Re. or example or els you reiect it as Antichristian now yâ—â— being pressed with this Act of Zippora you shew nether nor any reason for the lawfullnes of the fact and yet you defend it answering that you know nothing to the contrary but Zippora might circumcise her son c. What nedes the Scripture to forbid women to circumcise when for the adminisstring of that ceremony God gave coÌ„maundement that AbrahaÌ„ the * Gen. 17. 7. â—om p. with â—ers 10-13 â—osuah 5. 2 â— 4 master of the family should circumcise al his males as baptisme is now †Mat. 28. 19. injoyned to the Apostles and Ministers of Christ the which commaundements disable all others whether women or men that have not such calling from God for the administeration therof That Zippora did circumcise her sonne by Moses commaundement appeares not in the Scripture but that “ Exo. 4. 24 â—5 she being greeved at her husbands neglect did it But if Moses ought to do it himselfe the question is whether he might commaund his wife to do it The non-residents in England are condemned for preaching by their substitutes and you deseâ—d that a woman may be a substitute to administer a sacrameÌ„t If Zipporah may circumcise in case of necessitie at the appointment of her husband why may not the midvvives in case of necessitie baptise by the appointment of the Preists You pretend rule but in this you practisâ— it not 4. I yeeld that the Minister shall not preiudice baptisme if the baptisme be the Ans Lords owne ordinance c. In this we agree that the Minister if he be not lawfully called doth not Rep. so farre preiudice baptisme as to make a nullitie of it what is further here to be answered is done els where The 2 obiection you answer is that although baptisme be administred in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subiect yet it shall not be repeated no more then circumcision in the dayes of Jeroboam c. My words were these That â—epl the children in that apostasie are as fit subiects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the dayes of Jeroboam were to receive circumcision And you pervert my wordes and say that I affirme that although baptisme be administred in a false Church vpon an vnfit subiect Is this to confesse that infants are vnfit subiects to say they were as fit as the infants of Israel Your self doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apostasie were capable of circumcision I sayd that the infants of the Antichristians were as capable as they not approving of the state of eyther but arguing that if the former might stand for circumcision then also the other without iterating the state of the Antichristians being alike to the apostate Israelites but I will come to your further answer which is this I say that the Israelites infants in there defection were the subiect that God commaunded Ans to be circumcised so are not the infants in Antichristianisme both for that they are 1. infants 2. members of a false Church 3. the seede of vnbeleevers That the Israelites infants in their defectioÌ„ were coÌ„mauÌ„ded to be circuÌ„cised Repl. can not be proved God is no approver of apostasie When he gave to Abraham and his seed circumcision he did intend that it should seale his covenant unto them and that they should continue therein and not apostate and therefore to speak properly the Israelites in their apostasie could be no fit subiects although upon their repentance the Lord let stand their circumcision And so if the state of this people be rightly coÌ„sidered the dissimilitude between their circumcision and baptisme in Antichristian assemblies wil not prove such as you pretend Your reasons to prove infants in Antichristianisme to be no fit subiects of baptisme are of no weight The first of them is answered in the former part of this writing where is proved that infants are fit subiects of baptisme Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichrists Church and deny them to be members of true Churches but to let this passe I answere that this reason is of no force seing your self confesseth that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. it had bene true baptisme To the third I answer that the infants in Antichristianisme are no more the seed of unbeleevers then the infants in Ieroboams Church were the seed of unbeleevers both were the seed of apostates and that is all you can say of them Their parents although apostating from many truthes and polluted with mens inventions yet were not fallen from all profession of Iesus Christ but stil did and do acknowledge salvation by him retayne and beleeve many mayne grounds of faith excellent truthes so many as the Lord hath his people in * Rev. 18. Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by those doctrines there taught And therefore thus I think of such apostates that in respect of their outward standing they remaine in apostasie having forsaken many truthes pollute Gods ordinances practise the cursed inventions of men yet professing faith in God in Iesus Christ though corruptly I can not hold them as infidels simply but as the Israelites in their apostasie and their seed may rather be termed the seed of Apostates then of infidels or vnbeleevers And whereas you say that the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ did â—â— truely belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Israelits though both in defection I deny it for the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelits the carnal seed of Abraham even in their parents Apostacy and the spiritual covenant did never appertayne to the Apostate parents 2. much les to the infants of them c. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be vnder stode of the blessing of Abraham to come vppon any of the Gentiles in their Apostacy but onely being in Christ as the words are also ver 7. and 9. c. I speak comparatively of the seeds of the apostate Israelites and Antichristians affirming the one as fit subiects for baptisme as the other for circumcision because the Gentiles since Christ have as much title to the covenant with Abraham as the Israelites had This you deny shifting off with your devised carnal covenant It is not for the spirituall covenant or Sacrament to belong to Apostates that I contend I know it belongs to the faithful and their seed though you say no. But this was the end wherefore I did alledge Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is inlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as iust clayme to it for them selves and their seed as Israel could do And therefore did reason thus If the children of Israel could chalendg right to the covenant and circumcisioÌ„ their parents being in Apostacy
men to caâ—â— away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought agayne to Ierusalem nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord. 2. I answer that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes And therefore we may no more renounce it and to assume a new then they that returned to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision be recircumcised It is obiected of some that this comparison holdes not for Israel was a true Church and therefore their circumcision was true But an apostate Church hath nothing tâ—ue neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing and it is not true baptisme to such This obiection in part I have answered before and now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church but a false seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie 1. King 12. 30 -33 and 18. 19 -21 and so became an Harlot Hosea 2. 2. Secondly in the Apostate Church there be some things true in the substance as the word and Baptisme though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises 3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of â—â—ch a Church 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves and their seed And though in regard of the former estate they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly yet even to such members considered a part from such standing and as they are the seed of their forefathers so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes Rom. 11. 