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
to contradict But the Seperation they say England hath a false constitution is a false Chu to be Seperated from yet they say also England hath a true baptisme that is a true constitution which is not to be Seperated from For a true constitution true baptisme are one the same So is a false constitution a false baptisme So that the speeches actions of the Seperation are coÌ„tradictory in this particular Finaly they that defend the baptisme of infants cannot with any truth or good conscience Seperate from England as from a false Chu though they may seperate for coruptions they that do Seperate from England as from a false Chu must of snecessity Seperate from the baptisme of England account the baptisme of England false so account the baptisme of infants false baptisme Therfor the Seperation must either goe back to England or go forward to true baptisme al that shal in tyme to come Seperate from England must Seperate from the baptisme of England if they wil not Seperate from the baptisme of England their is no reason why they should seperate from England as from a false Church this is more at large proved in the second question of this discourse whither the Reader is to be referred Now concerning this point of baptising infants we do professe before the L. before al men in sincerity truth that it semeth vnto vs the most vnreasonable heresy of al Antichristianisme for considering what baptisme is an infaÌ„t is no more capable of baptisme then is any vnreasonable or insensible creature For baptisme is not washing with water but it is the baptisme of the Spirit the confession of the mouth the washing with water how then can any maÌ„ without great folly wash with water which is the least last of baptisme one that is not baptized with the Spirit cannot confesse with the mouth or how is it baptisme if one be so washed Now that an infant cannot be baptized with the Spirit is plaine 1. Pet. 3 21. wher the Apostle saith that the baptisme of the Spirit is the question of a good conscience into God Heb. 10.22 wher the baptisme which is inward is caled the sprinkling of the hart from an evil conscieÌ„ce seing therfor infants neither have an evil conscience nor the question of a good conscience nor the purging of the hart for al these are proper to actual sinners hence it followeth that infants baptisme is folly nothing Againe Iohns baptisme was the baptisme of repentance infants have not repentance therfor cannot have the baptisme of repentance That infants cannot have repentance is evident seing repentaÌ„ce is knowledg of sinne by the Law sorrow for sinne by the gospel mortification of sin new obedience al which are as much in the basen of water as in the infant baptized Now I confesse the Pedobaptists have many showes of reason for the maintenance of their heresy one man shapeth them into one forme another man into an other as every mans wit learning teacheth him but indeed they are al built vpon the self same sandy fondacions the wresting of some places of Scripture al which in a manner are discovered in some measure in this treatise whereby the reader may perceave the manifest perventing of the scriptures from their true sense Now bicause men cal for antiquity except they see antiquity they wil not beleve though the Scriptures be the most auncient I have thought good therefore to propound two pregnant testimonyes of Antiquity besides that which is alledged in the pag. 30. 31. of this treatise against baptisme of infants that men may know that this truth also hath her footsteps among the Fathers Tertullianus lib. de baptismo adversus Quintillam hath these wordes Then which nothing is more playne Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio baptismi vtilior est precipue tamen circa parvulos Quid enim necesse est si non tam necesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri qui ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt proventu malae indolis falli Ait quidem dominus Nolite illos pro hibere ad me venire veniant ergo dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniant docentur Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint Quid festinat innocensaetas ad remissioneÌ„ peccatoruÌ„ Cautius agitur in secularibus vt cui substantia terrena non creditur divina credatur Norint petere salutem vt pâ—tenti dedisse videaris That is to say in English Therfor to defere not to hasten baptisme is more profitable for the condition disposition age of every person but especialy as concerning yong children For what necessity is ther to bring suertyes into daunger for the baptising of infants if ther be no such necessity of hastning the baptising of infants Seing the suerties ofttymes are disabled to performe their promise both by reason of mortality of the evil disposition of some children wheÌ„ they come to yeres for whâ—me they promised in baptisme Indeed the L. saith forbid them not to come vnto me Therfor let them come to Chr. but let them come when they are growne when they learne when they are taught to what they come Let them by baptisme be made Christians when they can know Chr. by instruction why doth the innocent age hasten to the remission of sinnes we deale more safely in worldly matters Shal we commit heavenly things to yong children vnto whome we dare not commit our earthly substance let theÌ„ first know how to ask salvation that so we may seem to give to him that asketh Euseb Ecclest Hist Lib. 10. Chap. 15. Athanasius his baptising of children in spirit that answered according to the custome of the Catechumeni is aproved by Alex. lib. of Alexa. his Clerks whence it is to