Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	apostle_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	4,180	5	9.2107	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19033	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 objects 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.	Clyfton, Richard, d. 1616.	1610 (1610)	STC 5450; ESTC S1572	214,939	244

more auncient then error And although you esteeme not of the testimony of the fathers witnes●●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-Pantal●on Chro. fol. 6. who saith that Victor Apher anno 193. ordeyned that a● 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 infāts were baptised before Victors time appeareth by that ●eliques 〈…〉 e p. ● 96. ●●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 No●atus that ●e being vexed with an vncleane spirit in his youth and having spent s●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 w●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 d●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 Athanas● vero at● eos c. ● vocatis p● rētibus s● Dei obte●tione trad● ecclesiae su● nutrien●● 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 traditiō Now you know their Apost traditions were antichristiā inventiōs 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 traditiō 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 traditiōs 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 n● to be clad in white that they were instructed until Easter th●ir time appointed for baptism these it seemes were the Catechumeni for in those former times many had not imbraced the faith now this autho●● 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 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 dānable 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 mē arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after thē 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 like● 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 wher●● God in mercie hath preached vnto vs the Gospel that formerly he had ●eached to Abraham our father and by the Apostles vnto both Iewes ●d Gentiles that a long time hath bene greatly obscured through the ●oggy mists of popish doctrines now seeketh to spoile the church of Christ ●ereof altogether by that detestable heresie of Anabaptisme which as ● 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 ●ntryemen who are not onely taynted therewith but have revolted frō●e faith and taken vpon them the profession thereof and published their ●reticall opinions in our owne language For there is lately set forth 〈…〉 rtayne Treatise of theirs intituled The Character of the Beast ●c A title as it is most blasphemous being understood of the baptising ●f infants so is the book it self ful of many dangerous errours wherwith ●he simple may easily be deceaved And seing the same book is sent over ●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 ●e carefull of their own salvation to take heed therof And for this ●nd have published this Treatise following contayning a Processe of the Passages between Mr. Smyth the author of that book and me wherin ●l whose eies it shal please God to open may see the notable sleights of Sa●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 frō 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

that we may receive a ful reward And now unto him that is able to keep vs that we fall not to present vs faultlesse before the presence of his glorie with ioye To God onely our Saviour be glorie and Maiestie Dominion and power both now and ever Amen Richard Clifton AN ANSWER TO Mr SMYTHES Epistle to the Reader which he hath directed To every one that loveth the truth in sincerity BY these wordes it seemeth Mr Smyth would intimate that his care is to mainteyne the truth and that in sinceritie he loveth the same whereas in deed he hath destroyed the faith is become an enemy to the covenant of grace a perverter of the right wayes ●f the Lord and withall so confident in defence of his heresies that he ●●es to challendge a combate with all the Separation belike to feare men ●ith great words and to boast with Rabsake as if his forces were invin●ble But what they are it wil appeare in this discourse following In the Epistle it self first Mr Smyth seemeth to excuse their mutabilitie in Religiō saying It may be thought most strange that a man should oft times change ●s religion and it cannot be accounted a commendable qualitie in any man to make ●ny alterations c. this must needs be true and we confesse it if one condition be 〈…〉 itted that the Religion which a man changeth be the truth for otherwise to change 〈…〉 lse religion is commendable c. But Mr Smyth and his company have changed a true Religion for a ●alse and therefore that can be no commendable qualitie in them And ●uch inconstant persons as himself saith cannot escape the deserved imputation ●folly or weaknes of iudgement therein Thus out of his owne mouth pro●ouncing sentēce against himself For that alteratiō of him his cōpany ●s not frō falshood to truth but the leaving of the truth which formerly ●hey professed a taking up of error after error first calling into question whether the scriptures being translated into other tongues were not the writings of men Differenc pag. 10. Then casting the reading of them out of the worship of God affirming that there is no better warrant to bring translations of Scripture into the Church and to read them as parts and helps of worship then to bring in expositions paraphrasts and sermons vpon the Scripture seing all these are equally humane in respect of the worke equally divine in respect of the matter they handle Differ pag. 10. And for the same cause separated themselves from other Churches that did read and vse the same in their publike meetings After this they dissolved their Church which before vvas conioyned in the fellowship of the Gospel profession of the true fayth Mr. Smyth being Pastor thereof gave over his office as did also the Deacons and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptisme and taking upon them an other of mans invention bringing in an other Gospel besides that which was preached to Abraham Gen. 12 3 17. 