28. this appeareth in that he sayth come out of her my people Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed but that to them belonges the covenant yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea Bondage hinders not Gods grace But some may reply that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors Exod. 20. if we respect herein Gods mercie even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers Neyther do the members of an apostate Church cast of all profession of faith for they beleeve the scriptures and in Christ c. though withall they professe divers errors and worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church had forefathers that beleeved I answer it can not be denyed seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons as the Lord hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better And further intreat that the truth which I contend for may not by my weak defence beare any reproch but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written and both he and they that so practise may seriously coÌ„sider of that which is done and glorifie God by repentance March 14. 1608. Rich Clifton Mr. Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last Argument which may be framed into this forme As the false Ministerie worship are reiected the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed So the false worship and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something for the further clearing of the point 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised 2. He never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptised 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist R. Clyfton Concerning the causes of baptisme they have been formerly spoken of Answ To these particulars thus I answer brieflly to the first that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing To the 2. touching Pagans that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes fayth I am farre from approving 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful as you cal it I have before proved that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them and have removed al your objections to the contrarie The matter of baptisme is false 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should â—ep be baptised without his own confession c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22. This is true of such as are of yeares and now at the first to be received â—s into the church but not of their infants or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth Towching the places of 1 Pet 3. 21. Heb 10 22 I have answered unto in the former section Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them for Christ wil not contract â—ep in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age Gal. 4. 14. It is strange how you apply scriptures would any that is a Scholer or â—ns made conscience of the truth ever have applyed this place of the Galathians to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful The similitude that the Apostle useth comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors might teach you that the Lord did contract with that church how els could it ever have been
parents whose sinne can not * hinder Gods promise as the Lord did remember to shew mercy to those of Israel that “ left that apostate church and returned to Ierusalem as now he doth unto us And this is all that I alleaged â—his scripture for But you in a kind of bitternes and detestation of our forefathers do here againe utterly deny that ever they beleeved How religion came into our land I have shewed before that there have been are beleevers in it I make no question And whether there have been visible churches in the Apostolical constitution I leave to be confidered by the histories forenamed and the great persequutions they suffered for the truth of Christ And seeing there have been so many Martirs put to death in our nation for the witnessing of Iesus Christ his Gospel mynd well what wronge you do to your native countrie in denying that any of them did visiblie beleeve And of the church of Rome it is undeniable that it was a true established church in the Apostles dayes But you wonder at mee that I should say that seeing we are Apostates that we had auncestors that sometime beleeved and your reason is because we are departed from the scriptures not from the fayth of our Auncestors who never a one of them beleeved in a true constituted Church There cannot be an Apostasie or falling away from that we nor our fathers ever had If we apostate from the fayth of the scriptures eyther we or our fathers †2 Thes 2. once beleeved that which we are departed from or els how is our standing apostasie But our fathers say you beleeved not in a true constituted church Indeed I think they did never beleev in such an heretical Church of Anabaptists as you account a true constituted Church that must have all the members received in by Anabaptisme their children excluded but this is certaine that the general face of a people staÌ„ding in apostasie doth argue that there was a face of a church before professing the fayth as in the examples of Israel and the church of Rome may be seen Thus through Gods providence and blessing I am come to an happie end of answering Râ—p your writing wherein I praise the Lord for his mercy I have received such assurance of the truth that all the earth shal never be able to wring it out of my hart and hands And therefore I desire you Sir and all the leaders of the Separatiâ—â— to weigh seriously even â—â—twixt the Lord and their owne harts upon their bedds this which is written c. I am sory to see how you deceive your own hart in a false perswasion to Ans justifie your errors and most blasphemously as it were to make God a Patron thereof by praising him for his mercy that you have received such assurance of the truth that al the earth shal not be able to wring it out of your hart Whereas you are fallen from faith separating your self from the communion of all true Churches and become a pleader for a practiser of old concondemned heresies into which you are given over of God for iust cause knowen to himself And whereas you desire me and the Leaders of the Seperation as you cal them seriously to consider of your writings such counsel for myne owne part could I wish to your self to examine your writings by the Scriptures from the meaning whereof you have erred pitifully and to pray unto the Lord that this evil may be forgiven you And to remember wel how quickly you fell into these errours not conferring with others or counselling with the word of God as you should have done but following your owne deceitful and deceiving haâ—â— being strongly deluded by Sathan who stil doth incourage you in this new walking that you are perswaded it is thâ— undoubtedst truth that ever was revealed vnto you But know you Sir that the works of the flesh are pleasant wherof †heresie is one And 〈◊〉 5. 20. that Satan wil strongly perswade therevnto when the Lord hath given men over to beleeve lies that would not receive the love of the truth And as you confesse that you may err in particulars as you do indeed so think also that you may erre in your mayne points of controversie which were unheard of in the Apostolical Churches of the first age As you haue begunne to recall your baptising of your selfe as we heare in some respect vid videlicet in that you baptised your selfe and others without lawful calling c. so proceed to renounce it altogether with all your Anabaptistical errours And let me say to you in perswading you to returne unto the truth as you say to me in moving me to error As you love the Lord and his truth and the people that depend vpon you imbrace it and apply not your self to shift it of Think it a great mercy of God to offer you any meanes to see your erronious walking I speak unto you out of my best affection towards you and that poor deceaved company for whose fall I have great sorrow of hart And because you adjure vs in the Lord to shew you your errour I have done for myne own part what it hath pleased God to inable me for the present and so have others also taken paynes if God would give you an hart to be satisfied with the truth On the back syde of my answer was written thus If you reply shew your strength that we may make an end of these uncomfortable oppositions c. Mr Smyth Sir there may be weight in my Reasons and you happely eyther cannot through preiudice or wil not through some sinister respect see the waight of them I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel but eyther shew me myne error or yeeld to the truth I would