equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an Apostate Church the other no Church The one partaker of the word Sacram though with much coruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neither at all the one professing Christ Teaching many truths of God so many as the elect therby might come to faith Apoc. 18.4 The other neither professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God wherby any might be converted to Christ become Gods people in the estate of Gentilisme And thus having made plaine the different estate of the first planted Churches ours in Apostacy I answere fi st That Churches now are to be constituted if repairing be not a fitter speâ—ch as in the Apostles tymes that al such as are receaâ—ed in as members being vnbaptized must be receaved in by baptisme but for such as were baptized in Apostate Chuâ—che their repentance is sufficient without rebaptisatioÌ„ as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vppon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were receaved of the Church without any new circumcision therfore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Chr. not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could doe no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptized but if they had met with any that before had bene baptized into the name of Chr. as they that receaved the baptisme of Iohn as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptized them theâ—for the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptized Iohn Smyth The next thing in your answer is a solution of the arguments brought by mee to prove the truth viz. That Antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true Church by baptisme This truth of the Lords I have proved vnto you by three reasons The first â—hereof may bee framed thus So are Churches to be restored or constituted after the defection of Antichr as they were erected by the Apostles at the first But the Churches were at the first erected by baptisme in their primitive institution by Iohn Chr. the Apostles Ergo so are they now to be restored therfor the members are to be receaved in by baptisme as they were then As in the former point for baptising of infants you were compelled to runne to the old Testament from thence to fetch the cheef corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new Testam of Chr. the true constitution Apostolique of the Church of the new Testament set vs againe to Schoole to Moses as if Chr. had not beeÌ„ faithful enough to teach vs his new Test but we must go learne the new Test of the old Testament Chr. of Moses The Gospel of the Law And first I would know why we may not aswel with the Papists Prelates goe fetch one high Preist from Moses a sacrificing Preisthood from Moses succession in the ministery from Moses a succession in the Church from Moses as a succession in baptisme from Moses in effect you do fetch a succession of the Church from Rome For in fetching a succession of baptisme from Rome which is the forme of the Church in fetching a succession of the matter of the Church which is the seed of the parents baptized you of necessity make the Church of Rome a true Church For if infants of the Church of Româ— have true title to baptisme by reason of the Faith of some of their auncesters oâ— forfathers that were Faithful then are they the true visible matter of the Church if by reason of that title to baptisme they receave true baptisme in substance as you say in the Church of Rome then they have the true visible forme of the Church for they that have the true matter forme of a true Church vppon them are the true Chuâ—â—â— so are the infants of the Church of Rome a true visible Church in the constitution essential causes therof so as in the old Testament the Church came by succession of genealogie in respect wherof they made so much account of genealogies carnal Philip. 3 3-5 1. Timoth. 1.4 So in the New Testament the Church commeth by succession of carnal Genealogie through the Church of Rome to our dayes then as the matter of the Church viz infants descending of baptized parents is by Genealogie the forme of the church viz baptisme vppon these infants is by descent therfor the Church is by succession I demaund why may not the ministery be by descent succession aswel as the Church then why is not the Church of Rome or England a true Church the ministery of the Church of Rome or England a true Ministery so why may not you returne back againe into England take vp your former ministery renounce your Schisme which you have made so I heare that some are mynded to doe truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retaine the Church Ministery of England as to retaine the baptisme when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of EnglaÌ„d I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church ministery of England I wil confesse I have been a Schismatique returne acknowledg my error but bicause I know the ministery Church of England is false therfor it must needes be that the baptisme which is the forme of the Church is false essentially therefore having Seperated justly from the Church Ministery of England for the falsehood of them I must needes also Seperate from the baptisme which is false for the Church is false bicause baptisme the forme of the Church is false if baptisme the forme of the Church of England be true the Church of England is true also You are to know therefore so I wish you all the Seperation to mynd it well the Lord give you eyes to see harts to vnderstand that all the old Testament was carnal taken from the Elementes of the VVorld thereby to type out to teach them heavenly things therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs in the New Testament a Spiritual Church The matter of their Church was a carnall Israelite the matter of the Church of the New Testament is a true Israelite in whom ther is no guile The forme of their Church was carnall circumcision a carnal seale Genes 17 10-14 The forme of the Church of the New Testament is the circumcision of the hart a new Creature the Holy Spirit of promise whereby wee are sealed which is manifested by confession baptisme in water Act. 10.47 Ephes 1.13 Gallat 3.27 6.15 Iohn 3.5 Matth. 3.6 Roman 10.9 Act. 8.36.37 Their carnall Church in the matter forme came by carnall Genealogie so they all of them were gendred vnto bondage vnder
Heretiques judg them worthy the gibbet not the affirmation of meÌ„ without proof but the evidence of wilful obstinacy in error maketh men heretiques And let them take heed that they notwithstanding their Syrenes songs prove neâ— cages full of most ougly deformed Antichristian Heretiques Thus desiring the Seperation not to be wise in their owne eyes through pride but to become fooles that they may be made wise through humility desiring the forwardest preachers professors of the English nation wel to weigh what is the true constitution of the Church what is the subject of true Christian baptisme accordingly to measure a true a false Church I cease wishing the light love of the truth to every â—â—e that Readeth IOHN SMYTH CERTAYNE REASONS PROPOVNDED TO Mr. Rich. Clifton concerning the two propositions following 1. That infants are not to bee baptized 1. Bicause ther is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infanâ—s that were baptized by Iohn or Christs Disciples Only they that did confesse their sinnes confesse their Fayth were baptized Marc. 1.4.5 Act. 8.37 2. Bicause Christ commaundeth to make Disciples by teaching them then to baptize them Mat. 28 19. Ion 4.1 but infants cannot by doctryne become Christs Disciples so cannot by the rule of Christ be baptized 3. Bicause if infants be baptized the carnal seed is baptized so the seale of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenaÌ„t aperteyneth not Rom. 9.8 which is a profanation 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by Baptisme 1. Bicause Churches are so to be constituted now after the defection of Antichrist as they were first erected by the Apostles