without this washing with water into the name of the Father c. it cannot be baptisme And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptised may be called an accident as al such formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced yet to baptisme it selfe I meane to the external ceremony it is no accident or adiunct but is of the very essence and being thereof and without which it cannot be baptisme And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident I do not conceive otherwise then as before I have observed in respect of the party baptised els might the ceremony of baptisme be for substance without this washing with water into the name of the Trinitie But whether it be of the essence of baptisme or an accident look with what warrant you do repeate it For suppose I should graunt as much as you desire that this forme of washing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptisme yet the Lord having coÌ„maunded that accident to be but once vsed without repeating how can you iustifie the iterating of such accidentall truthes as you call them for if it were of God in that baptisme administred in Popery as you confesse then can you not repeat it Therefore your iterating of it argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord And so you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptisme as you pretend to do UI. Argument AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sathan and all his instruments shal never be cut of So he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the law Gospel the seales thereof for the comfort of the faithful And therefore the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ whereof they were partakers in the Apostate Church and devising a new do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking vpon them to baptise themselves without al warrant from the word for I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptise him selfe without special coÌ„maundement froÌ„ God as Abraham had for circumcision Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptisme Mark 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be sayd the tymes be extraordinary I answere the Lord hath left eyther example or rule or ground of rule whereby we may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the world to informe vs in every thing that we ought to do Mr Smyth I answere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus Ans If the gates of Hel shal never prevayl against the Church then there hath alwayes bene aâ—rue Church and antichrist could never make the Church false and so you of the sepâ—ration have sinned most shamefully in callinge the Church of antichrist false verum â—rimum Ergo secundum Rich. Clyfton First I deny that your Argument is of like nature neither wil your false Re. relating of my words give you this advantage for it is one thing to say that God hath preserved the seales of his covenant and an other to say that these seales cannot be abolished through the malice of Sathan I know the outward seales and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Sathan if the Lord would have permitted it For as Antichrist Sathans instrument hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to abolish them out of the church As the worship Ministerie Government Censures c. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptisme and if God had not otherwise disposed could have foysted in a new forme of baptisme in the roome of it 2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16 18. that there should alwayes continue a true visible church upon the earth which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt for the Scripture †2 Thes 3. 7. Reâ— 13. 11 â— 18. 4. speaketh to the contrarie But the promise of Christ to his church is this that the gates of Hell shal not prevaile against it that is against his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Christ this promise the Lord performeth to everie true visible Church so long as they cleave unto him continue faythful and to his invisible for ever even in the very dayes of Apostasie Sathan did not prevaile against the elect of God The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in al the tyme of Antichrist as even Reâ—nerius the Popes Inquisitor acknowledgeth whose Testimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true understanding yet doth it not follow that that church from which we did separate was that true church or yet that this true church was alwayes visible But I come to your second answer which is more properly as you say solvendo That the covenant is sayd to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existance Answ in the world in an established church but in respect of the stabilitie of it in regard of Sathans inalice c. This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not for Rep. I did not intend in saying the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Sathan that there was alwayes a true visible church walking in all the commandements of God but this I mynded and do say that the covenaÌ„t of God could never be cut off through the malice of Sathan but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes yea through the great Apostasie of Antichrist You say There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme and so no true baptisme Ans This consequent will not follow for though the church of Antichrist was no true church yet everie thing therein was not so for the Scriptures though by them abused even in that Church were the true word of God â—ep and so baptisme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned though corruptly administred I deny that the covenant Church or baptisme was visible alwayes An. â—epl Baptisme which was appointed to be a seal of Gods covenant hath ever since the first institution of it been visible that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasie And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen wher is no apparance of Christianitie for in them remaynes some kind of visibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or lesse accordingly as they are more or lesse corrupted For if all visibilitie should cease they should cease to be called Apostate and indeed become no churches And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footsteps of that image of God wherein he was first created so in