be glad to be an instrument of shewing you this truth also at least you by shewing vs our error shall discharge a good conscience if you do not answere among you all I proclame you all subtilly blynd and lead the blynde after you into the ditche R. Clyfton Sir what small waight is in your Reasons I have shewed in this writing And though you think I can not through prejudice or will not through some sinister respect see the waight of them myne owne conscience doth cleere me of both these imputations For the Lord that knoweth the secrets of the hart is witnesse that I have not of purpose to mainteyne any untruth wittingly stopped myne eares or shut vp mine eyes from any truth revealed vnto me for any sinister cause or prejudice of your person but if I did see any further truth I would the Lord assisting me receive it with all thankfulnes Neyther do I hang my faith vpon the persons of men but upon the word of God to be charmed by evil counsel evil you call that which condemneth your errors but if by any man I receive further instructioÌ„ or coÌ„firmatioÌ„ in the Lords truth you ought not nor shall not diswade me froÌ„ it call it charming or what you wil. I would to God you were no worse charmed by the counsel of Satan then I am by those whom you point at in these your speeches I doubt not but we should then walk together comfortably in the house of God I have shewed you your error as you desire And for this truth as you falsely call it that you would be glad to impart unto me I dare not herein make you glad but wish rather that you might be sory that wee might reioyce in your conversion 〈◊〉 any former truthes whereof you have bene an instrument of myne 〈…〉 ction which you insinuate in this word also I am thankful to God for â—â— But if you remeÌ„ber that truth that you informed me of was concerning the trunesse of this Church wherof I stand a member which you now hold to be Antichristian And therefore if I had not had better ground for my practise and builded my faith herein vpon the word your revolting would haue sent me back againe to my former estate For your proclayming of vs all subtilly blind if we answer you not In this you shew stil the loftines of your spirit as if men were bound to answer you in every thing you write Now you are answered both to this and to your other heretical book of Differences c. And if you further oppose against the truth I trust the Lord will arme his Servants to contend for the faith once given to the Saincts Our cause is Gods we feare not your forces Rich. Clyfton FINIS 1610 Faults escaped Pag. 20. line 27. the Christ put out the. Pag. 21. line 3. for him read them Pag. 80. line 3. for kithin read within Pag. 130. line 18. for females read males Pag. 139. line 19. read be saved Pag. 173. line 14 how if put out how Pag. 149. line 4. for Rich Clifton read Mr Smyth and after line 6. read Rich Clifton Pag. 181. line 7. put out In Israel Pag. 187. line 20. for many read may Other faults may easily be discerned
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 â—f the Lord and withall so confident in defence of his heresies that he â—â—es to challendge a combate with all the Separation belike to feare men â—ith great words and to boast with Rabsake as if his forces were invinâ—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 ReligioÌ„ saying It may be thought most strange that a man should oft times change â—s religion and it cannot be accounted a commendable qualitie in any man to make â—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 â—alse and therefore that can be no commendable qualitie in them And â—uch inconstant persons as himself saith cannot escape the deserved imputation â—folly or weaknes of iudgement therein Thus out of his owne mouth proâ—ouncing senteÌ„ce against himself For that alteratioÌ„ of him his coÌ„pany â—s not froÌ„ falshood to truth but the leaving of the truth which formerly â—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 â—f this new â—aptised coÌ„â—union â—ere are reâ—ayning as â—is reported â—t above â— persons â—l the rest â—e runne in â— further â—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 administratioÌ„ 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 â—ndemne these their heresies but both the ancient and moderne Churâ—es and vvriters in all ages as vvith one consent have opposed against â—em But where he pretends the publishing of this controversy to be for the â—ay of God the manifesting of the truth to our owne nation and the destruction of â—man of sinne he geveth vs to mynd how Satan hath bewitched his soule â— beleeve that such can be the effects of his heritical opinions It is the â—ollicy of the Divil to propound glorious ends to such as he seduceth as â— Evah and others teacheth his Ministers to do the like that by fayre â—attring speeches and shewes of good they might more easily deceave the â—mple And therfore seing we are forwarned that there shal be false Teachers â—mongst vs which privily shal bring in damnable heresies it behoveth vs â—o mynd the counsel of the Apostles to try the spirits 1. Ioh. 4. 1. And not â—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 defâ—nce but his allegatioÌ„s Reasons are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies theÌ„â—elves And if they can say better they may now speake for by publishing answere to
theire Reasons we do chalendge al the separation in speciall to the combate This Challenger would fayne have the world to take notice that he deales with an adversary that is too weak to try out this controversy with him so to forestall mens judgments before ever they come to the reading of my answere And because he would not be seene to be the Author himselfe of my disgrace he imputeth this report to the Rabbies of the Separation as it pleaseth him in his taunting maner to terme them who I am perswaded are guiltles thereof But if any had so sayd vnto him in private yet doth he in publishing the same breake the bounds of love For myne owne parte whether any have so spoken or not it shal not offend me I knowe the Lord measureth his guiftes to every one as he wil. 1 Cor. 12. 8. 11. I praise God for that I have and do not envy but reioyce in the graces that God bestoweth vpon others and pray that they may vse them to his glory and to edification Notwithstanding though Mr Smyth thinke me to weake to incounter with him yet the Lord assisting me I meane not for all these his disgraceful speeches to yeeld him the cause or give back one foot from the defence thereof knowing that the truth which I contend for wil discover and convince his damnable errors the which though he set a glorious shew vpon as a marchant of false wares by misapplying of Scriptures yet wil the falsehood of them appeare to al such whose eies God shal open to discerne between the truth and lyes Moreover if I in my weaknes make to appeare how vnconscionably untruly Mr Smyth dealeth against the truth his glorious boasting and Philistine valour will have the more disgrace then if he had dealt with men of greater guifts and God shall have the greater glorie to foyl such a warlike Champion with weak and base meanes As for my allegations and reasons which he saith are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies c. herein he both taxeth me and wrongeth them me as if I had bene but their pen man in my former answer them in saying my reasons are their best plee whereas he hath had neither conference with them by speeches or writing about these matters save onely with Mr Robinson And therefore so to speak without triall bewrayes but the bitternes of his spirit against them Thus Mr Smyth preparing way for his great challendge by pretending mine insufficiencie calles forth the Rabbies as he termes them to speak challendging the whol Separation to the combate wheras a wise man would haue spared such speaches vntil he had seen the issue of his combate already attempted and not thus to provoke others until he had greater likelihood of victorie As for those reverend men whom now he calles vpoÌ„ for better if they can say better they haue already sayd and written so much against his errors as I am assured he wil never be able to answer and when it pleaseth him to reply if there be occasion I doubt not but as they have done so the Lord will inable them to batter downe with spiritual weapons his greatest forces that he shal be able to raise against the truth And whereas Mr Smyth seemeth to insinuate that by his answering of my reasons he hath answered theirs herein he is deceaved for the Reasons in my former answer be they what they are I acknowledge for mine own though written unto him without any purpose of publishing if therfore weaknes be found in them let it be imputed vnto me and neither to our Teachers who had no hand in setting downe thereof nor yet to the truth it self As for his challenging of the whole Separation and other his intemperate speaches in his epistle they bewray in him a malicious hart against our poore Church and puft vp with too loftie a conceit of his 〈◊〉 strength Did ever any of the Prophets or servants of God thus chal 〈…〉 ge a combate with the Lords people in deed such braving speeches 〈…〉 eeded from Goliath 1 Sam. 17. 