But in the constitution of Churches the Apostles receaved in the members by baptisme go So must wee doe now 2. Bicause true baptisme is but one but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme so not that one baptisme of Christ but all members of Christ must have true baptisme 3. Bicause as the false Church is rejected the true erected the false ministery forsaken the true receaved So false worship by consequent baptisme must be renounced the true baptisme assumed Iohn Smyth Mr. Rich Clifton AN ANSWERE TO TWO ANABAPTISTICAL opinions viz. 1. That Infants are not to be baptised 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to vndertake this busines against him that was deere vnto me yet being therevnto provoked by the sending to me these two positions with certayne reasons annexed vnder the Authors owne hand I thought it my part although the vnablest of many to contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given to the Saints Iud. 3. And by the help of God to put a brieffe answere to these opinions which by the Churches in al ages have bene are condemned for heretical the practise whereof I could wil he might never have beâ—allen to any of myne owne country especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth And châ—efly vnto him to whose charge both I divers others had once purposed to have committed our soules had he not besydes these broached some former opinions both erronious offensive whereby the truth for which we suffer is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked many hindered in our owne country that shall heare thereof of whom wee had great hope that they would have walked in the same fayth with vs. Not withstanding for as much as I am informed that the author hath promised vpon the sight of his errors to confesse the same I do the more willingly take vpon me this labour praying the Lord to give a good issue to his glory for hiâ— mercyes sake Amen Now I wil come to answere the positions with the reasons thereof first concerning the former which is this Iohn Smyth A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truths viz 1. That infants are not to be baptised 2. That Antichristians coÌ„verted are to be admitted into the true church by baptisme These two truthes are by you Sir in your answer intituled Anabaptistical which reproach I do no more account of theÌ„ you doe of the imputatioÌ„ of Brownisme nor then Paul did of Heresy but rather as Paul professed himself joyful in susteyning that blasphemy for the truth you rejoyce in that you for the truthes you professe are calumniated with such vndeserved imputations even so doe I blesse God that I am accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christ his truth but know you Siâ— for your humiliation that your reproach shal light vppon your owne head that Christ his truth are by you evil spoken of In your preface you avouch that you are provoked to write I mervayle you should so speak seing your conscience telleth you that you did make the first request or motion to Mrs. By water I could doe no lesse then I did for if I had refused the motion it would have bene thought that I distrusted the cause whereas you alledg Iud. 3. for justifying your course in answering I say you pervert the Scripture for although you are to contend for the mayntenance of the faith which was once given to the Saynts yet you are neyther to plead for Baal but to lett him plead for himself neyther are you to contend for defence of Antichristian errors but rather as you have in a very good degree rased the Temple of Antichrist even so you should now proceed to vndermine the very foundation to blow it wholly vp at once which is done by entertayning the baptisme of Christ to be administred vppon persons confessing their sinnes confessing their faith neyther will it help you to say that these two truths have bene condemned for heresy by the churches in al ages for if the Apostles age aford contrary to the succeeding ages I say that which is most auncient is the truth you know that many of your truths wherto you are come have bene condemned for heriticall in as many ages as these truths which I defend Againe whereas you affirme that by the broaching of these opinions some former erroneous offensive the truth is like more to be blasphemed therfore you could wish that wee your comtrymen frends had never fallen into them I answer that although I shal not rejoyce that any truth be evil spoken of yet if it shall fal out by occasion of publishing the truth that wicked men blaspheme let them know that Christ is a rock of offence a stone to stumble at if any be hindered from the truth by publishing the truth it wil be their corruption sin the truth or the publishing of the truth is not in fault but if you feare hereby that your Antichristian Church wil fal to the ground I say it is
of the Flesh Rom. 9.7 Gal. 4.23 are not actually vnder the possession of the everlasting New Testament therefore baptisme which you call the seale can not bee administred vppon them the place Act. 2.39 hath oâ— tymes receeved Answere Mr. Rich. Clifton The Second Position 1. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme Answere As the former position denyed the baptising of infants so doth this annihillate that baptisme which wee have received in the Apostate Church establisheth rebaptisation this also I wil shew to be an error by proving the contrary then answere the reasons herevnto annexed That the baptisme administred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptisme not to be reiterated thus I prove it If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented no more doth the Apostacy of our fore Elders so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented But the first is true 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21 els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierushalem have eaten the Passeover seing no vncircumcised might eate therof Ergo the second If it be objected that the Apostacy is not alike then let it be shewed that the Apostacy vnder Antichrist did make a nullity of baptisme not the Apostacy of Israell of circumcision For Israell played the harlot soo deepely that the Lord denyed her to bee his wise or him selfe to bee her Husband Hos 2.2 Iohn Smyth And thus having shewed the vanity of your answeres to my reasons against pedobaptiestery â— let vs come to your answer made to my second position which is this 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme The first thing that in your Answer you intend to prove is that the baptisme administred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is not to be reiterated And for this purpose you produce 6. Arguments Your first Argument is framed thus If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented no more doth the Apostacy of our forefathers so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented But the first is true 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21 Ergo the second I Answer that the Apostacy of Antichrist is deeper then the Apostacy of Israell for first Antichristians are not called Israelites but BabyloniaÌ„s Egyptians Sodomites Gentils in the Revelation wherby the holy Spirit of wisdom giveth vs to conceave that he doth account the Apostacy of Antichrist equal to Paganisme it self yea to the very worst kind of Paganisme Secondly I declare plainly the differences betwixt the Apostacy of Antichrist Israel in this that Israels Apostacy did not destroy the true constitution of the chur But Antichrists Apostacy did rase the true Apostolique constitution For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or Proselites circumcised Gen. â—7 10-14 Exod. 12.48.49 so long as they retayned circumcision in the Land of Canaan they retayned a true constitution though their Apostacy was never so great in the worship ministery Government as is to be seen Hos 4.6.8.12 therfor Abijah doth not chardg the Israelites with a false constitution but declareth vnto them their false Government 2 Chron. 