be noted that these children baptized by Athanasius were vnbaptized yet knew the manner of baptisme as being children borne in the Chu So that by this place al other places of the Eclesi Hist wher like mention is made of the childreÌ„ of Christians first Catechized then baptized it may easily be discerned that baptisme of infants was not yet vniversaly receaved but by litle litle prevailed as other Antich heresies have done in respect wherof Origen August Cipâ—ian al the Papists with one consent acknowledg it a tradition of the Church And thus much for the Testimonyes of Antiquity which hereafter shal be produced more plentifully vpon further occasion offered if the Seperation or any other dare adventure the tryal of the matter out of Antiquity but ther is one indeed but one argument which the seperation principaly stand vpon that is the covenaÌ„t which say they if it be aÌ„swered they must nedâ— yeeld vnto the truth now although this Argument be answered in this writing even to the
satisfaction of every indifferently mynded man that â—oveth sekeâ—â— the knowledg of the truth more then the defence justification of error yet seing many things are variably alledged concerning the covenants made with Abrah his feeds concerning Abrah Fatherhood concerning circumcision which is called a seâ—le of the righteousnes of Faith I have thought God to referre these particulars to moreful discourse intertained vpon occasion with another of the Mrs. of the sepâ—ration not doubting but very shortly through Gods goodnesse that treatise also shal be published wherin the reader shal find larger instraction satisfaction câ—ncerning the forsaid particulars of the covenants or Test other matters therto aperteyning In the meane tâ—me I desire the reader to make vse of this writing to reade without prejudice or pa tiality I doubt not but that through Gods mercy much light of truth shal shine in his â—art even by this present discourse for the seperation who are the stiâ—â—est most obsâ—inate adversaries of this truth of the â— I could wish as the Tyrant wished concerning the people oâ— Rome that al their heâ—ds were joyned into one al their strength comprised into one writing that with the sword of the Spirit it might bee smiten of at once that so we might have an end of this controversy that we might not be troubled charged with the writing printing of many books Howsoever it be wee professe our readinesse to imploy our time cost for the manifestation of the truth we desire the Sep. that they wil not in craftines withdraw from the combat as hitherto they have done in the mater of the translation wors the Presbitery but we require them in the feare of the L. that seing they have suffered so much for so much truth as they professe they would not now subtily being guilty in their consciences of their dishability to defend their errors draw back pretend excuses as they do but we require them nay we chardg them yea we challendg them to the defence of their errors Loe we protest against theÌ„ to be a false Chu falsely constituted in the bap of infants their owne vnbaptized estate we protest against them to have a false wors of reading books we protest against them to have a false govern◠〈…〉 protest against them to have a false Minist of Doctor Teachers Finally wee protest against them that seing their constitution in is false therfor ther is no one ordinance of the L. true among them These things wee have published of these things we require answer For we proclaime against them as they proclaime against their owne mother England That the Seperation the yongest the fayrest daughter of Rome is an harlot For as is the mother so is the daughter Now furthermore we desire the Sepera al men that they would not impute vnto vs vntruths condemne the innocent without cause For we disclayme the errors commonly but most slaunderously imputed vnto vs we are indeed traduced by the world as Atheists by denying the old Testament the Lords day as Trayters to Magistrates in denying Magistracy as Heretiques in denying the humanity of Christ Be it knowne therefore to al men first that we deny not the Scriptures of the Old Testament but with the Apo acknowledg them to bee inspired of God that wee have a sure worde of the Prophets wherevnto wee ought to atend as vnto a light shining in a dark place that whatsoever it written aforetyme is written for our instruction that wee through patience comfort of the Scriptures might have hope that wee ought as Christ counselleth to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the men of Berza did bicause that in them wee may find everlasting life that they do testifie of Christ This wee beleeve according to these Scriptures Iohn 5.39 Act. 17.11 Roman 15 4â— 2. Timoth. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.19 yet neverthelesse wee affirme all the ordinances of the Old Testament viz The Church Ministery VVorship Government of the Old Testament to bee abolished al which were Types shadowes of Gods things to come but the body is in Christ Col. 2.14.17.20 Secondly we acknowledg that according to the president of Ch. Disciples the primitive Churches the Saints ought vpon the first day of the weeke which is caled the Lords day Revel 1.10 to assemble together to pray prophecy praise God break bread and performe other parts of Spiritual Communion for the worship of God ther owne mutual edification the preservation of true Religion piety in the Church that we might be better enabled to the forsaid dutyes we ought to Seperate our selves from the labours of our callings which might hinder vs therto that according to these Scriptures Ioh. 20.19 Act. 