holy things with the rest of the brethren And this is Gods ordinance your case of baptising one another is not alike for there he administreth the Sacrament that hath no calling and he that is unbaptised himself presumeth to set the seal upon himself or upon an other Also in the Lords Supper al are agents according to their estate and nature of the action but in the receiving of baptisme we are onely patients As for praying prophesying and praysing of God uttered for
a mans self as wel as for others this is Gods ordinance that men should †pray â—at 6 6 â— c. â—ph 6. 18 â— 2. 42. â— 47. Tim. 2. 1. praise God for themselves and others and is not onely a work of the ministerie save in publike but a general duty apperteyning to * all the brethren but the administration of baptisme is appointed to the Ministerie And there is great difference between our prayers and sacrifices offered to God and the Lords Sacraments and word ministred unto us the former we are commanded to doe our selves in our due place the other is from the Lord unto us and we are the subjects to receive the same by the administration of Gods Ministers and al these things are the commandements of God Concerning those in the old Testament that being unclean did purifie or wash themselves they did thereby shew forth their continuall voluntarie repentance and fayth to be clensed from their pollutions and sinnes by Iesus Christ Ioh. 13 10. Neyther did they this without the Lords Lev. 13. â— 15. â— 27. commandement For were not the * purifyings of the unclean prescribed by Moses shew us the like warraÌ„t for the new baptising of your selves and the controversie is ended and unlesse you do it what do all these examples prove for you seing al these were done by warrant of the word and you have no scripture to alleadge for your doings And for the Priests washing themselves in the Laver “ Exod. 30 â—â— 21. God so commanded But the Priests you say washing in the Laver at the door of the Tabernacle was a type of baptisme the doore of the church would you then have us to think that every one coÌ„ing to the Church should baptise himself yea that also every tyme they come to publike worship For if you hold thus you might also thus reason from your similitude But similitudes and allegories must not be pressed further then the intendement of them proportion of fayth wil suffer That washing no doubt did signifie that such as come into Gods presence to offer any sacrifices must be clean and holy the water in the Laver might wel be a type of the blood of Iesus Christ of regeneration in him teaching that al the faythful being made Priests unto God should be washed from al their sinnes in the bloud of Christ and sanctified in him to the service of the Lord. And that therefore they should continually repent of their sinnes and have fayth in Iesus Christ that so through him they and their works service may be accepted of the Lord and they in the end be received into his heavenly kingdome But this wil not justifie your baptising of your selves for besides that which is answered before the Priests were commanded to wash their hands their feet themselves for such use as is aforesayd But in the new Testament we are appointed to be baptised by the Lords Ministers as hath bene declared already The same answer may be given to that of the Priests sacrificing for themselves that they had the word for their warrant and were first to offer for their owne sinnes and then for the peoples And this was an offering up to God but baptisme is the Lords ordinance to be administred to us and therefore in this respect also your reason is not alike Lastly for that of every Master of a familie administring the Passeover the same is to be mynded as in the former instances And seeing they were altogether to eat of one food which shadowed out Iesus Christ and our Redemption by his death it lay upon the father of the family not onely to do the things of ministration parteyning to him but to partake also himself of the same common food and banket with the rest Moreover although the master of the familie did so as then was appointed to be done by him yet wil it not follow that every man may now administer baptisme to himself and others The Master did that then for himself and his familie by the †Exo. 12. 3â— 4. 10. commandement of the Lord who was as a Bishop a Priest in his owne howse and besides him none in the howse might do it But after that God had to his church by Moses given lawes and ordinances and the Priests to do the service of the Lord the * 2 Chr. 3â— 17. 35. 