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
30. Act. 16 25. Psal 95. 92 1. 66. 2. 89. 1. Lastly each one as he is able contributeth to the Treasurie whereby the Officers poor of the church are maynteyned according to these scriptures 1 Tim. 5 17. 18. 1 Cor. 9 7-14 Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 16. Luk. 2â— 1. 2 3. 4. Mat. 26 9. 10. 11. Act. 2 42. 45 46. 4 34. 35. 37. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. â— Cor. 8 4 1â— And this is that worship and service we publikely practise which Mr. S. calleth false worship how truly let the Reader now judge Fourthly coÌ„cerning the GovermeÌ„t of our church which also this adversarie taxeth first the Governours that we have are such as Christ hath appointed in his Church viz. Pastors Teachers Elders and such as M. S. †Principles pag. 18. Questions Answers pag. 8. affirmeth the Eldership to consist of the two former both teaching and ruling the Elders imployed in the governmeÌ„t onely elected of the church for the overseing governing guiding of the same by the rules of Christ whose offices and authoritie of Ruling are warranted by these scriptures 1 Tim. â— 5. 17. Rom. 12. 6. 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 5. with Rev. 2. 2. 14. 15. Act. 20. 28. Heb. 13 8. 24. Agayn as touching the Censures we proceed therin after Chriâ—â—s 〈…〉 private faults vsing private admonitions and for publike open reb 〈…〉 cording to these Scriptures Mat. 18. 15. 17. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 2. Cor. 2. 6. And when the offenders continue obstinate in their sinns after due admonition and conviction by the word of God the Church being gathered together the Pastor or Teacher or one of the Elders in the name by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ pronounceth the sentence of excoÌ„munication agaynst them all the brethren consenting according to these Scriptures Mat. 18. 17. 19. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. c. 1. Tim. 1. 20. And if the excomunicate do repent he is with the Churches consent received agayne into the coÌ„munion therof by some of the Governors according to these Scriptures 2. Cor. 2. â—7 11. Mat. 18. 18. 20. What Mr. Smyth can fault in this or in any other of our practises he may at his leasure discover the same if he be not already satisfied Now besides these false imputations it pleaseth Mr. Smyth to vtter agaynst this Church many vncharitable and reprochfull speeches wishing also As the Tirant wished concerning the people of Rome that all theire heades were joyned into one c. To passe by his tart and bitter speeches unbeseeming a professor of the Gospell concerning his wish I do certifie him thus much that if it were granted that the Separation had but one head his woodden sword of mans doctrine wil never be able to smyte it of Wel may he cary the Tyrants mynd but for his wish I trust he shall fynd a like effect therof as the Tyrant did of his who contrary to his expectation found the people of Rome not to have one head but many hands to smyte of his head So this wisher shall fynd that the Separation hath many hands to convince his abominable errors And whereas he desyreth the Separation that they wil not in craftines withdrawe from the combate as hetherto they have done in the matter of the Trâ—nslation Worship and Presbyterie c. He himselfe now knoweth that he hath answere to all these things and if any delay hath bene herein it was not any withdrawing through craftines as he falsely chargeth vs but we saw him so mutable and inconstant and his latter writings to overthrow his former that his owne workes would be a sufficient confutation thereof And now that there was so great occasion of answere and that he so insulted vpon the differring therof he hath his answere geven him For 〈…〉 his speeches of charging and challendging vs to the defence of â—rors I hope he wil stay his penne henceforth from such vanitie seing â—â—â—e not ashamed or yet neglect to vndertake the defence of that truth â— professe and to manifest that he is a defender of errors and not we as â—e scanderously reporteth of vs. Furthermore Mr Smyth requires of the Separation and of all men not â— impute vnto them The denying of the old Testament the Lords day the â—â—â—â—stracy and humanity of Christ Why this request should be made I know â—ot vnles they would beare the world in hand that they are not taynted â—ith these errors which other anabaptists doo hold Concerning the â—st of them Mr. Sm. affirmeth that the Lord made with his people vnder â—e old Testament a carnal covenant denying that everlasting covenant in Christ to be geven vnto them or circumcision to be the seale thereof He â—so denyeth the seede of the faythfull to be within the covenant of grace â—yther before or since Christs comming contrary to Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. â—9 And therefore I cannot see but that the denying both of the old and â—ew Testament in this respect may justly be imputed unto him as in this â—reatise following it will appeare For their denying of the Lords day as yet we have litle to say notwithâ—anding it is reported that some of their company makes question therof But concerning the Magistracy Mr. Smyth bewrayeth his vnsoundnes â— these words But of Magistrates converted to the faith and admitted into the Church by baptism there may questions be made which to answere we cannot if we â—â—â—ld when such things fall out the Lord we doubt not will direct vs into the truth concerrning that matter Here let the Reader observe how they plead ignorance in the matter of the Christian Magistrate if so they thought of his Authoritie that he being of the Church was to beare the sword and them of the Church to obey him as having civill power over them and whome he might commaund in defence of Religion of his country to take vp armes then needed not he thus to speake For by his words they geve vs to conjecture that they think more may be yeelded to an heathen Ruler then to a Christian Magistrate If they be cleare in this pointe they may so explane their myndes Also in this pleading ignorance of the Magistracy they seeme to tax the new Testament not to be so playne as Mr Smyth affirmeth where he sayth All the ordinances of the new Testament are plainely taught by C 〈…〉 his disciples Character pag. 34. Now if all things be taught in the new Testament why then can he not answere those many questions that may be made about the Christian Magistrate or why looks he for new direction wel this I perceave that eyther he must deny the authority of the Christian Magistrate or be driven to confesse that the writings of the Apostles are not playne enough to discribe his office and Authoritie without the Scriptures of the old Testament from which if it be lawfull to reason concerning this matter of the Magistracy