13. vs 8. Their false ministery vs 9. Their false worship vs 8. declareth the true government ministery worship of Iudah But it is manifest that Antichrist hath not only set vp a false Government of Prelacy a false ministery of Preisthood a false worship of reading but also hath set vp a false constitution of the Church For whereas the true Apostolique constitution was of baptized Disciples that confessed their Faith then sinns he hath foysted in a false matter of the Church viz infants persons vnbaptized so a false forme for infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole oâ—â—â—d man or Pagan neitheâ— can they expresse any more repentance oâ— Faith then such persons doe seing the true forme of the Church is a covenant betwixt God the Faithful made in baptisme in which Christ is visibly put on that infants cannot receave the covenant which is only done by actual visible Faith nor cannot seale back vnto the Lord that hee is true Ioh. 3.33 as God sealeth vnto them his truth by his Spirit Eph. 1.13 For the covenant is this I wil be their God 2. Cor. 6.16 they shal be al taught of God Ioh. 6.45 shal al know God from the least vnto the greatest Heb. 8.11 the covenant is this I wil be their Father 2. Cor. 6 18. wee shal be his sonnes calling him Father by the Spirit wherby we are sealed Gal. 4.6 Hence it followeth that the Church of Antichrist being constituted of a false matter viz infants vncapable of baptisme of a false sonne viz infants vnable to enter into the New Testament by sealing back the covenant vnto the Lord consenting vnto the contract therefore they can have no title to Christ or any of his ordinances but are as pagans or Gentils in the Lords account Circumcision therfor in the Israelites Apostacy was true circumcision bicause it was performed vppon carnal Israelites or Proselytes the eigth day but baptisme in Popery is false baptisme so in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing being administred vppon infants a subject that God never appointed to baptisme a subject that is as vncapable of baptisme as an infidel a mad man a naturall foâ—le or any other subject that cannot confesse their Faith or sinnes or be made Disciples by destruction Thirdly I declare that Israel was the true Church of God or a member or part of the true Church of God though infinitely corrupt aswel as Iudah in the dayes of her Apostacy see Ezechiel 3. toto Ezech. 16. toto Ezech. 20 28-31 therfor if Iudah retayned true circumcision in her Apostacy when the L. calleth her a harlot Ezech. 16.35 the Apostacy of Iudah is worse in the L. account then that of Israel Ezech. 16 47-53 Surely the circumcision of Israel was also true Israel a true part of the Church as wel as Indah for the bil of divorce which some plead was given to Israel by Hosea Hos 2.2 I say that was after the passeover of Hezechiah which was in the first yeer of his raigne 2. Chron. 29.3.17 30.2 the bil of divorce was given the sixth yeer of his raigne 2. King 17.23 compared with 2. King 18.10 yet neverthelesse Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophesied of the bil of divorce to be given Hos 4.6.8.12 when the bil of divorce was given divers of Israel I doubt not kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme
into the new Testament that had all these perogatives in your judgment much more wil they have vs to constitute Antichr converted into the true Church by baptisme neither can you say without great indignity to the L. ordinances in the old Test that they were inferior to the baptisme of Antichrist Againe you wil needes have this to be a great priviledg to the antichr to be the carnal seed of them that hath somtyme been members of the Church of Chr. in the new Testament therfor you say that in ther parents or auncestors they had title to baptisme I deny that ever the English nation of any one of our predecessors were of the Faith of Chr. shew it if you can but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came put vppon vs her false baptisme therfor although the Roma might plead this yet England cannot plead it so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing our case is simply Paganish Further you say that the repentance of Apostate Churches is sufficient for their admittance into the true Church without rebaptization as repentance was for Israel without recircumcision I deny it for the Churches of Antichr are false the Church of the Israelites was not false The Churches of Antichr were false bicause they consisted of the carnal seed baptized which was not that one seed vnto which the promise was made that is the Faithful The Church of the Israelites was true bicause it did consist of the carnal seed carnally circumcised which was the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament For otherwise if Israel had been false bicause of their Apostacy Idolatry then Iudah was as false who had in wickednes justified Samaria Sodom Ezech. 16.51 but indeed they were neither of them false so long as they circumcised the males of 8. dayes old but the Churches of Antichr growing false by baptising the carnal seed which was not the true seed of Abrahams faith therefore are to bee baptized when they come to the truth cannot have Israels Apostacy for the president wherefore an Edomite or Israelite comming to bee a proselite of the Iewes Church that had omitted circumcision is a true President of the Antichristian Apostacy For as they omitting the circumcision of the males though of the Posterity of Abraham yet being Proselites were entered into the Iewes Church by circumcision So is it in the Apostacy of Antichrist with the Proselytes of Antichristianisme for so I take it the Proselytes were types of Antichristians converted to the Faith admitted into the true Church the Israelites were not so Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have receaved vs into the Church vppon repentance without baptisme I answer if such an example had been left vs wee would then have rested satisfied but seing the Apo. have left no such example nor precept therfor you are yet in your Apostacy having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are stil vnseperated do stil retaine the mark of the beast are subject to the woe that the aungel threatneth to persons so marked Mr. Rich. Clifton Now let vs come to the second reason which is this 2. Bicause true baptisme is but one but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme so not that one baptisme of Chr. but al the members of Chr. must have true Baptisme Answere 2. Ther is but one Faith one baptisme Eph. 4 4. therefore is it sufficient to bee once baptized as it was to bee once circumcised Secondly That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt doe also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme what then must it follow that now such as are baptized must bee rebaptized els cannot bee members of a visible Church I deny it doe further answere 1. That the baptisme which wee receaved in the Apostate Church is no more Antichrists then the word that wee receaved therein For Antichrist did never ordaine a new kynd of baptisme but did onely pollute with his inventions the Holy ordinance of Chr therefore if this baptisme that wee have receaved be called the baptisme of Antichr that is to affirme an vntruth seing the institution thereof was by Iesus Chr. who commaunded his Apo. to baptize al nations with water in the name of the Father of the Sonne of the Holy Ghost the same baptisme for substance is stil retayned in the Apostate churches none other Secondly this baptisme may also in some respect bee called true baptisme as before I have noted in my fift reason against rebaptization For 1. it hath Chr. for the Author 2. it hath the true matter outward signe or element which is water 3. the true forme of administring the same which is baptising into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the Holy Ghost al which is practised in the Popish Church neither is any baptized into the name or faith of Antich but vnto the faith possession of Christ therfor our baptisme is the