2.1.41.42 20.7 1. Cor. 16.1 Thirdly concerning Magistrates we acknowledg them to be the ordinance of the L. that every soule ought to be subject vnto theÌ„ that they are the ministers of God for our wealth that we ought to be subject vnto them for conscience sake that they are the ministers of God to take vengeance on them that do evil that we ought to pray for theÌ„ that are in authority that we ought not to speake evil of theÌ„ that are in dignity nor to despise government but to pay tribute tol custome c. that acording to these Scriptures Rom. 13 1-7 1. Tim. 2.2 1. Pet. 2 13-15 2. Pet. 2.10 Iud. vs 8. but of Magistrates converted to the Faith admitted into the Chu by baptisme ther may many questions be made which to answer 〈…〉 can 〈◊〉 if we would when such things fal out the L. we doubt not will direct vs into the truth concerning that mater in the meane tyme we are assured acording to the Scrip. that the Kings of the Earth shal at the length bring their glory honor to the visible Church Revel 21 24. Finally concerning the Flesh of Chr. we do beleve that Chr is the seed of Abraâ— Isaac Iacob of David according to the Prophecyes of the Scriptures that he is the Sonne of Mary his Mother made of her substance the holy Ghost over shadowing her So have other children ther bodyly substance from their parents also that Chr. is one person in two distinct natures the Godhead manhood we detestg the coÌ„trary errors our grounds of Scripture are these Gen. 22.18 26.4 28.14 Psal 13.2.11 compared with Act. 2.30 Rom. 1.3.4 Heb. 1.8 10. 2.11.14.16 Breefly to conclude let the Seperation be advertized That wheras they do so confidently through their self love self conceipt fil ther mouths with heresy heretiques as if therby they would feare babes That herein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors do not the Papists cal the Protestants heretiques cal for fire fagot do not the Protestants proclaime the Seperation Schismatiques
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
4.24 For Agar that is the old Testament Sara that is the new Testament were both maryed to AbrahaÌ„ Abraham had them both 2. There are two seedes Ismaell of Abraham Hagar who typed the carnall seed borne after the Flesh Isaac of Abraham Sara who typed the Spiritual seed borne by promise vers 23. There are two seales Circumcision a seale of the carnal covenant vppon the carnal children Gen. 17.11 the Holy Spirit of promise a seale of the Spirituall covenant vppon the Spiritual seed 2. Cor. 1.22 Eph. 1.13 as circumcision was a seale from God to the carnal seed of the promise from the carnall seed to God in obedience So the Spirit of promise is a seale from God to the Spiritual seed of the promise from the Spiritual seed to the Lord in obedience Eph. 1.13 Ioh. 3.33 these things are evident but now you I am perswaded of mere ignorance mistaking the covenant doe make circumcision a seale of the everlasting Spiritual covenant which is an error therevppon you build all your false building of pedobaptistry which is as a howse built vppon the sand by the foolish builders Now for your places of Scripture I expound them in order Gen. 17.10.11.12 this place proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenant made with the carnall seed not a seale of the Spirituall covenant made with the Faithful For the Spirit is the seale thereof who is therfor called the Spirit of promise the seale Eph. 1.13 if the place of the Rom. 4.11 be objected to prove that circumcision sealed the righteousnes of Faith to Abraham I answer that is not the scope of the place but this viz that circumcision had one specialty in Abraham differing from al other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the Father of al the Faithful as coÌ„cerning the matter of their justificatioÌ„ namely that as he was justifyed by his actual Faith so should all the beleevers bee justifyed by their actuall Fayth whither they beleeved in their vncircumcision or in their circumcision Act. 2.39 the promise is offered to the impenitent Iewes to their posterity to the Gentils a far of it was exhibited only to so many as yeelded obedience to the Fayth whereas in rehearsing the Apostles speech you say the promise is made I say therein you ad to the text For if you intend that the promise of the Spirit was exhibited to al the Iewes their infants to the Gentils beleeving their infants that this place afordeth it I say the place doth not intend any such thing but only an offer of the Spiritual covenant to the carnal Iewes their children according to the Flesh also the Gentils but a true conferring or exhibiting of it to so many as should be effectually called by the offer of it in the preaching of the Gospel Further whereas you seem to assume that seing the covenant was made to Abraham his infants it is therfor made to vs our infants I deny that ever the covenant Spiritual was made that is conferred to al Abrahams infants according to the Flesh neyther therfor is it made that is conferred to al our infants this you should prove but it is vndone I confesse the promise was offered to all Abrahams carnall seed vnder that carnal covenant of the Old Testament so it is offered now to all our carnal children by the preaching of the gospel in the new Testament but as the Spiritual covenant was only exhibited to the Faithful the true seed of Abraham so is it now only exhibited to the Faithful which are the only true seed of Abraham who is the Father of vs al wee al his children justified by actual Faith as he was in respect whereof infants wanting actual Fayth cannot bee truely said the Children of Abraham but are that they are in