10. that defied the whol hoast of Is 〈…〉 and from Rabsake 2. King 18. 23-25 against the Iewes But â—as never heard that an Israelite professing the religion of God vsed 〈◊〉 proud chalendges as this man doth I pray you Mr. Smyth wherein hath the separation offended you or my wise wronged you that you desyre rather to quarrel with them then with other Churches holding the same truth in this thing agaynst you To the Elders and brethren were you most welcome and glad they were of you so long as you walked in the fayth with them Why is it that you â—â—e become their adversary is it because they have rejected you and your company for your errors which you wilfully mayntayne Alas they must â—o it vnles they would become vnfaythful to God Next after this Chalendge Mr. Smyth chargeth the separation with a 〈◊〉 constitution ministery worship and government saying Be it knowen to all the Separation that we account them in respect of their con 〈…〉 tion to be as very an harlot as eyther her mother England or her grandmother 〈◊〉 is And although we held her a true church in our ignorance yet now being better informed c. we protest agaynst her as wel for her false constitution as for her false Ministery worship and goverment c. the false constitution is of infants baptised Concerning the constitutioÌ„ of a Church we do not hold that any visible Church can stand onely of infants neyther that their baptisme doth geve the being thereof 1. Seing there can be no baptising of infants where there are not first Elder people with whome they come vnder the covenant of God 2. Baptism is an other thing divers from the Church Ephe. 4. 4. 5. and it maketh none to be the people of God onely it sealeth vp to be his people them that are so formerly by vertue of his covenant 3. Els Turkes or Indians professing the Popish Religion being baptized should be a true Church for Mr. Smyth holdeth the †Charact. pag. 51. baptism of such to be true baptism if so they confesse their fayth sinns 4. Then circumcision should have made the Sichemites a true Church for that which baptism can doe now in constituting of a Church circumcisioÌ„ could do then wherfore I say baptism is an ordinance of Christ geven to his Church to seale vp his covenant to his people but is not that whol essential constitutioÌ„ therof And therefore our baptizing of infants if it were admitted to be vnlawful can not make the constitution of our Church to be false much les being the commaundement of the Lord can it so doo And thus Mr. Smyth fayleth in the first poynt of his charge As for the other things he chargeth vs withall shall receave answere in their due place But here further he proceedeth to affirme That no man can separate from England as
such imputation but your self is become faulty in calumniating the ordinance of Christ viz the baptisme of infants accounting it an Antichristian error which I wish you well to consider of and not to adde sinne vnto sinne both in pleading for error and in disgracing the truth and the professors thereof Further you say it will not helpe me that these two truthes have bene condemned for heresie by the Churches in all ages for if the Apostles affoard contrary to the succeeding ages that which is most auncient is the truth I graunt if you can prove that the Apostles age affoards contrary to the succeeding ages for the iustifieng of these your opinions that then you have good warrant of your syde for calling them truthes but if the Churches which have coÌ„demned your positions for error have agreed herein with the holy scriptures then I say the brand of heresie lies iustly vpon them And whereas you alledge that many truthes wherevnto we are come have bene condemned for heretical in as many ages as those truthes which you defend I answer that not many truthes if any which we hold to my remembrance have bene condemned in the ancient Churches for heresies And suppose those Churches did fayle in some things as every Church is subject to erre yet followes it not that therfore they erred in condemning your opinions for haeresie some things I think you wil graunt are heresies which those ancient Churches succeeding the Apostles age did condemne as those of Arius Eutiches Macedonius and the rest and then is not their iudgement so lightly to be passed over that no reconing is to be made of what they have done agreable to the scriptures As for your errors we reject them not onely because the ancient Churches have so censured them but finding them contrary to the word of God therfore we condemne them 3. Whereas I did feare your broaching of these and your former opinions would be offensive and to the hindering of the truth this you passe over in presuming of the goodnes of your cause saying if any be hindred froÌ„ the truth it wil be their sinne but if you feare you say that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground I say it is that which is appointed to perdition and to perdition let it go Indeed if any be hindered from the truth by the publishing of the truth it is their sinne Mat. 11. 6. but if you which haue stood for the truth shall now by publishing of error cause the truth to be the more blasphemed give offence to weak professors that is your sinne and wil be too heavie to be answered at the judgement day if you repent not And as for our Church which you blasphemously call Antichristian know you that I do not feare the fall of it for it is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2 20. which hath a sure promise that the gates of hel shall not prevayle against it Mat. 16. 18. And therefore your Anathema cannot hurt vs but shall rebound back agayn whence it came 4. You say though I haue professed to forsake myne errors vpon their discovery and as I have practised for which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never profeessed my readines to be perverted from the truth which you call heresie and therfore if you did vndertake to write vpon this ground you might well haue spared your paines and saved your self from so grevous a sinne by pleading for Antichristian corruptions c. The ground of my perswasion concerning your willingnes to yeeld vnto the truth did arise partly from that perswasion which I had of your sanâ—tification and partly from the speaches of the messengers before named â—ho did affirme vnto me that if I could manifest by the word of God â—hat it was error which you hold you would acknowledge it And still â—ou say if you be in error it is * Passages page 71. ignorantly And therefore desirous of â—our good I did vndertake according to my small abilitie to manifest â—he truth vnto you by such reasons as I could at that present gather for the confirmation of the same which seing you make so small account of and answer me that I might have spared my paynes and saved my self from sin I am sory in that respect that I did write yet in regard of witnessing the â—ruth and performing a duty towards a brother fallen into error I repeÌ„t â—e not neither yet of committing any grevous sinne thereby as you charge me withall seing I plead for that which is of Christs and not for Antichristian corruptions And as for your errors so often graced by you with the title of truthes which you say you never professed to be perverted froÌ„ I mervayle not greatly therat for heresie is a work of the flesh Gal. 5. 20. that is easily and quickly imbraced but not so left and herein differs froÌ„ the truth to the receiving whereof we are hardly drawen as both you and I had experience but error drincketh as a pleasant potion Rev. 18. 3. without resistance and bewitcheth many that they should not obey the truth described and plainly manifest in their sight Gal. 3. 