7. c. Gal. 3 8. And now againe many of this new communion have separated themselves from the rest holding the error about the incarnation ●f this new ●aptised cō●union ●ere are re●ayning as ●is reported ●t above ● persons ●l the rest ●e runne in ● further ●rors of Christ An other sort are excommunicate namely M. Smyth divers with him for holding as it is reported by some that were of them that their new washed companie is no true church and that there cannot be in a church the administratiō of baptisme other ordinances of Christ without Officers contrarie to his former judgment practise writings yet resteth not but is inquiring after a new way of walking as the same persons affirme breeding more errors as is strongly suspected and by his manuscripts partly appeares Whereby it is manifest that these men can not cleare themselves of instabilitie changeablenes in Religion but are guilty of that inconstancie that is worthy reproof and damnable Further he sayth For a man of a Turke to become a Jew of a Iew a Papist of a Papist a Protestant are al commendable changes c. so that not to change religion is evil simplie therefore that we should fal from Puritanisme to Brownisme and from Brownisme to true christian baptisme is not simply evil in it self except it be proved that we have fallen from the true religion c. Here Mr. Smyth would make the world beleeve as it is the manner of al heretikes that their alterations were goings forward to further truthes and therefore commendable But if their true Christian baptisme whereof they boast prove a notable heresie as it is indeed in this Treatise is proved then his comparison holds not but rather their estate is like to those in 1 Tim. 1 19. that put away fayth a good conscience and as concerning fayth have made shipwrack And that bring in damnable heresies 2 Pet. 2. 1. c. denying the covenant of grace and the lawful use of the scriptures c. to bring upon themselves swift damnation if God give them not speedy repentance Next M. Smyth setts down the questions controverted and hereafter answered affirming that this controversie is between them and the Separation whereas he might as well have sayd betweene them and all christian churches that have been or are at this day for it is not we alone that ●ndemne these their heresies but both the ancient and moderne Chur●es and vvriters in all ages as vvith one consent have opposed against ●em But where he pretends the publishing of this controversy to be for the ●ay of God the manifesting of the truth to our owne nation and the destruction of ●man of sinne he geveth vs to mynd how Satan hath bewitched his soule ● beleeve that such can be the effects of his heritical opinions It is the ●ollicy of the Divil to propound glorious ends to such as he seduceth as ● Evah and others teacheth his Ministers to do the like that by fayre ●attring speeches and shewes of good they might more easily deceave the ●mple And therfore seing we are forwarned that there shal be false Teachers ●mongst vs which privily shal bring in damnable heresies it behoveth vs ●o mynd the counsel of the Apostles to try the spirits 1. Ioh. 4. 1. And not ●o be caryed about with every wynd of doctrine Ephe. 4. 14. Now happely sayth Mr. Smyth some man wil wish that the controversy had 〈◊〉 with the Rabbies of the Separation and not with Mr Clyfton whome they ca 〈…〉 iate to be a weake man vnable to deale in so great a controversy wel let the Reader take notice that though it be Mr Clyftons pen yet it is not onely Mr Clyftons 〈…〉 se def●nce but his allegatiōs Reasons are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies thē●elves And if they can say better they may now speake for by publishing answere to

the faithful and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh yea some infants circumcised should be types as the carnal seed of Abraham and other infants circūcised as well as they to wit the children of the Proselytes should be no types for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self nor you with the truth Secondly I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful Paul sayth * that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat 1 Cor. 10. ● 5. drank the same spirituall drink c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended and after the enumeration of many particulars the Apostle sayth all these through faith obteyned good report Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful if infāts of the faithful then were they types of thēselves 3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham as Isaac Iacob c. were the true children of Abraham Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh * Rom. ● 16. 17. 19 20. 23. ● cōferd w● Gen. 17. ● 9. 13. Jo● 44. sonnes of the promise of life so to be reputed as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of belee●ers But say you If you wil make true consequents you must reason from the type to the truth and not from the type to the type neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do c. And I answer you neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed But as for my confounding of the covenants and seales that is your bare affirmation and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham for your carnal and spirituall infants is answered before Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed then you undertake to prove the contrary saying That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands commeth in place of circumcision made with hands Collos 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11. By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promised the † Deut. 1● 16. 