secreat to the Lord whatsoever they are Thus much for the Scriptures by you alledged in your first argument From that which I have answered I reason against pedobaptistry thus 1. As it was with Abraham the Father of the Faithful so must it be with the Children of Abraham Rom. 4.11 But Abraham the Father of the Faithful first beleeved actually being sealed with the Spirit of promise afterward receaved the signe of circumcision Ergo The Children of Abraham the beleeving Gentils must first beleeve actually be sealed with the Spirit of promise then receave the baptisme of water 2. As in the Old Testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised so admitted into that Church of the Old Testament So in the New Testament the spiritual children must be Spiritually circumcised that is in hart then be admitted by baptisme into the Church of the New Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 3. As in the Old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents then were carnally circumcised receaved into the carnal covenant So in the new Testament Spiritual infaÌ„ts new borne babes in Christ must be Spiritually begotten borne by the immortal seed of regeneration by the Spiritual parents then being Spiritually circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be receaved into the New Testame But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 4. If the carnal infants in the Old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the New Testament must not be baptized bicause that as circumcision is abolished which was the signe or seale so the infant is abolished which is the subject of that signe or seale a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the Spirit the word But the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the New Testament to be baptised 5. As in the Old Testament when the male appeared the 8. day ther was a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne when the party was receaved into the covenant actually So in the new Testament when the Lord Ies Ch. typed by the male appeareth when ther is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of the hart the party so qualified shal be by baptisme receaved into the new Testament actually But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in truth And this shal suffice for answer to your first argument Mr. Rich. Clifton Col. 2.11.12 If circumcision belonged to Faithful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to al beleevers to their feede being infants But the first is â—â—ue Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The consequent wil â—â—llow seing baptisme cometh in place of circumcision seaâ—ling vp vnto vs â—â— ouâ— seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham to his seede Coll.
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
so true holines that is Faith repentance was not required to the mēbers or matter of the Church of the old Testament 3. Thirdly that which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected or produced by the walking or communion of the Church off the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the Church of the Old Testament Iustification Faith Sanctification repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the Church of the Old Testament Heb. 9.9 Gal. 2.15.16 Ergo justification Faith Sanctification repentance were not required to the constitution of the Church of the old Testament so by consequent the members of the Church of the Old Testament were not truly holy in their constitution 4. That which brought not perfection life to the members presupposed not Fayth repentance to the members and so not reall or true holynes But the Old Testament the Law the obedience of the Law brought not perfection life to the members of the Church of the old Testament Heb. 7.19 Gal. 3.21 Ergo The Old Testament or the Law or the Church of the old Testament did not presuppose Fayth Repentance or true Holynes in the members 5. That which was a Schoolmr only to teach Christ did not presuppose that the Schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Faith repentance The law or old Testament was a Schoolmr only to teach Chr Gal. 3.14 Rom. 10.3.4 Ergo The Law or Old Testament did not presuppose that the Schollers had learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Fayth and Repentance 6. That which was hidden kept secreat was a Mystery not revealed the members of the Church of the old Testament in their constitution were not indued withal Faith or obedience to the gospel was a mistery not revealed but kept secreat from the beginning Gal. 3.23 Rom. 16.25 Ergo The members of the Church of the Old Testament were not indued with Fayth or obedience to the gospel in their constitution 7. Ther is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Rom. 8.1 Ther is condemnation to them that are vnder the Law Gal. 3.10 For it is the Ministery of death or condemnation 2. Cor. 3.7 Ergo The Law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ or they that are vnder the Law are not in Christ so the members of the church of the old Testament were not truly holy Finally the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes Galatians concerning justification by Faith in Christ without the workes of the Law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth Teaching that seing the vtmost obedience of the Law did not effect or produce justification therfor of necessity it followeth that the Law or old Testament did not presuppose it or true holines in the members therof For it had been a vanity to have given them a Law which should not or could not preserve