help of God to put a brief answer to these opinions which by the Churches in all ages have bene and are condemned for hereticall the practise whereof I could wish might never have befallen 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 chiefly vnto him to whose charge both I and divers others had once purposed to have committed our soules had he not besides these broached some former opinions both erronious and offensive wherby 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 we had great hope that they would have walked in the same faith with vs. NotwithstaÌ„ding for as much as I am informed that the authour 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 yssue to his glory for his mercy sake Amen Mr Smyth A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truthes viz 1. That Infants are not to be baptised 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme These two truthes are by you Sir in your answer intituled Anabaptisticall c. Rich Clifton Sir Whereas you iustify your two Positions to be two truthes and so â—title your Reply A defence of two truthes And charge me with vsing of â—eproachfull speaches in calling them Anabaptisticall Herevnto I answer â—irst that your two Positions will no more prove two truthes then Ieroboâ—ns two calves proved two Gods as in my former answer I have shewed â—nd shall by Gods grace more fully manifest in this treatise following Secondly I deny to have vsed any reproach by intituling your erronious opinions Anabatisticall But your self do sinne in calling evill good and darknes light thereby bringing vpon your self that fearfull woe dâ—nounced by the Lord against such Esa 5. 20. If you repent not 3. Whereas you blesse God that yoâ— are accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christes truth wish me to know that my reproach shall light vpon myne owne head c. I could wish you did not rejoyce in vayne for there is a suffring for evill iustly deserved as well as for the truth 1 Pet. 2. 20. The Iesuites some of them have sufferred vnto death yet had they no cause of reioycing therein seing they suffered for their due desert And so your opinions being termed Anabaptisticall for their vntruthes can bring no true comfort vnto you in suffring for them nor yet my reproach as you call it any iudgement upon my head being warranted to give falsehood her deserved titles Gal. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 2. Gal. 4. 9. As for Christ and his truth which you say are by me evil spoken of it had bene lesse sinne in you to have stayed your pen from publishing of such sclaunders vnlesse you could have proved your Positions the truthes of Christ which I am sure you shall never be able to doe Mr Smyth In your Preface you avouch that your are provoked to write I mervayle you should so speak seing your conscience telleth you did make the first quest or motion â—â— Mrs Bywater c. Rich Clifton For Answer herevnto know you Sir and let all men take notice that the thing which you charge me with is most vntrue for presently after you were fallen into these grosse errors came Mr Southworth Mr Brâ—mhead two of your followers to my chamber as they sayd in kindnes to see me and entred conference with me concerning these opinions saying that they had heard that I had bene enclyned that way when I was in England with some perswasive speaches to consider of this your new walking saying also that you were willing to conferre with me and did wish that eyther I would come to you or els if I were willing you would take paynes to come to me to whom I answered that I never had any thought of imbracing such opinions neither was willing to have any conference with you thereabout which when they heard me so to say they further did solicite me to write with you about these points and sayd that you would as willingly as frendly write with me thereof as you did in England in our former conference concerning excommunication and other differeÌ„ces then betweene you me offring if I would not beginne that yet I would vouchsafe to read and answer your writing to whom I sayd againe that I would not write first or require your writing for I thought not to have any dealing with you yet being so importuned I tould them that I would be content to read it if you sent it me but for Answere therevnto I I promised none onely I sayd I would consider thereof and so do then as I thought good This was the substance of my speaches to Mr Southworth and Mr Bromehead and of theirs to me Now if this had bene true that I had provoked you by any former speaches it is very like they would have made some relation thereof especially requiring that you might have conference with me neither need you to have sent me word that you would write or conferre if so I pleased and to desire either at my hands as these men did testifie if I had before moved you thereunto But for witnesse hereof you produce Mrs Bywater a gentlewoman â—at hath imbraced your errors with whom after I had received your poâ—ions which also she sayd she had seen I had speach to this effect that she â—ould be carefull over her self how she entertayned your new opinions afâ—rming that I was perswaded they were grevous errors and prayed her â—staÌ„tly to stay a while vntil your positions might be answered assuring her that I could by Gods help defend this truth we stand for against you with some other words to like purpose Now let the indifferent reader iudge if you have not greatly wronged â—e to say that I did make the first request or motion of writing nay your own act in writing first vnto me your own speaches in this your * Pag. 1. book which are these Certayne reasons propounded to Mr Rich Clifton concerning the two Popositions following as also your adiuring vs to answer you or els you wil proclayme vs subtily blind leaders of the blind into the ditch do witnesse the contrary And that this busynes comes of your self though you seek to lay it vpon my back let your owne conscience iudge as for myne owne part being so provoked I could do no lesse then answer 2. You charge me with perverting of this scripture Jude 3. and say that I â—â— neither to plead for Baall nor contend for Antichristian errors And I answer that these being truthes for which I contend as have ben proved sufficiently and shal be God willing as occasion serveth more fully confirmed then am I not guilty of any