30. circumcision of the hart and the hart of their seed as before is shewed and they had the grace together with the outward signe therefore your reason is insufficient and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning Towching the place of the Romaines 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced Rom. 2● the Iewes of syn vers 17. 24. they might object what doth our circumcision nothing profit us that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles yea sayth he if thou keep the law els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision vers 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law before circumcision transgressing the law vers 26 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites the inward and outward circumcision sheweth who is a true Iew not before men but before God viz he that is one within wherein is no guyle And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation which is not onely outward but of the hart this is the Apostles meaning and not to teach that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh c. as you affirm That other place Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the ●2 11. former for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel in this verse he denyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh which was specially urged seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge seal and witnes of our inward renuing or regeneration therefore having baptisme to confirme these graces vnto them need not the use of outward circumcision And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught ●●e 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes by nature corrupt but also after an especiall manner strangers without God c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise which is the spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Ephe. 1. 13. 14. Although circumcision was set in the flesh yet was it not a seale of the flesh but of the * spirituall covenant and the holy spirit of promise succeedes Rō 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them that heavenly covenant of salvation as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly as in Abraham Isaac Iacob and the rest yea the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision for they being converted were after circumcised Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “ assured by the ●om 4. ● 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision you quote Ephes 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes because they were called by the same gospel which they imbraced by fayth and sealed up by the same spirit which is the earnest of our inheritance And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision Againe the spirit being invisible is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant Further you say I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new te●stament though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal I say therefore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament spiritual and yet visible and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water as Peter

John and the Apostles Ergo. c. R. Clyfton First the Major of your former Sillogisme is not necessarily true your selfe confesseth † that every consequent necessarily deduced from the scripture is as wel Parallels ●g 71. and as truely the word of truth as that which is in playne termes expressed c. and therefore you ought to have added nor ground of the scripture or such like 2. The minor I deny and haue proved that there is both precept and example for baptising of infants Your second Syllogisme may be granted save that the conclusion seemes to entend more then the propositions viz in these words are the persons to be baptised as yf onely such not infants as can confesse their faith are to be baptised which I deny Before you proceed to confirme your argument you labour first to remove my answer saying Although a necessary consequence in all cases shall prevaile yet I say the Lord can not leave vs in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainely and faithfully with vs c. You graunt a necessarie consequence in all cases shall prevaile why not in this particular Your reason is seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old c. and Moses hath set downe distinctly and plainly the persons with their qualifications to be circumcised c. either Christ hath as plainely and fully set downe these particulars or els the new testament is not so playne as the old 1. By this your reason you iniure God his word who leaft the Iewes in the books of Moses onely to consequences towching that great point of the resurrection which yet Christ accounted sufficient and against the Sadduces drewe his Argument to prove the resurrection out of Exodus 3. 