produce that which was in them in ther first constitution wherfor I doe bouldly defend against all men that the Church of the Old Testament in the matter or constitution of it was not really Holy but only Typically therfor the members therof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or sanctified or in actual possession of that everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it in that typical Testament given to Abraham afterward assumed written amplified by Moses Ioh. 7 19-23 compared with Heb. 8.8.9 Having sufficiently confirmed this truth I returne in particular to answer your objections saying stil that the nation of the Iewes was holy not truly but typically that their holines was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trayned vp or Schooled to Christ being by all the ceremonial law old Testament or carnal commaundement as it were by so many meanes consecrated or dedicated to that holy cad purpose which was tiped shadowed by those figures similitudes of heavenly things Therfor as the word sanctifying or hallowying is vsually taken in the old Testamēt for the setting of any thing apart to a holy vse so were the people of Israel holy even an holy natiō above al the nations of the Earth See Exod. 19.10.14.15 Iob. 1.5 Deu. 14 1-4 compared with Act. 21.28 for the place which you aledg Ex. 19.6 to prove the Israelites an holy nation I say that either the meaning is that they were typically holy trayned vp to holines or that they by attayning the end of the law should attayne true holines in Christ So that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holines of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham So that though infants be vnder offer of the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ yet shal not baptisme be administred vppon them as your consequent doth import bicause that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually feased vppon that external covenant therefore none in the New Testament shal be baptized but those that are actually possessed of the covenant of the New Testament but the actual possession of the promise is by obedience to the Faith For by Faith saith the Apostle Gal. 3.14 we receave the promise of the Spirit we receave the Spirit by the hearing of Faith preached Gal. 3.2 Faith cometh by hearing of the word preached Rom. 10.17 Secondly I answer concerning the consequent of your Majors consequent that it shal not follow that bicause children are vnder the covenant as you suppose but we deny that therfor they thal have the outward signe or seale therof for you know vnder the law the females were actually vnder the covenant of the old Testamēt yet were not signed with the seale before the law was given al that were actualy vnder the covenant vntil the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seale therof if you say in opposition to the circumcision of the female that she was vncapable of it I answer the L. had abundance of Spirit if it had been his wil that al vnder the covenant should be pertakers of the signe or the seale therof he could in wisdom would vndoubtedly have appointed such an external signe or seale that might have bene administred vppon al vnder the covenant but seing the L. chose out the male only for circumcision the by he purposed to teach in a type that only the male that is one that is in Christ shal be sealed with the Spirit of promise vnder the new Test But if you say in oposition to that before the Law that ther was no seale or signe appointed by God for them vnder the covenant bicause the L. thought it not meet or needful I say that herby it apeareth that to be vnder the covenāt was not
the Fathers to prove any thing wel then you confesse they prove nothing remember that let al men take notice that you produce testimonyes that you say prove nothing but why do you produce testimonyes of the Fathers Forsooth to shew the practise of auncient Churches but al those Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession what doth antiquity Antichristian or vniversality antichristian help you against the truth Therfor I say The truth needeth not the testimony of Antichrist old vniversal antichristian errors shal not prevayle against the truth I have shewed you that from the beginning it was not thus go baptisme of infants is a Novelty but let vs shew you some footsteps of the bringing in of baptising infants that out of the Fathers Henricus Pantaleon Chronolog fol. 16. saith Victor Apher in the yeer 193. ordeyned that at Easter baptisme should be indifferently administred to al hence then it followeth that before his tyme only such as were Catechised in the Faith were baptized For he would not decree that heathen should be baptized Eusebius Eccles Histor Lib. 7 Chap. 8. saith that Novatus rejected the Holy baptisme overthrew the Fayth confession which was accustomed before baptisme whereby it appeareth that Fayth confession were required before baptisme and therefore the rudiments thereof still remayne that in baptising of infants a confession of sinne and Fayth is required of the suretyes or parents The same Euseb Lib. 10. Chap. 15. reporteth the story of Athanasius baptising children in sport which baptisme was approved though done in sport by Alexander Bb of Alexandria after that he by examination had found that the children had questioned answered according to the manner of the Catechumeni in baptisme wherby it appeareth that then only persons by confession of their Faith sins were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria Hosius Petricoviensi confess de fide chap. 27. saith that these two are Aposticall