1. the poison whereof I am sory hath so infected your soule that you seeme to be changed into the nature thereof and to be as confident therein as in any truth of the gospel and though you account my praying to be for an overthrow of the Lords truth which is in deed for the conversion of you and that deceived company with you from your errors yet will I pray stil that God may open your eyes if you belong to him to see your grevous fall glorifie the truth of God which in this your writing so greatly you have disgraced Now I will come to answer the Positions with the reasons thereof and first concerning the former which is this 1. That infants are not to be baptised Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adheâ—nts was one of the first that denied the baptisme of infants 〈◊〉 after him Pelagius the heretique against whome Augustine others of the ancient fathers have opposed and condemned for heresie and that according to the scriptures which by Gods grace we shall together with them also further manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vntertake and then answer the reasons to the contrary Mr Smyth Now in the next place you make a speciall preface to the first point affirming thaâ— baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius c. Rich Clifton I sayd that Auxentius the Arrian was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of infants and then Pelagius whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned for heresie and you answer thus that one heretike condemned
Esra 6. â— Abraham and of them that were Gentiles and to be adioyned to the Church of the old Testament And therefore this manner of admitting members into the Church being morall vnder the law so continueth to be vnder the Gospell And the †“ Deut. 1â— 4. â— 6. Ier â— Deut. 30. 6. Circumcision of the hart was commanded and promised then to the Israelites and their seed as wel as now it is to us and not onely to them that adjoyned to the Church but continually to all the members of the same And therfore it is noâ— true that theirs was the type onely and ours the truth seeing the things signifyed by Circumcision were required of the circumcised as the thing signified by baptisme is also required of vs and a like enterance into the Church vnder both Testaments The third is this As in the old Testament carnal infants were carnally begâ—tten and borne by the mortall seed of generation by their carnal parents and then â—ere carnally circuÌ„cised received into the carnal covenant so in the new Testament spiritual Infants new borne babes in Christ must be spiritually begotten and 〈◊〉 the immortall seed of regeneration by spirituall parents and then being spirit 〈…〉 circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be received into the new Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second was verified in the truth This reason is a like to the former and hath answer already This I add further that circumcision though it was a cuttyng of the foreskinne of the flesh yet was it an holy action †sealing vnto the beleevers and theire RoÌ„ 4. 11. seed the righteousnes of faith 2 I deny that the seed of Abraham after the flesh was by circumcision received into a carnall covenant the covenant is spiritual vnto which Gen. 17. 7 â— Act. 7. 8. â— 4. 11. they were sealed * by circumcision as before I have proved for had they bene received into a carnall covenant then should the Church of the old Testament be also carnall for according to the nature of the covenant so must the Church be and GOD must be a carnall GOD and delited with carnall things contrary to Psal 50. 8. 13. Esay 1. 13. 14. But the Lord required of his people the Israelites more then outward or carnal service and that which stood in ceremonies types and shadowes Lev. 19. 2 even †holynes the circumcision of the hart * repentance “ Deut. 10. the service of the hart and soule And that the Lord did principally require â—6 Jer. 4. 4. â— Hos 14. 2 â—el 2. 12. â—3 Ps 4. 4 â— Deut. 10. â— 6. 4. 5. â—sa 1. 11 â— 58. 2 â—4 5. Ps â—0 8. 13. spirituall worship of them appears by his †rejection of their ceremoniall worship when it was offerred vp without the spirituall and by exhorting to the spiritual as Psal 50. 14. 15. to offer praise and to call vpon him and Psal 4. 5. to offer the sacrifice of righteousnes and in Hoseah 14. 2. to pray for pardon and to render vp the calves of their lips And consequently faith in Christ without * Heb. 11. 6 which all their worship was vnsavory to God the Psal discribeth the true members of the Church and dwellers in the Lords †Ps 15. 1. â—2 3. c. Ps 24. 3. 4. â— Tabernacle not by an outward observacion of legall ceremonies but of their spirituall obedience The Lord sayth “ Prov. 23 â— â— Esa 29. â—3 my sonn give me thy hart and reproveth †hipocrisie By all which testimonies it is manifest that the members of the old Church were received into a further covenant with the Lord then into a bare carnal covenant which hath carnal conditions onely as before is proved The fourth is this If the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the new Testament must not be baptised because that as circumcision is abolished which was the singe or seal so the infant is abolished which is the subiect of the signe or seal And a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the spirit and by the word But the carnal infaÌ„ts in the old TestameÌ„t were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the new Testament to be baptised The consequent of the major wil not follow the reason proves it not For although circumcision be abolished in that there was somewhat 〈◊〉 â—t was typical as the circumcising of the males onely whereby they were directed vnto Christ by whom our corrupt nature is clensed yet was â—t not abolished as it was a seale of the covenant but the outward ceremoâ—ie onely changed no more is the carnal infant of the beleeving parents abolished or made vncaple of the seal of Gods covenant for the children of Christians †Gal. 3. 29 are Abrahams seed I say not in respect of the flesh but by grace of the covenant comprehending the whole seed of the faithful and therefore have right as well to the signe of the covenant as had the carnall sede of Abraham Towching your proportionable infant as you term him it is to be obserâ—ed that in the old Church it was required of al that were to be adioyned thervnto that they should * Exod. 12 48. Ezr. 6 21. separate from the filthines of the heatheÌ„ to seek the Lord as now it is vnder the gospel And therefore it wil not follow that circumcision was a type onely of the time to come the fift is this As in the old Testament when the male appeared the eight day their was a paynful circumcising and mortifying of the foreskin when the party was received into the covenant actually so in the new testament when the Lord Iesus Christ typed by the male appointeth that when there is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous fore â—kin of the hart the party so qualifyed should be received into the new testament actually But the first was signifyed by the type Ergo the second is verified in the truth First the covenant to the infants of the Iewes was actually sealed by circuÌ„cisioÌ„ but this caÌ„not properly be said a receiving into the covenaÌ„t wherin they were before comprehended with their fathers but a confirming therof to the parties circumcised And this appeareth to be so by the Lords threatning to * Gen. 1â— 14. cut of from his people the vncircumcised male-child Can he be cut of that was not of his people or for the refusing circumcision to be be sayd to have broken the Lords covenant 2. Your simile holds not proportion for you say the party circumcised was by circumcision actually received into the covenant then by your reason if you will make it proportionable the parties that are to be received into the new Testament must be received therin by the mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of his hart or els you must shew some ceremony folowing
Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5. Secondly for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament which you say was of another nature then that of the new I answer that former church was of an heavenly constitution a †kingdome of Preists and a “ holy nation the people * saincts as wel as the members of the church of the new Testament And this people being separate from al other nations called out to be the Lords “ peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them and so became the people church and kingdome of God as in renuing of their covenant is manifest Deut. 29. 9-15 Exod. 14. 8. They were †natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by fayth on Christ then to come in whom they beleeved 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation Gal. 3. â—6 Luk. 1 68-75 This old church by their constitution admitted of no prophane person to be a member therof but such as professed holynes They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con 〈…〉 their syn Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch 5. 5. NuÌ„ 14. 40. to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged Num. 5. 7. Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be coÌ„â—idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof with that of the â—d and there wil be no such difference in substance between them as you pretend the matter of them both being holy and living stones and the forme an holy uniting together in the covenant of God to walk in al his commandements els could not the Gentiles be made one body and coâ—heriters with the Iewes Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promises in Christ if the constitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not spiritual Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament 〈◊〉 onely a carnal holynes viz. the circumcision of the foreskin c. I have already proved that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holynes Lev. 11. 44. saying I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and â—e holy for I am holy Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after Gods example who neither is carnally holy or yet delites in carnal holynes without the spiritual Psal 50. 7-23 Esa 1. 11-20 chap. 50. And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not onely the truth but your self for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal holynes carnal yet in your Differencâ— pag. 10. book of Differences you say that the Septuagint Translation was a gree 〈…〉 synn for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles So by your own confession Israel had the covenant of grace els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant can not your hearers mynd how unstable a leader they follow Wel let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer that the Apostle by the law of carnal commandement intendeth not thereby to teach that the coÌ„stitution of the old church was carnal but sheweth the diversitie of Christs priesthood from Aarons understanding by carnal commandement those frayl and transitorie things which the †law commanded â—… 24. 1. â—sa 61. 1. â— 45. 7. in the consecration of the Levitical Preists so called in respect of Christ his anoynting which was “ spiritual Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for justification exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. c. to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath madâ— â—… 5. 3. us free c. testifying to every man that if he be circumcised he is bound to keep the whole law Noting circumcision especially because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification And he reasoneth against it not as it was in it self by the ordinance of God but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it which made circumcision a part of their salvation And he that so esteemes of it as a work to justifie must also sayth Paul keep al the rest of the commandements For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances the whole observation therof Deut. 27. â—6 Gal. 3. â—… RoÌ„ 3. 20. â—al 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promise no * life And because no man can be “ justifyed by the works of the law therfore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them and calleth them †beggerly rudiments And now if a papist or any other should contend that a man is justified by Baptisme as by a work wrought we might so speak to them as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians that if you receive baptisme to be made righteous thereby ex opere operato you are bound to keep the whole law for baptisme being made a work to justifie is perverted And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision in this place as a work urged to justification the very next verse viz. ver 4. sheweth wherein he sayth ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are iustified by the law And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth 2. The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self true is nature and reason The constitution viz. the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. the constitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Test is the truth c. Heb. 10. 1. 9. 19. 23. I answer first to your Major that one and the same thing may both be the type and the truth for Isaac was a type of the faythful as your self doth affirme yet was he also faythful and so was both the type and the truth Secondly to your Minor the constitution viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type c. of the church of the new Testament in that sense as you take matter and forme for the matter of that former Ch. â—as not to be ceremonially but truly holy as before I have proved and these †Deu. 2â— 9. 14. â— Esa 5. 4. â— 15. 24. 3. 4. 5. Esâ— 58. 2 7. â— 14. Deu. â— 12 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further
3. 10. intendeth not this against children no â—ore doth our Saviour Christ when he sayth if you were Abrahams chilâ—ren ye would do the works of Abraham Ioh. 8. 39. but both places are to â—e understood of such as be of yeres not of infants which are not come â—o that strengâ—h to work good or evil Againe I reason thus They that are not under the everlasting covenant made â—â—th Abraham shall not be baptised infants are not under the everlasting covenant â— Abraham Ergo c. The minor is false Infants are under the everlasting covenant as beâ—ore is proved and therefore to be baptised This your reason implies â—e condemnation of infants for if they be not under the covenant of Abraham there is for them no promise of salvation Argument V. 1. Cor. 10. 1. 2. If the infants of the Israelites were baptised in the cloud and in the sea as well as their parents what letteth the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts vnder the Gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme as well as they The former the Apostle affirmes 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. and therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from this priveledge that the Iewes children had And if the former baptisme of the Iewes was a type of our baptisme theÌ„ must there be an agreement between the type and the thing typed which is not if our children be not baptised aswell as theirs The depriving of our children of the Sacrament is to shorten the Lords bountie towards his people of the new Testament that being denyed to their children which God gave to his people and to their infants under the law is to â—eny them in regard of their seed the like assurance and comfort which the Israelites had of theirs And so to make our estate worse and more uncomfortable then theirs was And yet the Prophets prophecied of the grace that should come to us and did inquire search after the same 1 Pet. 1. 10. Glad tydings were preached to Abraham and his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3. 8. And this before Christ came in the flesh and therefore much more he being come is joyful tydings brought unto us our infants And so are we to beleeve that the grace of God is not lessened eyther towards us or our children but inlarged by his comming M. Smyth To this Argument I make answer by framing the like Argument If their infants did eat the same spiritual meat and drink which the parents eat then why may not our infants being able to eat and drink eat drink the Lords Supper the former the Apostle affermeth 1 Cor. 1. 2. Therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from that priviledge c. R. Clyfton This is not to answer the Arg for first our infants must come to such abilitie as that they can * 1 Cor. 11. â—6 25. 