6. where no such thing is expressely mentioned and so by your doctrine he dealt not plainely and faithfully Also every other argument that he or the Apostles used upon a necessarie consequence can not stand with the open face of the gospel thus far do●h your reason extēd but I wil come to your particular whereof you would have it understood viz that Christ can not deale faithfully if for the baptising of infants he hath not as playnely described the ordinance of baptisme the persons with all other circumstances c. Do you thinke that if Christ have not set downe every circumstance about baptisme that he is therefore unfaythful what think you of his describing of the other Sacrament where is it set downe so playnely that wemen shal be partakers thereof there is no mention that any woman was present at Christs administration of his last supper where is the tyme so described for the administration thereof as was for the Passeover must Christ for this be accused to have dealt not so faithfully as Moses had our Saviour any need to teach or write otherwise then he hath done about the sacraments seing it is the same covenant under the Gospel that was sealed to the old Church and a commaundement given for the sealing thereof unrepealed that which was to be chaunged concerning the outward ceremonie Christ hath plainely set it downe with direction for for the administration thereof And that which was needful for Moses in describing circumcision was not so necessarie for Christ in describing of baptisme because circumcision was to be administred onely to the males but baptisme to both sexes circumcision on the 8. day baptisme is tyed to no strict time and therefore the particular description of these circūstances might wel be omitted and no unfaithful dealing in Christ As for the minding of it to be administred to infants there was no use of any such particular direction seing the Lord had once ordeyned to seal his covenant to the faithful their seed renueth the same in a general maner under the Gospel which may suffice to all that are sober minded For it had bene easily said go teach c. baptise them if they have any infants baptise them c. It is not for man to prescribe wisedome how to speak things are taught plainly inough if God give men eares to heare But say that Christ Iohn and the Apostles leaveth direction for this meane matter onely by dark far fetched probable coniectures consequence from the old testamēt whi●h was onely typical c. and hath not left evident grounds for it expressly in all the foresaid p●rticulars c. is to say that Christ is not so faithful in his office propheticall as Moses was c. For these things which we defend are playne enough and no darke or farfetched coniectures except to such whose eies the Lord hath blinded Concerning our Reasons drawen from the writings of the old Testament we do herein follow the exāple of Christ his Apostles who did confirme and prove that doctrin which they preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets Paul sayth † that he witnessed to smal and great saying no other things then Act. 26. those which M●ses and the Prophets did say should come notwithstanding I have also confirmed this doctrine of baptisiing of infāts from the new Testamēt In that you say the old Testament was onely typical you must explaine your meaning for although some things were * typical vnder the old Testamēt Heb. 10. 8. 13. ● 9. 1-9 ●l 2. 16. 17 Gal 4. 24. ●5 yet other things were Moral as the Moral † law which was a parte of it preaching prayer and other spiritual parts of worship which were commāded vnder the old Testament Agayne That Christ hath left vndeniable groundes in the Scriptures for the baptising of infants before is shewed Moreover seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp and preached obscurely in the old Testament and types thereof it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrection c. but now that the new Testament being written c. why should we be sent to obscurities and coniectural cons●quentes c. Because the bookes of the new Testament were not written Christ and the Apostle might reason frō obscurities coniecturall cōsequents out of the old Testamēt do you thus argue indeed was Christs reasoning obscure for the resurrection do you thinke the Saduces would have bene soner perswaded if the new Testament had bene written and Christ had reasoned from it no more then you wil be perswaded to beleeve the baptising of infants for al the reasons we bring frome the same He that wil not beleeve Moses and the prophets wil not beleeve the Apostles Agayne I deny that to reason from the Scriptures of the old Testament is to reason from obscurities the Apostles have made all things cleere and manifest Ephe. 3. 5-9 whose writings do further us to the vnderstanding of the prophets Christ himselfe sends vs to search those Scriptures Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter ● Pet. 1. ● sayth † yee do wel if you take heed to the word of the Prophets as before is observed Besides

in force to the faithful and their seed Rom. 9. 6. 8. 15. 11 1. 2-5 2. Christ speaketh to such of the Iewes as by their works did shew themselves to be of the Divil he intendeth not to teach that this was the constitution state of the whol Church under the old Testament as much as Christ sayd to these Iewes may be sayd to us under the Gospel as of those Antichristians whereof Iohn speaketh 1. Iohn 2. 19. and therefore all that you have sayd proves nothing for the question in hand Againe to prove the Disciples to be baptised you cite Ioh. 4. 1. 1. 35. 40. I answere in the latter place is no mention of baptisme and in the former it is sayd that Iesus baptised moe disciples then Iohn which in verse 2. is explaned that he did not baptise but his disciples shewing that Christ baptised disciples by the hands of his disciples So I think they were baptised of Iohn as Christ was but I wil not contend there about And for that you answer concerning the Eunuch that some mention should have bene made eyther of Philip or of the Eunuch towching his children It is nothing that you say for what occasion was there to speak of his children And it is for you to prove that the Eunuch had children seing he was one as it is like that was made chast by man Mat. 19. 