traditioÌ„s which the Scripture teacheth not viz that ther are persons one God that Dionisius Origen doe testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostical tradition Now you know that their Aposticall traditions were antichristian inventions Polydor. Virg. Lib. 4. Chap. 4 de inventoribus reruÌ„ saith thus It was in vse with the auncients that persons of yeeres sere in a manner should be baptized clad with whyte garments Lactantius Candidus egreditâ—â— nitidis exercitus vndis Atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo And this was performed at Easter whitsontide except in necessity in the meane tyme til the Feasts of Easter whitsontyde came they were catechised this testimony is of good instruction Ludovicus Vives writing vppon the first book of August de Civitate dei chap. 27. saith that in auncient tymes no man was baptized but persons of yeeres who could vnderstand what the mystical water signified required baptisme ofter then once therfor now the infant to be baptized is demaunded three tymes if hee wil be baptized for whome the suertyes answer yea Erasmus Rotrodamus in his annotations vppon the fifth of the Roman saith that in Paulls tyme it was not receaved that infants should bee Baptized Thus have I thought good to shew you testimonyes of men so by setting maÌ„ against man to lead you vs al from mâ—n to the holy Scriptures which is the rock wherevppon we may safely build which as you have heard flatly forbiddeth the baptising of infants who cannot bee made Disciples by teaching Mat 28.19 Iohn 4.1 Mr. Rich. Clifton Now let vs come to considet of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first of them is this 2. Bicause there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any infants that were Baptized by Iohn or Christs Disciples onely they that did confesse theire sinnes confesse theire Faith were baptized Marc. 1.4.5 Act. 8.37 Answere First this reason being brought into forme wil be wray the weakenes of it For suppose that should be graunted that there were nether a special commaundement or example in the practise of Iohn or Châ—â— Disciples for the baptising of infants yet may it notwithstanding be lawful to baptize them namely if by some consequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22.31.32 wher reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by an argument necessarily drawen from Exo. 3â—6 where no such thing was expressely mentioned And thus he taught vsually refuted his adversaries as the History of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his Epist to the Romanes Gal. prove justification by Faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in al the old Testament in plaine termes affirming so much but by conclusions of necessary consequence from the Scriptures to this purpose might divers other instances be aledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the Old New Testament though we cannot shew any playne precept or example yet may we vppon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason him selfe cannot deny that both he we must beleve diverse things which wee gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that wee shall not find in expresse words As that there bee three persons in onâ— Godhead that the sonne is Homousios that is of the same substance with the Father Now such expresse words cannot bee shewed in the Scripture many such like 2. Secondly also if this argument be sufficient to barre children from the Sacrament of baptisme then is it as sufficient to kepe back women from the Lords Supper for there is no speciall precept nor yet example that VVomen should pertake of the Lords Supper but the Lawfullnes there of is onely proved by consequence bicause they are within the covenant are pertakers of the Sacrament of baptisme thus the weakenes of this reason being manifested I will thirdly answere vnto it 3. Thirdly that ther is both precept by Christ example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the Lawfullnes of baptising of infants Commaundement I say Mat. 28.19 Goe teach al natioÌ„s baptising them where is no exception of the children of faithful parents therfor ther being a Law once given that the covenant should be sealed to the infants aswel as to the beleeving parents the same Law of sealiug the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be chaÌ„ged except the Law maker do repeale it or have set downe some ground for the repeale therof which must be shewed or els this commaundement doth bâ—nd vs our infants to receave this seale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptized Lydia her howshold Act. 16.15
God through Popery yet in the Popish Churches ther is no true Church Ministery VVorship or Government nor true Baptisme but all false and Antichristian and so to bee rejected and the truth to bee assumed out of the Scriptures and so this argument off yours is answered Mr. Rich. Clifton If antichrist be not the author of baptisme but of some humane devises annexed vnto in the administration thereof then are wee not to plucke vp the wheaâ—e with the â—ares Mat. 13.29 And to cast away that which is Christs with Antichr but to Seperate from that which is mans invention stil to retayne that which is of God But to baptise with water into the name of the Father of the Sonne of the holy Ghost Mat. 28.19 is from heaven not from Antichrist Ergo we ought not to cast it away but those traditions where with Antichrist hath polluted it as for exaÌ„ple King Iosias before him K. Ezechias when both the Land Temple were poluted 2. King 21.7 23.7 did not pul downe the Temple but appointed the Priests to clense it who did so brought out al the vncleanes that they had found in the howse of God 2. Chro. 29.16.17.18 34.8 For in reformacion of things difference must be put betwene those things wherof God is the Author such as are devised by man The former is to be purged from all profanation the things still to bee retayned the other to bee quyte abolished This rule in all reformation off Religion ought to bee followed Iohn Smyth The fifth Argument followeth which is this in effect We must not pluck vp the wheate with the tares Mat. 13.29 nor cast away that which is Christs when we cast away that which is Antichrists But to Baptize with VVater into the Name of the Trinity is Christs not Antichrists Ergo wee ought not to cast that away but only the traditions of Antichrist So did Iosiah Hezechiah 2. King 21.7 23.4 2. Chron. 