baptisme of Chr. to vs that repent true baptisme so consequently not to be reiterated Iohn Smyth In the next place you make answer to my second arg which may be framed thus Al the members of Chr. must have that one true baptisme of Chr. taught in the new Testament The baptisme of antich is not that one true baptisme taught by Chr. in the new Testament Ergo The members of Christ must not have the baptisme of Antichrist but must take the true baptisme of Christ when they come into the true Church The summe of your answer is That the baptisme we receaved in the false Chur. is not Antichr but Christs I make answer that seing infants are baptized which is the false matter of baptisme seing in them ther is not the question of a good conscience vnto God 1. Pet. 3.21 Nor the hast sprinckled from an evil conscience Heb. 10 22. which is the forme Seing they cannot expresse credis Credo Abrenuntias Abrenuncio which is the forme of baptisme even the mutual contract betwixt God the party baptized expressed visibly in confession therfor the baptisme is not Chr. but Antichrists not from heaven but of man al that you object in this particular is already sufficiently taken away in answer to your 4. reason whither I translated that which is heer answered by you vppon occasion ther intertayned Mr. Rich. Clifton The third reason Bicause as the false Church is rejected the true erected the false ministery forsaken the true received so false worship by consequence baptisme must be renounced the true baptisme assumed Answere First I graunt that we ought to Seperate from al false or apostate Chur. Apo. 18.4 to adjoyne our selves to a true Chu reformed according to the paterne of the Apostles 2. also every false ministery is to
be forsaken Mat. 7.15.2 Io. 10. gal 1.8 the true ministers of God to be received Ier. 3.14.15 So did the faithful in Israel forsake the false Preists set vp by IeroboaÌ„ returned to the Preists of the L to IerusaleÌ„ 2. Chro. 30.11.3 it is our duty likewise to renounce al false wor. 2. Cor. 6 14-17 Esa 30.22 to worship the L as he taught vs in his word thus far do I approve of this reason but the consequence I must deny viz that bicause false worship is to be renounced therfor baptisme also For 1. we are to consider in that baptisme receaved in apostate Churches two things first that which is of God therin 2. that which is of man that which is of God is the substance of baptisme as before is observed viz the same matter forme that the L. instituted likewyse the same end which is the profession of the faith of Christ this is not false worship so consequently not to be renounced Againe that which in the administration of baptisme is devised by man are those vnwarrantable ceremonies of crossing breathing annoynting c. these are to bee renounced as vaine worship Mat. 15.4 Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men not with their pollutions to be renounced for if polution might warrant men to cast away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have bene brought againe to Ierusa nor yet the TeÌ„ple it selfe that was so greatly profaned in the dayes of the Idolatrous Kings have any more bene vsed as a place of worsh. to the L. Secondly I answer that we have receaved a true baptisme in the apostate Chu as the people of God did circumcision amongst the ten trybes therfor we may no more renounce it assume a new then they that returned to Ierus 2. Chro. 30.11 might renounce theire câ—rcumcision be recircumcised It is objected of some that this comparison houlds not for Israel was a true Chu therfor their circumcision was true but Apostate Churches have nothing true neither are the members therof capable either of the covenant or seale in that standing it is not true baptisme to such This objection in part I have answered before now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their Apostacy were not a true Church but false seing they Seperated from Ierus the true only Chu in the world erected a new Church comunioÌ„ amongst theÌ„selves joyning together in a false wor. vnder a false ministery 1. King 12 30-33.20 18.19 â—1 so became an harlot Hos 2.2 Secondly in the apostate Chur. ther be some things true in the substance as the word baptisme though corupted in the administration therof by false ministers humane devises Thirdly the members of an apostate Chu are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of such a Chur. Secondly as they are the seed posterity of their forfathers which receaved the covenant for themselves for their seed though in regard of the former estate they have nether right to baptisme or the covenaÌ„t for the holy things of God belongs not properly to false Chu nor to the members therof considered in that estate yet even to such members considered apart from such standing as they are the seed of their forfathers so are they capable of the covenant Sacra the same is avayleable to them vppon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their Fathers sakes Rom. 11.28 this apeareth in that he saith come out of her my people Apo. 18.4 to such it cannot be denyed but that to them belongs the covenant yea whyles they are in Spirituall Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea bondage hinders not Cods grace But some may reply that they whose Fathers were Idolaters vnbeleevers cold have no right to the covenant to be baptized through the Faith of their Fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not only vpon their immediate parents but title therto descends vnto them from their auncestors Exo. 20. if wee respect herein Gods mercy even as mens inheritance doe from their former Fathers neither do the members of an Apostate Church cast of al profession of faith for such beleve the Scriptures in Ch. c. though with al they professe divers errors worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an Apostate Chu had forfathers that beleved I answere it cannot be denyed seing that an Apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called Apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church therfor it must needs follow that their forfathers were belevers had receaved the covenant And thus have I breifly answered these two Anabaptistical positions with theire reasons as the Lor. hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could better performe it further I do intreate that the truth which I contend for may not through my weake defence beare any reproche but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written both he they that so practise may seriously consider of that which is done glorify God by their repentance March 14. 1608. Rich. Clifton Iohn Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last argument which may bee framed into this forme As the false Church ministery are rejected the contrary true Church ministery assumed So the false worship so by consequent the false baptisme must be renounced the true baptisme assumed Verum primum Ergo secundum The summe of your answer is that we must renounce indeed the false Church ministery worship yet may retaine the baptisme receaved in the false Church which you say is true in author matter forme end Though corrupt in circumstance as oyling crossing breathing c. repenting of those coruptions not casting away the true substance with the corrupted circumstances devised by man annexed therto c. Although al that is mentioned heer is already taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe some thing for further cleering of the point First I deny the popish baptisme to be true in the 4. causes therof as you affirme 1. The L. never instituted that infantâ—â—hould be baptized 2. he never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptized 3. he never instituted that the carnal seed of the faithfull should be baptized Therfor seing infants that are not the seed of the faithful but the seed of Babylonians are baptized by Antich the matter of
nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptized or els hee forgatt his duty in not Teaching baptisme off infants vppon so just an occasion But Christ receaving infants praying for them blessing them doth neyther baptize them nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them neyther did forgett his duty in not teaching baptisme of infants occasioned Ergo Christs pleasure was and is that infants should not be baptized 5. They that are not actualy possessed of the promises or covenant are not actually to be invested with baptisme Infants are not actually possessed with the covenant Seing they performe not the condition viz confession of their sinnes their Fayth actually Ergo infants are not to be invested with baptisme This shal suffice for answer of your third argument Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 7.14 Iff the children of beleeving parents be holy then are they with in the covenant off Abraham and so consequently have ryght to the seale thereoff But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second Touching the former proposition I take it that none wil affirme holines in any that are not of the covenant for in that respect Israel was called a holy nation Exo. 19.6.1 Pet. 2.9 al others vncleane Act. 11.3 10.15 that were without Iff infants be within the covenant then can not the seal be denyed to such seing the Lo. hath joyned the promise seale together Gen. 17.10 which no man may or ought to Seperate Mat. 19.6 What can be objected against the assumption I see not seing the Apostle plainly affirmes but now are your children holy Vnlesse it may be said as of some I have heard that as the vnbeleeving wyfe is sanctified to the husband so are the children viz to the vse of their Father but this to affirme is a great abusing of the Scripture For the Apostle in that place answering an objection that the Faithful is defiled by the society of the vnfaithful proveth that the faithful husbād may with good conscience vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wife by an argument from the effects namely bicause their children which are borne of them are accounted holy or within the promise God having said to al the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed As for that other straunge exposition that the Children of a beleeving Father are no otherwise sanctified then the vnbeleeving wife is vnto her husband viz to their Fathers vse only that cannot stand with the meaning purpose of the Apost For so much may be said of an vnbeleeving servāt that he is for the vse of his master to do him service if children be no more holy then so then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father neither is the objection removed by this answer If it bee further pressed that the vnbeleving wife is said to be holy as wel as the children yet is she not within the covenant I answer that she indeed is not holy as be her children for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant therfor she is said to be sanctified in her husband the Apostle respecting their mariage which though it was contracted before either party beleeved yet stands firme not dissolved when either of them is called to the Faith so that the beleeving husband may lawfully vse her as his wife if she be content to dwel with him 1. Cor. 7.12 Now the children cannot be sanctified or Seperate to such vse to their Father as the wise is to her husband And therfor are the children called holy bicause they are the seed of a beleeving Father Iohn Smyth Your sourth argument is from 1. Cor. 7.14 thus If the Children of beleeving parents be holy then are they within the covenāt of Abraham so consequently have right to the seale therof But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second I answer First denying your majors consequent Seing that al the nation of the Iewes were holy yet not within the covenant of Abraham I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ that they were not al within that covenant is plaine Rom. 9.6 al they are not Israel which are of Israel vs. 7. neyther are they al Children bicause they are the seed of Abraham vs. 12. God revealed that the Elder should serve the yonger Act. 7.51 yee have alwayes resisted the holy ghost as your foreFathers have done so do you if it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secreat election not of mans knowledg I answer the vs. 12. is plaine of that which was revealed vnto the Church yet Esaw was holy circumcized when he was borne being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ for proof of this point that the whole Church of the Iewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it I vse these reasons 1. First The condition or obedience of the matter or members of the New Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members off the old Testament Faith repentance is the condition obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament Marc. 1.15 Ergo Faith repentance is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament The reason of the major is evident seing that as the ministery worship government of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the ministery worship government of the new Testament is so the constitution viz the matter Forme of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the constitution that is the matter forme of the new Testament is Seing therfor that the ministery worship government of the old Testament was carnal the constitutiō must also be carnal Therfor the matter forme must be carnal Therfor Faith repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament but only a carnal holines viz The circumcision of the foreskinne whereby the carnal forme that is the carnal covenant or commaundement was induced vpon them wherto they were tyed in obedience Heb. 7.16 Gal. 5.3 2. Secondly The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self True is nature reason The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. The constitution or the matter forme of the church of the new Testament is the truth c. Heb. 10.1 9.19.23 Ergo The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament that is the members covenant is not the truth that is the members are not truly holy but ceremonialy holy the covenant is not the everlasting covenant but the typical carnal covenant or commaundement
or baptisme was visible alwayes For it was invisible when the Chuâ—ch went into the wildernes therfor as you when ther was not a true Church in the world took vppon you to set vp a true Church as you say but wee say a false Church renouncing the Church of Antichr yet wil not bee said to bring in a new covenant a new Gospel for you in your false conceitednes wil reject them for heretiques if ther bee any that dare say so of you forsooth So the anabaptists as you cal them doe not set vp a new covenant Gospel though they set vp a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had overthrowne whereas you say they have no warrant to baptisme themselves I say as much as you have to set vp a true Church yea fully as much For if a true Church may bee erected which is the most noble ordinance of the New Testament then much more baptisme if a true Church can not bee erected without baptisme for baptisme is the visible forme of the Church as Disciples are the matter Mat. 28.19 Iohn 4.1 Then seing you confesse that a true Church may bee erected you cannot deny though you doe deny it in opposing the truth that baptisme may also bee recovered seing when all Christs visible ordinances are lost eyther men must recover them againe or must let them alone if they let them alone til extraordinary men come with miracles tongs as the Apostles did then men are same lists for that is their opinion or if they must recover them men must beginne so to doe then two men joyning together may make a Church as you say Why may they not baptize seing they cannot conjoyne into Christ but by baptisme Mat. 28.19 compared with Mat. 18.10 Gallat â— 27 but it is evident that all Christs Commaundements must bee obeyed Ergo this commaundement of having vsing the communion of the Church Ministery VVorship Gouernment those Holy meanes of Salvation which