28. â—9 shew forth the Lords death do it in remembrance of him and can examine themselves and discerne the Lords body before they receive the Lords Supper which conditions were not required of all that did eat Man and drink of the rock 2. The proportion holdes not for Man and water were not onely given to Israel to be to them a sacrament but also served for their ordinarie corporal food and so is not the bread and wyne in the Lords supper 3. If things be compared alike our sacraments to their ordinarie sacraments no such consequence can be gathered as you intend for the infants of Israel were circumcised but did not eat the passeover until they were able to go to that place which God had appointed for the eating thereof and to eat it according to the Lords ordinance and so much we wil graunt for the Lords supper that they are to eat it that can eat it according to Christs institution 4. If infants in partaking of those former Sacraments were in them partakers of Chr why shal not our infants also in the use of the sacrament of baptisme be held partakers of the things signified seeing as you say those sacraments were types of ours the truth must be answerable to the type Againe I answer more properly thus that there shal be a proportion between the type and the truth that baptisme of the cloud and the sea and our baptisme viz that as yong and old carnal Israelites were baptised in the cloud and sea so yong and â—â—l spiritual Israelites shal be baptised by the baptisme of repentance c. First I deny that the Israelites considered as they were accounted worthy to partake of the sacraments were carnal but †Ex. 19. 1. Pet. 2. spiritual and holy 2. Vnder the type you have yong and old in yeares so if you would keep Proportion must be the like under the truth But this you deny and make two sorts of beleevers yong and old Now I ask you whom you cal yong and old Israelites and if any that beleeves may defer his baptisme until he be old in fayth And if this be * Act. 8. 12. 36. 37 9. 18. 10. 47. 4. 16. 15. 33. not lawful and none but young beleevers be baptised how wil your proportion stand between the type the thing signified 3. Their baptisme in the cloud and sea did preach unto them repentance as wel as our baptisme doth unto us and in this there is a similitude between them but that our outward baptisme is the truth of that former baptisme in the sea and cloud to the Israelites I desire it may be proved Lastly I would know whom you mean by spiritual fathers and their spiritual children Before you called Abraham the father of the faythful and al beleevers his children But thus to make up a proportion between your type and truth you are driven to acknowledge other spiritual fathers besides Abraham which being so you must grant that they are then so called in respect of their children to whom the covenant is conveighed by Gods free grace together with them For if the children come into the covenant by their own fayth and enter as did their parents then are they Abrahams children not theirs according as the scripture speaketh Rom. 4. 11. that he shal be the father of them that beleev Further I say that our infants shal have a priviledge far greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that tipical baptisme For they by it were onely baptised into Moses and the law that by it they might learn Moses and in Moses the truth in Christ as it were under a vaile but our infants under the Gospel shal have the daylie institution and education of faithful parents c. The Apostle sayth in 1. Cor. 10. 2. that al the Israelites were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea But sayth not as you say into the law those sacraments were seales unto them of the covenant of salvation not of the law which then was not given Secondly
to them that so do without repentance seing you deny baptisme to infants that are the children of the covenant which ioyneth the parents and the children together Your conclusion of this argument is shut up with some bitter and reproachful speeches saying You blaspheme the truth with your title of Anabaptistry You are driven to most miserable shifts for your Paedobaptistrye which you see can not stand without scraping together all the wrestings and pervertings of the Scriptures These speaches and divers others of like sort which you use in your writings take and apply to your self for the mainteyning of your heresy against Paedobaptistrie also they serve to testifie the corruption of your hart and therefore I will answer them with silence praying the Lord to give you a sight of his truth and a better hart The 3. Reason against baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now followes the 3. reason 3. Reason 3. Because if infants be baptised the carnal seed is baptised and so the seal of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenant appertayneeth not Rom. 9. 8. which is a profanation Answer 1. This reason semeth to imply that the seed of the faithfull is part carnal and part spiritual for I can not imagine that the author holdeth al the seed of the faithful to be carnal and that the covenant appertaines not to any of them seing so to affirme coÌ„tradicts Act. 2. 39. And therefore because the spiritual seed is not discerned vntil it manifest it selfe by outward profession therefore may not be baptised least in baptising them the seale should be set also vpon the carnal seed unto whom belongs not the covenaÌ„t To affirme this first is to deny that which is done to the seed to whom the promise belongs for the wicked sake so to iniure them 2. this reason also serveth as well against the circuÌ„cisioÌ„ of the infaÌ„ts of the Israelites seing at 8. dayes of age they could not be discerned whether they were of the carnal or spiritual seed so the seal of the covenant be administred to them to whoÌ„ the covenant did not belong But as then the not discerning hereof did nothing hinder circuÌ„cision to be administred to all the infaÌ„ts of the Israelites no more now can the not knowing of the spiritual seed from the carnal hinder baptisme 2. Touching the seed of the faithful thus I conceive thereof that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects carnal as they naturally descend of their parents so are they all alike borne in sin Psa 51. 5. 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 sayd to be holy 1. Cor. 7. 14. And thus considered I deny the children of the faithful to be carnal seed do affirme that to such belonges the covenant and the seale thereof Act. 2. 39. And though some of them in the sight of God be knowen for none of his yet to vs it sufficeth for the administration of baptisme that they be the seed of the faithful And therfore as the Israelites circumcised al there children though some of them proved to be carnal afterward as Ismael Esau c. so are we to baptise al our infants leaving the secreet things to God Deut 29. 29. 3. If this be sufficient to cleare us from the profaning of the Sacrament if we baptise them that make confession of their fayth because they so do though they be not the children of God as S. Magus Act. 8. 13. then is it not simply a profaning of baptisme to administer it to theÌ„ to whoÌ„ belongs not the covenaÌ„t but to do it to them which playnely appeare to vs to be without Therefore if no man dare take vpon him to say this or that infant is carnall and without the covenant of grace it shal be no profanation of the sacrameÌ„t if it be administred vnto such seing we ought to hold the seed of the faithfull holy 1. Cor. 7. 14. If it be obiected as some have done to me that all the seed of the faithful are carnal and so to be held until they beleeve and make confession of theire fayth I Answer 1. If they take carnal as it is opposed to the children of the promise Rom. 9. 8. 13. these two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle as that the one can never be the other 2. If by carnal they meane nothing els but that natural corruption wherein we are borne that hinders infants no more froÌ„ baptisme then it doth those that can give an account of their fayth seing natural corruption remayneth stil in the purest professor Rom. 7. 23. And if it be replyed that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that beleeve no more say I is it to infants els Christ dyed not for theÌ„ neyther could they be saved dying whyst they be yong Lastly if Abraham knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac Gen 17. 