29 16-18 34.8 not pul downe the Temple but clense it c. that wherof God is the Author must be kept the corruption or pollution put away that wherof man is the Author is quite to be abolished This is your reason I answer That as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple the Iewes built it againe So when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Temple the true Church then must we build it vp againe when Antichrist hath destroyed the true baptisme then must we reare it vp againe Wherfor seing as is shewed befor Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme of Chr. in the definition or in the matter forme therof hath reared a baptisme of his owne it must therfor be abolished as when we do renounce the false Church or Ministery wee do not renounce that which is true in the false Church or Ministery but onely the falsehood so in rejecting the false baptisme of Antichr we do not renounce that which is true in it as to wash with water into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost but onely the falsehood And yet as when wee retayne the truth in a false Church or Ministery wee reject the Falsehood in them both erect both a new true Church Ministery So when wee retayne the truth of a false baptisme wee reject the Falsehood erect a true new baptisme this is evident if you consider it wel Againe seing in the false baptisme church ministery the corruptions are essential the truth only accidental truth falsehood are so intermingled as we can not divide them asunder assuming the one leaving the other but we must needes in renouncing the essential corruptions reserve the accidental truths iterate or repeate the accidental truthes if we wil have the essential truth which Antichrist had abolished Therfor necessarily we must for having true baptisme repeate washing in to the name of the Father Sonne Holy Ghost which are but accidentals for a Turck so washed is not baptized once onely wash a new borne babe in Christ into the truth which is true essentiall baptisme which Antichrist had abolished which wee onely restore nothing els so your argument is answered Mr. Rich. Clifton As God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham his seed Gen. 17.7 which through the malice of Sathan al his instruments shal never be cut of so hath he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the Law gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the Faithful And therfor the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were pertakers in the Apostate Church devising a new do bring in a new covenant a new gospel taking vppon them to baptize themselves without warrant from the word For I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptize himself without special commaundement from God as Abrah had for circumcision Gen. 17.9 or Iohn for baptisme Marc. 1.3 nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4.2 Mat. 3.6 Act. 8.38 9.18 10-48 If it be sayd the tymes bee extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby wee may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the word to informe vs in any thing that wee ought to doe Iohn Smyth Your 6. argument is thus much in effect That seing the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is everlasting Genes 17.7 cannot by the malice of Sathan bee cut of no more can the malice of Sathan abolish the seales of that covenant vnder the Law or gospel viz circumcision baptisme I answer by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16.18 framed thus If the gates of Hel 〈◊〉 never pervaile against the Church then ther hath alwayes been a true Church Antichrist could never make the church false so you of the Seperation have sinned most shamefully in calling the Church of Antichrist false Verum primum Ergo secundum If my argument be not good against you of the Seperation for erecting a new Church no more is yours good against vs for erecting new baptisme This is to answer as they say regerendo But I answer more properly solvendo thus That the covenant is said to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existence in the world in an established Church but in respect of the stability firmenes of it in regard of Sathans malice which should not so abolish it that it should never bee recovered againe For otherwise the Church went into the wildernes Revel 12.14 al natioÌ„s were made drunck with the cup of the fornication of the whore of Babylon Revel 18. â— ther was no true Church in the depth of Antichristianisme so no true baptisme for can any thing be true in a false Church but the Scriptures the truthes conteyned therein I deny therfor that the covenant Church
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
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
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