the Lord of his mercy hath given vs with his covenant commaunded vs to vse therefore if all the commaundements of God must bee obeyed then this of baptisme this warrant is sufficient for assuming baptisme Now for baptising a mans self ther is as good warrant as for a man Churching himself For two men singly are no Church joyntly they are a Church they both of them put a Church vppon themselves so may two men put baptisme vppon themselves For as both those persons vnchurched yet have powre to assume the Church each of them for himself with others in communion So each of them vnbaptized hath powre to assume baptisme for himself with others in communion And as Abraham Iohn Baptist all the Proselites afâ—â—r Abrahams example Exod. 12.48 did administer the Sacrament vppon themselves So may any man raised vp after the Apostacy of Antichrist in the recovering of the Church by baptisme administer it vppon himself in communion with others So wee see the Lords Supper is administred to a mans self in communion with others so is Prayer Prophesy Praysing of God vttered for a mans self aswel as for others And as in the Old Testament every man that was vncleane washed himself every Preist going to Sacrifice washed himselfe in the Laver at the dore of the Tabernacle of the congregation which was a type of baptisme the dore of the Church Tit. 2.5 Every Mr. of a Family administred the Passeover to himself all of his Family The Preist dayly Sacrificed for himself and others a man cannot baptise others into the Church himself being out of the Church Therefore it is Lawfull for a man to baptize himself together with others in communion this warrant is a plerophory for the practise of that which is done by vs Thus are your 6. weake reasons answered Mr. Rich. Clifton Thus having set downe some reasons to prove that Apostates or Antichristians converted are not to be rebaptized let vs come to the examination of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first wherof is this 1. Bicause Churches are to bee constituted now after the defection of Antichrist as they were first erected by the Apostles But in the constitution off Churches the Apostles receaved in the members by baptisme Ergo so must wee doe now Answere 1. The estate condition of people now is not alike to the estate of the Gentiles or Iewes in the Apostles tymes they differ in divers respects First all the people then both of Iewes Gentiles never had bene themselves nor were ever of the posterity of those that had bene members of the Church of Christ vnder the gospel seing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches but we are now the posterity of such parents as were members of the Chu planted by the Apo. els could we not have Apostated Secondly that people which the Apo. gathered in to Churches were never baptized baptisme comming in the steed of circumcision being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant it was fit that they which beleved became the seed of AbrahaÌ„ should so enter into the covenaÌ„t they their seed as he his seed entred that is as he his were receaved in by circumcision So they thers should be receved in by baptisme Act. 2.38.41 8.38 but we are a people that are already baptized the seed of theÌ„ that wer baptized had receved the gospel although through Antichr deceaveablenes both we they were tainted with many corruptions yet had they or might have in that Apostacy so we also so much faith as thereby both we they might become the people of God Apoc. 18.4 And concerning the constitution of the Churches here it is to be noted that the constitution of Churches set downe by the Apostles was by the immediate directioÌ„ of the Holy Ghost so serveth for a continual rule of establishing Churches to the end of the world which forme or frame layed downe by them no man hath power to alter or change 1. Cor. 4.14 1. Tim 3.11 But the constituting of Chur. now after the defection of Antich may more properly be called a repayring then a constituting of Churches which through Apostacy have bene ruinated or a gathering together of the dispersed hepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches the pateâ—ne whereof is shewed vnto vs in the word for as before hath bene noted our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches so it wil not follow as it is alledged that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessarily must be by baptisme as in the pâ—imitive tyme it was except onely of such persons as have not bene baptized before And herein I take it lyeth the deceyte of this arg that it putteth no difference between the people of God comming out of Babylon them that came to the faith from amongst the Gentils
the rudimentes off the VVorld vnder the carnal Testament or covenant Gallat 4.24.25 our Spirituall Church in the matter forme thereof is by Spirituall Genealogie that is the Genealogie of the Fayth of Abraham the Father of vs all vnder the Spirituall New Testament Gallat 3.7.9.14 Roman 4.10.11 Their parents in the carnall Church was carnall Abraham carnall Hagar all their carnall parents who according to the Flesh with carnall seed begate carnall Ismaell the type of the carnal Israelites our parents in our Spiritual Church is Abrah Spiritual al our Spiritual parents who by the word of God by faith begat Spiritual Isaac the type of the children of promise after whose manner we are Gal. 4 22-28 Rom. 4 19-21 Heb. 11.11.12 1. Pet. 1.23 Their ministery was a carnal ministery by carnal genealogie of the line of Aaron Sacrificing Preists our ministery is by Spiritual genealogie of the election of the true Church that is Spiritual Thus if you would compare the Type the Truth together you should easily discerne the sandy Fondation of your false Church ruinated your false baptisme quite abandoned who continue a Church by succession of a carnall line a baptisme by succession vppon the carnall Line through Popery VVhereas the true Church is onely by the Spirituall Line of Fayth true baptisme by the Spirituall succession vppon that Spirituall Line of Faythfull men confessing their Fayth their sinnes which was typed by that carnal Line of the Old Testament you therefore that introduce a carnal Line into the Church to bee baptized viz all your Children according to the Flesh that by succession fetch baptisme vppon that carnal Line through the Church of Rome into your Church following the president of the Old Testament in that carnal circumcision by succession of Genealogie doe therein vnawares make Rome a true Church your selves Schismatiques set vp Iudaisme in the New Testament so are fallen from Christ are become a new second image of the Beast never heard of before in the VVorld For such are you of the Seperation This being premised as a ground which I earnestly in treat you even in my best love vnto you al the Seperation especialy the leaders of them well to weigh ponder not to be ashamed to learne of their inferiors juniors I come to āswer the exceptions which you take at my first Argument The summe of your exception is this That seing wee are the posterity of baptized persons the Iewes Gentiles in the Apostles tymes were not so Therefore wee need not assume baptisme in our entrance into the Church which wee had in our Apostacy but wee may enter into the Church without rebaptizing as the Apostate Israelites did without recircumcising so we must not in the new Test be framed according to the paterne taught in the new Test in entering in by baptisme but according to the paterne of the old Testam the Apostate Israelites therein c. I answer divers things First I say that the New Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affaires occasions that befall in the tyme of the New Testament as the Old Testament was for the occurrences that befell vnder the Old Testament Seing Christ is as Faythful as Moses the New Testament as perfect as the Old Gal. 3.15 therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostolique constitution of Churches our constituting of them in respect of the persons to be admitted into the Church in