1â— 11. killing of the Passeover was performed by the Levites and Priests which teacheth us that it is not in every mans power to be a Minister of the Lords ordinaÌ„ces save they that have calling thereunto And therefore I marveil that you will bring in so many instances so unfitting to your practise all which examples might have taught you rather the unlawfulnes of your action they being al done by warrant yours without altogether Lastly you say A man cannot baptise others into the Church himself being out of the church Then I pray you Sir resolve me how you can baptise your self into the church being out of it yea and where there was no church or how you could baptise others your self being out of the Church or how two can baptise themselves to be a church that are unbaptised and without the church And what conclusion is this to say A man can not baptise others into the Church himself being unbaptised therfore it is lawful for a man to baptise himself with others in communion If you have no better warrant for the practise of your doings then these reasons which you have already alledged younâ—ed not to boast of your Plerophory of your Practise But what is now become of your plerophory and ful perswasion about it seing you have already chaunged your mind againconcerning your baptising of your self for this cause other the like matters are by some of your people excoÌ„municate It were good for you to remember and keep that saying of the Apostle It is good alwayes to be zealous in a good thing Gal. 4. 18. Mr Smythes Reasons for Anabaptisme of Elder people Answered R. Clyfton THus having set down Reasons to prove that Apostates or AntichristiaÌ„s coÌ„verted ar not to be rebaptised let vs come to the examination of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first whereof is this 1. Because Churches are 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 receved in the members by baptisme Ergo so must we do now Answere The estate and constitution of people now is not a like to the state of the Gentiles or Iewes in the Apostles tymes they differ in divers respects First l the people then both of Iewes and Gentiles never had bene themselves nor were ever of the posteritie of those that had bene meÌ„bers of the Church of Christ vnder the Gospel seing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches But we are now the
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.
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
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
his wife and as a wife in one respect so an heire in an other as here the Apostle calls that church And surely she could not be called an heire if she had not title to an inheritance and this then must be by covenant Besides the church of Israel was able and did covenant with the Lord You labour to chayn up the Lords grace and to bynde him that he cannot promise good to the children of the faythful or save them in Christ except they do actually by voyce and words of their own speaking stipulate or coÌ„tract with the Lord the contrarie †Deu. 2â— 10. 15. Aâ— 2. 39. is witnessed by the holy Ghost 3. The Lord did never appoint that baptisme should seal up his new Tectament Rep. to infants Of this I have spoken before throughout the first treatise Ans And for your selves you hold that baptism sealeth up the covenant neither to yong nor old and therefore you might wel have spared this particular As for that which followes or that infants should by his baptisme be admitted in to the body of Antichrist c. I grant not into the body of Antichrist for Antichrist hath no right to any of the ordinances of God but the questioÌ„ is not what he hath right unto but whether the Lords ordinance is to be rejected together with the pollution thereof The Lord did not appoint that Belshaâ—her his princes wyves and concubines should drink in the vessels of the Temple or them to be caried into BabyloÌ„ but * Dan. 5. 2 3. 4. they being there prophaned yet were “ Ezr. 1. 8. 11 caried out thence served for the use of the Temple And so do we hold of baptisme of the scriptures rejecting the corruptions that did cleave unto them in Poperie and applying them with their right use to our selves But the end of Christs baptisme is to manifest visibly that the partie confessing his Rep. sinne is sealed by the spirit unto the day of redemption that he hath visibly put on Christ that he is mortified crucified risen againe c. Rom. 6. 1. 6. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. These ends of baptisme I deny not but we must not deprive infants of this grace neither exclude that Ansâ— special end of baptisme to wit the sealing up unto us the pomise of God which is the thing you can not away with I know the true beleevers ar sealed with the spirit a seal invisible so were the godly under the old Test al that are the Lords are in Christ have his spirit dwelling in them els could they not be his And it is true also that the promise of the spirit hinders not the outward meanes which God hath sanctified for the begetting and increasing of our fayth for he worketh together with them Seeing therefore the matter forme and end of baptisme in the false church is from man even from Antichrist therefore the Lord is not the Author of this baptisme but the baptisme is Antichrists wholly And although he useth the words In nomine patris filij spiritus