19. yet circumcised Ismael vers 25. and Isaac knowing that God had chosen his yonger son Gen. 25. 23. with 27. 33. yet circumcised Esau as wel as Iacob and in so doing neither of them prophaned the sacrament muchles is baptisme prophaned when it is administred to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise Act. 2. 39. and thus having shewed the weaknes of your reasons against baptising of infants let us come to the 2. position M. Smyth In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argument which may be framed into this formâ— â—eyther do â—ey the â—rks of the â—ivil and â—erefore if â—ey be not Abrahams â—nes for de â—ct of the â—e they arâ—â—ot the Diâ—els because â—hey do not â—â—e other The carnal seed is not to be baptised for the covenant parteyneth not to them Infants are the carnal seed Rom. 9. 8. Ergo Infants are not to be baptised To this Argument you make answer in 4. particulars 1 You expound my meaning but I can expound myne owne words best and therefore by the carnal seed I understand children borne by carnal generation what soever though they afterward beleeve for they are carnal visible to me whosoever they be that do not shew then fayth by their workes †that do not the works of Abraham Rom. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. Rom. 9. 8. 4 23. Heb. 7. 16. R. Clyfton In the last part of your reply to my answer to your former reason you sayd that infants shal be saved and now they are al carnal visibly unto you can you say that they that are carnal to you shal be saved If the word teach you that they are carnal how can you call them spiritual Your reason seemes to be grounded upon Iam. 2. 18. Iohn 8. 39. in both which scriptures application is made to them that are of yeares and capable of instruction and you applying them to infantes do pervert the meaning
which the Apostle also speaketh Rom. 11. chap. and how he conveigheth the same to the seed of beleevers then it may be sayd that God loveth the children for the fathers fake with whom the Lord had made his covenant so to love them Not for that the children shal be partakers of that covenant because of their parents fayth or because of Gods covenant made with their parents and their carnal infants but because God elected them in Christ to life invisibly c. The children of beleevers are partakers of Gods covenant because the Lord of his free gift and mercie giving it vnto their parents includeth their seed with them as before I haue proved And thus we are to respect the external dispensation thereof and of this is our question and not of the particular election and reprobation of this or that person For so all are not †Israel which are of Israel And many â—â—â— 9. 6. Mat. 20. â— 16. 25 11. â—k 13. 24. â—â— Mat. â— chap. 1. 2. 19. Act. 3. 25 to vs are visibly within the covenant which are not elected * to salvation Hypocrites will ly lurking in a visible Church which shall not be discerned until the last day yet the holy things of God are administred unto them and they of vs are to be reputed members because visibly they appeare to vs so to be And should we not then thus reckon of the children of the faithful the promise being made indefinitely to “ them and to their seed Neyther is it the carnal lyne that is beloved of God for his mercie sake but the spiritual line c. I answer God for his mercie sake loveth the line of the faithful because of his promise as I haue sayd to chose out therof eveÌ„ out of their carnal line so to call it such as he wil save by Iesus Christ And al this line of the faithful so loÌ„g as they continue in the Church to vs is holy spirituall though in Gods electioÌ„ none be holy to him but those that he hath chosen which two things you confounding make all this doctrine obscure unto your hearers But what is this to prove that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant for the carnal line descending from a beleeving auncestor Re. I do not say that Antichristians are beloved and under the covenant unto vs considered according to their outward standing but this I say that Ans in an apostate Church there be though to us unknowen until they come out thence of Gods people that are descended of beleeving auncestors and are beloved and come under the covenant because God wil be found faithful in his promise †Ex. 20. shew mercy to thousands of them that love him Or if it were graunted how doth it follow that the baptism visibly receved in the Re. Antichristian false Church is true baptism sealing vp the covenant to them that the Lord converted in the false Church I answer that while they remayne in that estate they can not make this comfortable vse thereof vnto themselves but when such as be converted Ans in that false Church do separate from the same and turne to the Lord having right to the covenant they have right also to the seale and to all the holy things of God in that they are the people of God And so as the word converteth so baptism sealeth because the efficacy thereof is of God which can no more be hindered by the wickednes of man then the word could be hindered from converting them that belonged to the Lord. Lastly whereas you fetch the Title to the covenant and to baptism for infants in Re. the false Church from some ancestor beleeving 40. generations happily before according to that Exod. 20. 6. I answer three things 1. You must prove that some of our Predecessors had that actual faith and were members of true Churches and this you must prove for every member you receive in without baptisme thereby to assure you that he had title to the covenant and baptisme by his carnal line 2. You must by the same reason receave by baptism if you can come by them all the infants of the Thessalonians Galatians Collossians Philippians and Churches of Asia that did sometime beleeve 3. I deny that you expound that place Exod. 20. truely for the Lord directly doth require that they vpon whom he sheweth mercy should feare him and keep his commaundements c. To the first particular I answer in that our Predecessors were all in apostasie Ans yt argueth that they descended from beleevers Apostasie must be from the faith once publikly defended And where there is a publik face of an Apostate church there was formerly a publike face of a church professing the truth from which they are fallen And even their retayning of baptisme to this day is a confirmation thereof Againe this is witnessed by them that came out of Babylon that they are descended from beleevers whose seed the Lord now remembreth in his mercy to do good unto But we are not to stand upon particulars the general estate sheweth what was the precedent estate of Antichristians neyther are we to inquire any more into the particular condition of their Predecessors or parents that come out of Babylon then they of Ierusalem did inquire into the particular estates of the forefathers of those Israelites that left the Apostate church of Ieroboam to joyne unto them For receiving in without baptisme you are answered before To your second particular I answer that the estate of them must be considered whether these be in Apostasie as Rome is or be quite fallen from the fayth and be no churches at all but as infidels that beleeve not in Iesus Christ and his word if their estate were but apostasie and that they beleeved the Scriptures worshipped God and reteyned baptisme though all these in a corrupt manner then should we do alike unto them as we do to the papists But if they were become infidâ—ls and the candelstick removed from them so that no stepps of a church remaynes amongst them then are we to receive both parents beleeving and their children into the church by baptisme as the Apostles in the like case did Accordingly for receiving the infants of the Thessalonians c. if we can come by them we hold it thus if their parents returne to the Lord and his church or if some of the faythful undertake their education as their own children In the third particular you deny that I expound the place of Exod. 20. 6. truly My words are set down before pag. 213. And my meaning was this that concerning those that ar born in an apostate church the Lord remembreth his covenant made with their forefathers that beleeved doth cal of their seed whom it pleaseth him to the knowledge of his truth fayth in Christ not regarding their immediate idolatrous and apostate Eze. 18. â— 17. â— Chro. 30. â— 11.