respect of baptiting not baptising or rebaptising of them he could would have done it but seing it is not done in the New Testament but left in silence seing the New Testament of Chr. is perfect sealed with his blood you that put this difference add to the new Testament bring in a new Christ a new covenant a new Gospel a new Church new baptisme wo be to them that ad to the word Rev. 22.18 as they were accursed that added to the old Test Deut. 4.2 12.32 So much more shal they be subject to the cause that add to the new Test of Chr. Heb. 12.25 in this respect ther for your answer is insufficient Secondly I affirme that as the Holy Ghost saith the Antichristians are in condition equall to Pagans therefore as I have said they are not called Israelites or Samaritanes but Babylonians Egyptians Sodomites Gentills but the Holy Ghost knoweth what how to speak And therefore as the Babylonians Egyptians Sodomites Gentils washings were nothing no more is the baptisme of Antichristians any thing For the Holy Ghost foreseeing that the Antichristians would abolish the true baptisme of Christ by baptising infants so by admitting into the Church the carnal seed of the Flesh would disanul that Holy ordinance of baptisme so abolish the true constitution of the Church in heavenly wisdom for our instruction calleth persons Apostating from the true constitution of the Church Babylonians Egyptians Sodomites Gentils therby teaching vs that he esteemeth no otherwise of their Church or baptisme then of the Synagogues of Babylon then of the washings of Egypt then of the worship of Sodom the Pagans these comparisons will fit you well against the assemblies Temples of Antichrist and I know no reason that they thould not fitt vs aswell against your Babylonish Egyptians Sodomitish and Paganish washings of infants which which though it bee done into the name of Chr. yet is no more avayleable in the Holy Ghosts testimony then washing of Pagans Babylonians Egyptians Sodomies Children Thirdly wheras you say that repayring the Church now after the Apostacy of Antichr is a fitter speech then constituting herein do you both taxe your selves off the vse of that word constitution plainly signifie that you incline to maintain the Churches of England Rome to be true Churches wherin whither you doe not forsake your first faith turne with the dog to the vomit look you vnto it let al indifferent men judg but your writings are against you sufficient witnesses in this case Fourthly I say that the Iewes that were converted to the Faith new Testament of Chr. by Chr. Iohn the Apostles in your account were in a far better estate thē Antichr For they as you say were of the same body with the Church of the New Testament their circumcision was a seale of the new Testament as you say they were in Chr. Iesus as you say were washed I doubt not many of them into the Messias whose blood they typically saw in their manifold baptismes purifications with water al of thē had been partakers of the word Sacraments in the Chur. of the Iewes why might not they by Christ Iohn or the Apo. be admitted into the Church without baptisme if therfor Chr. Iohn the Apo. would needes baptize them so by baptisme constitute them
I say that you erre mistaking the Scriptures For Abrahams faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or paterne of justification circumcision in Abraham was not a seale of his justification or of the everlasting covenant God made with him in respect of Christ therby to establish him into Christ for he was in Christ sealed in Christ many yeres before by the seale of the Spirit but Abrahams justification in vncircumcision was a type of the justification of the Gentils who are vncircumcised Abrahams circumcision alter his justification sealed him vp to bee the Father of all the beleevers circumcised so circumcision had a triple vse in Abraham one generall two speciall particular the two speciall are these First circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to be a paterne to al the beleevers in vncircumcision that the beleeving gentils should be al justified by actual faith as he was Secondly circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to bee a paterne to al the beleevers in circumcision that the beleving Iewes should be al justified by actual faith as he was The general vse of Abrah circumcision was common with him to Ismael al the persons of his family al the carnal Israelites viz to seale him vp to the old Testament to the observation of the whole Law wherby Chr. in that vele of the old Testament was preached vnto the Iewes it being ther Schoolmr to teach them Christ Now for the place Rom. 4.11 which I am assured you wil ground your assertiō vppon I say it is both falsely translated expounded for tes en te acrobustia is vsually translated which Abrah had when he was vncircumcized this I say is a false translation For this is the true translation viz which is or was or shal be in the vncircumcision meaning that circumcision vppon Abrah the Father of al the beleving Gentils was a seale of justification to al the vncircumcision that beleeve the end of his circumcision is his Fatherhood of the Faithful the righteousnes of faith is not sealed vp to Abrah particular person but to the vncircumcised that beleve that which was sealed vp in special to Abrah was his Fatherhood or presidentship of justification So that circumcision in Abrah was to establish him the Father of the Faithful Gentils his circumcision doth teach the Gentils that if they wil partake Chr. they must by their actual faith apprehend Christs righteousnes as Abrah their Father did otherwise they cannot be justified so Pauls intent is plainly proved namely that al men must be justified by faith without the works of the law this do I confidently affirme to be the true translation exposition that the common acceptation translation of the place is the mother of this heresy of pedobapistry Againe al the persons of Abrah Family were not circumcised bicause of Abrah saith but the males al only the males were circumcised bicause of the special cōmaundement of God Gen. 17.10 the males being assumed as types for to teach thē figuratively the male Ch. circumcision of the hart by him the females were vncircumcised as they were also put out from being the matter of the burnt-offring for the males only were offered in burnt-offring to signifie that those that had not the male Chr. in them were not fit eyther to be members of the church of the new Testament or to be sacrificed vnto the L. Mal. 1.14 but if Ch. the male were in thē whither male or female in Chr. it was nothing they were accepted Gal. 3.28 Further you say that as it was with Abrah his family in circumcision so was it with Lydia the Gaylor their familyes in baptisme that is not so I shew the difference in divers particular 1. They of Abrahams Family were circuncised vppon particular precept in obedience of the Commaundement Genes 17.23 you cannot prove that the infants of Lydias the Gaylors family were baptized vpon particular precept but only you say it indevour to justifie it by the example of Abra. family but if Abra. family be an example then you must bring a particular precept as he had for baptising infants 2. They that were males only were circumcised but you wil have both males females baptized this is another difference 3. They that were circumcised of Abrah Family were al the males being of yeres though they were never so lewd wicked persons So were not al the persons of Lydias the Gaylors family but only the beleevers being of yeeres according to your opinion 4. As Faith did not intitle the female to circumcision as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision in Abrahams Family So faith did intitle the female to baptisme in the Family of the Gaylor Lydia infidelity in the male did exclude him from baptisme you see therfor that the proportion is not alike betwixt baptisme circumcision The second particular in your Answer to this Arg. is that the same order is kept in Chr. comission Mat. 18.19 in bringing the gentils into