sancti Amen as the Papists do in sprinkling holy water in baptising of their belles as coniurers do in their charmes yet this can not make true baptisme c. How untrue that is which you speak of Baptisme in Poperie as being â—â—s from Antichrist and not from Iesus Christ for the matter c. I have shewed before The Papists when they baptise children do intend to administer baptisme and do baptise them into the name of Christ and not into the name of the Pope And though they do in the use of this holy ordinance adde a number of superstitious ceremonies and observations withal yet keep they the forme * set downe by Christ without devising a new And Mat. 2â— therefore it is not true to say that baptisme is Antichrists wholly The abusing of the name of God by papists or conjurers in their baptising of bells and conjurations c. is their sinne which we leave unto them selves the ordinance of God we retayn which we know their abuse cannot annihilate And though you except these words In nomine patris c. have been prophaned by the Papists As much may be sayd of the scriptures And if prophanation be a cause sufficient to reject baptisme then by lyke reason may the scriptures be cast away And this also you are in a reasonable forewardnes for no translated scriptures must come in your worship yet for some uses you are contented to receive the scriptures though they have been prophaned but baptisme for no use at all because say you it is essentially corrupted in matter and forme and use yet not another matter forme and use your self hath confessed †That if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing â—haracter â—g 53. their sinnes and fayth into the Trinitie it should not have been repeated So that all this florish that you make about the essential corruption in matter forme and use stands in this that you hold that infants are not capable of baptisme which is proved already against you Againe these corruptions in or about the matter and forme of baptisme are accidental and not the changing of the matter forme and end as before is shewed Furthermore whereas I sayd that the Israelites in their Apostasie were a false church you answer If so you understand a false church Repâ— viz. meetings or companies of men assembled together in a wrong place to a wrong worship to a wrong Priesthood I yeeld Israel to be a false church but I deny that to be the true definition of a false church c. By a false church I understand a church apostate neither do I describe Answ a false or an apostate Church as in the first place you set downe but such a church I hold to be in apostasie that hath †2 The. â— 1 Tim. 4. fallen from the fayth and waye of Christ * Hos 2. broken covenant with God and “ 2 Chr. 12. 11. forsaken him †2 Chro. 9. 1 Kin. 28. 33. 14. 9. that erects a new fellowship amongst themselves of their own invention and worship God by the hands of false Ministers with false worship c. This was the state of Israel which came to be without the “ 2 Chr. 1â— 3. true God c. and therefore she was a church in apostasie and not the true * Hos 2. â— wiâ—e of the Lord. That false is contrarie to true I graunt but in that sense I never intended to cal Israel a false church as having nothing that belonged to the true church in it no more is Antichrists such a one Yet the having of some of Gods holy things in them in a corrupt manner cannot make them true churches ches Here you indeavour to prove Israel a false church c. A true church is discerned in the true causes essential and so a false church by
the want of those true causes essential Repl. the true essential causes of the church of the old Testament was the posteritie of Abraham or proselyte circumcised the want of those things onely made a false church c. If this be the true definition of the church under the old Testament Ans then what would let that the Ismaelites and Edomites being circumcised were not true churches they were of the posteritie of Abraham as all do know That Israel was an Apostate church is before proved and by you confessed As to your essential causes of this church your carnal covenant which is the ground of your definitioÌ„ you may receive answer before pag. 12. c. And this more 1. That the Israelites and proselytes were a true church so long as they walked in the wayes of God but apostating the Lord did cal them an harlot Hos 2 2. 2. If these be the essential causes of that church as you have set down then the want thereof makes them not a false church as you say but no Church Lastly you bring us in a double respect or consideration of members of the church Repl. of Antichrist c. I answere divers things 1. I do not deny but that men may be considered two wayes visibly as members of Antichrist body invisibly as pertayning to the Lords election and that is the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but I deny that hence it followeth that when they came from their invisible being in Christ to a visible being in the true visible Church they shal enter in any waye but by the dore which is baptism First you graunt a duble consideration may be had of members of Antichrists Church but not altogether in the same sence as I did propound it The members of an apostate Ch. though in respect of their outward standing they have no right to the holy things of God yet as touching the election of God divers of them may belong vnto him whom he knoweth for his people and calleth them out of Babylon when and as it pleaseth him even as that speach doth shew vnto vs which sayth come out of her my people c. Rev. 18. 