12. the rather because in regard of his honour and auctoritie he was called Cheiffe governour as also in respect of his country an Ethiopian Act. 8. 27. see Esa 56. 3. 4. 5. Now to your second reason The 2. reason against baptising of infants answered R. Clifton But having thus discovered the weaknes of this first reason let vs come to the next which is this Reason 2. Because Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them and then to baptise them Mat. 28. 19. Ioh. 4. 1. But infants can not by doctrine become Christs disciples and so can not by the rule of Christ be baptised Answer 1. The Apostles were indede commanded to make Disciples and to call vnto the faith and felowship of the Gospel not onely the Iewes but the Gentiles throughout the world and gave them power to preach the Gospel which before had bene preached to Abrahā Gal. 3. 8. And to baptise all that did receive it And this we grant that fayth must go before baptisme in al such as are to be made Disciples and brought into the covenant of God So went fayth before circumcision Abraham first beleeved after was circumcised And likewise must al they which with Abrahā enter into Gods covenant first beleeve and then be baptised as the Eunuch Act. 8. 37. Lydia Act. 16. 15. the Keeper of the prison verse 33. but when such have receved the fayth then are their infants and houshold capable also of baptisme as Abrahams family was of circumcision he beleeved the promises Gen. 17. therefore it is written that when God opened the hart of Lidia that shee did attend to the word that Paule preached and beleved not onely she herselfe but all her household were baptised and yet is there no mentiō of the fayth of any of them save of Lidias onely And so the Keeper beleeving all that appertayned vnto him were baptised And this is proportionable to the example of Abraham whose fayth we find sufficient to interest all his in the covenant and make them capable of the seale 2. Christ taketh the same course in giving out his commission to his Disciples Mat. 28. 19. to bringe the Gentiles into Gods covenant that the Lord tooke with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the father of many nations c. he did not first command him to be circumcised but preached to him the Gospel or covenant and he beleeving was circumcised and his houshold So here is a commandement first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ and for baptising such as beleeved with their families for it is included in this commandement els had not the Apostle baptised the families of Lidia and of the Keper as before is observed And it is wel to be minded that there is no mention made of the faith of any in the familie of Lidia save of Lidias onely for it is not sayd all in the house that beleeved were baptised which had bene necessary if this commandement of Christ should be expounded after the mind of the Anabaptists 3. If children shal be excluded from baptisme because they can not be made Disciples by teaching and so beleeve then by as good reason may they be excluded frō salvation for he that sayth he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved sayth also he that beleeveth not shal be damned Mar. 16. 16. if therfore want of fayth be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme then likewise the want of faith is sufficient to exclude them from salvation If the former be held to be the meaning of Christ then must also the latter be graunted a thought whereof is to be abhord Lastly generall rules must be taken with their sense and meaning It is a generall rule given by the Apostle 2 Thes 3 10. that if any would not work he should not eate Yet if any should gather frō hence that the impotent infants should not eat because they do not work this were to offer violence to wrest the Apostles doctrin So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples and baptising them now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme because they cannot receive instruction which is intended onely of them that are capable thereof is to diminish the commandement of Christ alike as he that should say infants can not beleeve and therefore cannot be saved Againe it can never be the true meaning of a scripture when it is so expounded that the exposition contradicteth other scriptures or any sound conclusiō gathered out of the Scriptures as this exposition of the Anabaptists doth upon this place of Mat. 28. 19. as my former reasons for the baptising of infants do playnely manifest Mr Smyth Next followeth your answer to my 2. Reason which reason of mine is framed thus They that can not by teaching be made Christs disciples ought not to be baptised Infants by teaching can not be made disciples Ergo c. Your answer to this Argument of myne consisteth in 4. particulars c. to the first particular of your answer I say that you erre mistaking the Scripture for Abrahās faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessarie antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or patterne of iust●fication And circumcision in Abraham was not a seal of his iustification or of the everlasting covenant of God c. R. Clifton I answer 1. to the former proposition of your argument that it is false for infants of

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. ● 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 D● 33. 8-● 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. ● 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 ●ev 13. ● 15. ● 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 ●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. ● Pet. 1. 10. ●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. ●ns ● 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 cōmanded 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. ● 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