Gods covenant as was kept with Abtah he al his Family were brought in by circūcision after the gospel preached to him Genes 17 1-8 so Lydia the Gaylor were brought into the covenant with all ther Family were baptized after the Gospell preached to them I answer that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abrah the other of Lydia the Gaylor according to the commission of Chr. Mat. 28.19 First Abrah al his family by the Lords commaundement came vnder the covenant of the Old Testament actually the males only were circumcised but Chr. doth not commaund all persons of a Family in the New Testament to be baptized but only such as are made Disciples al them though they bee weomen as Lydia was Secondly The gospel was only preached to Abrah owne person by the L. but in the Gaylors case Paul preached the gospel to al that were in his howse Act. 16.32 so Chr. commaundeth to make them Disciples by preaching So were not Abrah Family who being first circumcised afterward were taught the Law being a School 〈◊〉 to teach Christ Thirdly the gospel was not preached to Abrah therby to prepare him to circumcision as if therby it should follow that circumcision was a seale of the Gospel or New Testament for it is not so as I have already manifested but Chr. in the new Testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every creature that is to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme 〈◊〉 so Paul did to the Gaylors Family this is another difference The third particular in your answer to this argument is ◠if infants be excluded from baptisme for want of
faith by hearing the word then they shal also be excluded from salvation by that reason Marc. 16.16 I deny it vtterly For Christ speaketh only of such as to whom the gospel may be preached which only are men of yeeres For when he saith go preach the Gospel to every creature he doth not bid them preach to beasts byrds Fishes or infants which have no eares to heare but he biddeth them preach the Gospeâ— to every creature that hath an care to heare that is to al that are of a docible age nature then he addeth whosoever oâ— them that have eares to heare do beleeve vppon their faith be baptized shal be saved whosoever of meÌ„ that have eares to heare do not beleve though they be baptized shal be damned now I pray you Sir how doth this sentence include infants to baptisme or exclude them from Salvation â—or how doth your consequent follow for infants I say that either they are al saved though they cannot come to faith by hearing or that they are one of the L. secrets so not to be searched into that the Scripture doth speak only to oâ— theÌ„ that have eares to heare oâ— things visible known not of things invisible secreat therfor this particular of your answer is vaine Your last particular in the answer to my arg is that general rules must bee taken with ther sence as 2. Thes 3.10 that as infaÌ„ts or impotent persons though they caÌ„not work yet may eate bicause that speech is not directed to infants c. so Mat. â—â— 19 though infants cannot be made Disciples yet they may be baptized seing that speech is not directed for infants such an exposition of that place must bee given as doth not contradict other Scriptures or necessary consequents from Scriptures Wel Sir I answer you that first you confesse heer that this place of Mat. 28.19 is not vttered of Christ in respect of infants that they should be taught then I say he never intended that by this place you should gather that they should be baptized as you have done in your 6. arg heer you do evidently contradict your self as you see let that be remembred of you wel Next I say that general rules shal be expounded with ther sences as impotent persons infants shal eate though they cannot work seing that is spoken of these that are able to work so infants shal be saved though they cannot be baptized seing they cannot by teaching be made disciples this is not to diminish the comaundement of Christ oâ— wrest it froÌ„ the sence but to make the coÌ„maundemeÌ„t of baptising larger then the coÌ„maundement of teaching as you do that wil have the infants baptized that cannot be taught is to seperate those things that Chr. hath joyned to wrack the coÌ„maund of Chr. out of joynt to break theÌ„ in peeces woe be to theÌ„ that so do without repeÌ„taÌ„ce Finally I confesse that it is not the true sence of a place that contradicteth either Scriptupe or true consequeÌ„t but this truth of the L. which you blaspheme with your title of Anabaptistry doth not contradict either Scripture or sound conclusion froÌ„ Scripture but is agreable to the constant most evideÌ„t practise of Ioh. Chr. the Apo. for you cannot produce an instaÌ„ce of an infant baptised by any of them most agreable to al the precepts of the Ap Chr. Ioh. for baptising persons confessing their faith their sinns you are driven to most miserable shifts most narrow straights for your pedobaptistry which you see cannot stand without scraping together all the wrestings pervertings of Scriptures which you have heaped together in your answ your principal foundation being a sandy mole-hil fetcht from the old Test even a false ground that circumcision was a seale of the new Testament that the covenant made with Abrah in respect of Chr. was made with al his carnal infants who were al in Chr. Iesus visibly in their byrth conception by vertue of the covenant which I have proved to bee manifest vntruths so you see your building tottereth wil never be able to endure the storme Mr. Rich. Clifton Now followes the third reason 3. Bicause if infants be baptized the carnal seed is baptized so the seal of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenant aperteyneth not Rom. â— 8 which is a profanation Answere 1. This reason semeth to imply that the seed of the faithful is part carnal part Spiritual for I cannot imagine that the Author holdeth al the seed of the faithful to be carnal that the covenant aperteynes not vnto any of them seing so to affirme contradicts Act. 2.39 therfor bicause the Spiritual seed is not discerned vntil it manifest it selfe by outward profession therefore may not be baptized lest in baptising them the seal should be set also vpoon the carnal seed vnto whom beloÌ„gs not the covenant To affirme this first is to deny that which is due to the seed to whom the promise belongs for the wickeds sake so to injurie them Secondly this reason also serves as wel against the circumcision of the infants of the Israelites seing at eight dayes of Age they could not be discerned whether they were of the carnal or Spiritual seed so the seale of the covenaÌ„t not to be administred to theÌ„ to whom the covenant did not belong But as then the not discerning hereof did nothing hinder circumcision to bee administred to all the infants of the Israelites no more now can the not knowing of the Spiritual seed from the carnall hinder baptisme 2. Touching the seed of the faithful thus I conceive therof that it is carnall Spiritual in divers respects carnal as they do naturally descend of their parents so are they al alike in sinne Psal 51.3 Spiritual in respect of the covenant wherein they are comprehended with their parents Gen. 17.7 Act. 2.39 in which regard also al the children of the Faithful are said to be holy 1. Cor. 7.14 thus considered I deny the children of the faithful to be carnal seed do affirme that to such belongs the covenant the seale therof though some of them in the right of God be known for none of his yet to vs it sufficeth for the administration of baptisme that they be the seed of the faithful therfor as the Israelites circumcised all their children though some of them proved to be carnal afterward as Ismael Esau c. so are wee to baptise al our infants leaving secreete things to God Deuteron 29.29 3 If this be sufficient to cleere vs from profaning of the Sacrament if wee baptise them that make confession of their faith bicause they so doe though they bee not the children of God as S. Magus Act. 8 13. then is it not simply a profaning of baptisâ— to administer it to them vnto whome