4. God for his promise sake made to Abraham Isaac and Iacob did extend his love to their seed and posteritie to save so many of them as he had * elected And when Israel fel into apostasie did remember Rom. 11. â—-5 this his promise and called thence such as he had chosen to witnes his truth and gave them to separate from their false wayes and to returne to Ierusalem Also the Lord having graffed the Gentiles in and †made them partakers of the roote and fatnes of the Olive tree vouchsafeth Rom. 11. 7. his grace to them and their posteritie But their apostasie he hateth as he did that of the Israelites And yet notwithstanding he hath his people Rom. 11. 8. in Babylon whom he calleth out to confesse his name for the covenant is given to the beleeving Gentiles as it was formerly to the Israelites and is no more extinguished in the apostasie of Antichrist then in the apostasie of Israel And as for the meaning of Rom. 11. 28. I take to be this that wheras 〈◊〉 11. 28 question might be made of the saving of the Iewes they being now enemies c. Paul granteth that they are enemies in one respect to wit of the Gospel which now they received not yet that in an other respect they are beloved of God to wit for his election and promise made to the fathers so as through the grace of his covenant by which he had chosen that people to himself Israel shal be called and ingraffed agayne and saved from their sinnes c. But that promise was to their fathers and their seed and this ingraffing agayne of the Iewes shal be into that estate from which now they are fallen and which before time their fathers were partakers off As concerning baptisme I do not read that it is called the doore of * Roâ— 3-4 3. 27. the Church the scripture hath these phrases Baptised into Christ baptised into his death and such like Notwithstanding in some sense it may be called the doore because it sealed vnto vs Christ who is the doore and for that it is the first-ordinance that eyther such as came to the Church or that are borne in the Church are made partakers of Whereas you intimate that a man being invisibly elect and having Title to the Re. covenant may therevpon 1. visibly enter into the false Church by false baptism and then vpon his repentance come to the true Church and enter thereinto not by baptism but that the dore of Antichrist shall open him the way into the Church of Christ Ans c. I answere 1. do not your selfe intimate thus much concerning such as being of yeares and makes themselves profession are baptised into Antichrists Apostacy 2. My spech was of such of Gods people as are borne †Carraâ— pag. 52. in Babylon which your selfe calles * members of a false Church 3. Baptism that is retayned in the Apostate Church of Antichrist is not false in that sense as you so call it but is the ordinance of Christ there poluted as formerly I have shewed 4. Gods people comming out of Babylon do no more enter into the true Church without baptisme then those his people that separated from the apostasie of Israel came to Ierusalem without circumcision otherwise I do not intimate or speak Whereas I say you intimate so much you teach contrary to Christ who sayth we Re. must go in by the dore c. and that we must first be taught and made disciples and then be baptised c. The doore is * Joh. 10. â— Christ by whome if any man enter in he shal be saved An. And to be baptised first after instructed is not coÌ„trary to Christs coÌ„mandemeÌ„t The words of Christ you wrest froÌ„ the true meaning therof to thrust infants out of the covenant and from baptisme and so your self is guilty of teaching contrary to Christ as formerly I have proved and you might aswel deny Baptisme to women by that Scripture Mat. 28. 19. as to infants for Christ sayth Baptise them vsing the masculine gender and not the feminine Secondly I say that no man is under the covenant or under baptisme for the parents sake and that is not the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise of God made to Abraham Isaac and Jaoob in respect of Chrict This place of Rom. 11. 28. I have before expounded Pag. 218. And that any is beloved for their parents sake otherwise then in respect of gods free promise made vnto them and their seed I meane not Yet if we consider the Lords dispensation of his covenant according to his grace of chosing a people to himself of
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.