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
sayd to be coinheritors with them and of the â—ame body see also Ephes 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the Iewes were called the * Mat. 8 12. children of the kingdome and of of the “ Act. 3. 25. covenant and unto whom the †Act. â— 32. promise was made And now it being proved that this spirituall covenant apperteyned to the Israelites and the conditions therof required at their hands I hope you will grant as much to the faythfull and their seed under the Gospel or els shew vs where and when the hand of Gods grace was shortened but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be lesse bountiful now then he was to the Iewes and therefore as the chidren of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circumcision so are the children now that descends from beleeving parents * 1 Cor. 7. 14. holy and have right to the covenant “ Mat. 19 14. and kingdome of God and consequently to baptisme the seal thereof But you say Infants wanting actuall faith cannot truely be sayd the children of Abraham I answer that actuall faith is required of such of Abrahams children as Here noâ— that actuaâ— faith in alâ— this treatisâ— is put for tâ— actual usâ— faith are grown to yeares And therfore you must proove that infants wanting actuall faith cannot be the children of Abraham and then must you prove that they are not Christs for if they be Christs they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29. But are that they are in secret to the Lord whatsoever they are Christ hath sayd playnely “ Mar. â— 14. that of such is the Kingdome of God And the promise is * Act. 2. 3. made to the beleevers and their seede And you leave them in secrete to the Lord thus shutting your eies against the cleare light of the truth The Scriptures following viz Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9. compared with GeÌ„ 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most playnly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham you leave vnanswered Next folow your reasons against poedobaptistrie the first wherof is this As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with the children of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first beleeved actually and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision Ergo the childreÌ„ of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive the baptisme of water This Argument which you alledge against Paedobaptistrie the very 〈◊〉 serves to confirm it for thus we reason for it observing your termes As it was with Abraham the father of the faythful so must it be with thâ— children of Abraham But Abraham first beleeved and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision he and his children Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeveâ— and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive baptisme of water they and their children Here let the reader consider yf you by this your owne Argument have not yeelded the cause for this is that which we stand for viz that As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his children the beleeving Gentiles Now Abraham beleeved that God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the †seale thereof he himself and all his males yea Isaac of eight dayes old â—om 4. 3 â— Gen. 17. â— 14. â— 27. â— 21. 4. Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeeve and then receive the seale thereof which is Baptisme themselves and their children But if your meaning be this that as Abraham beleeved first after was circumcised so every one of Abrahams seed must first actually beleeve and then be baptised then I must intreat you to shew me when and where this difference was put between the seed of AbrahaÌ„ which descended from him by the course of nature his seed that are of the Gentiles that the former being infants might notwithstaÌ„ding first receive the seal before they did actually beleeve And that the other viz the infants of the Gentiles must first beleeve and after receive the signe surely before the comming of Christ the Lord put no such difference but that such of the Gentiles as did turne to the faith “ their infants were circumcised as well as â—xod 12. the infants of the Iewes After Christs comming the Apostle witnesseth that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the Iewes for he sayth Ephe. 3. 6 * the Gentiles are coinheritors also meaning with the Iewes and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel And therefore the Apostle did not doubt to “ baptise the households with the beleeving parents Act. 16. â— 33. Act. 10. â— I wil answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not God hath purifyed the Gentiles and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham therfore yt is an iniury offered to pollute that is to reject from the coveâ—ant our children whom the Lord hath received Your second â—s this As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admitâ—d into the Church of the old testament so in the new testament the spirituall children â—ust be spiritually circumcised and then be admitted by baptisme into the Church â—f the new testament But the first was signified by the type Ergo the second is â—rified in the truth First If this Argument should hold proportion then it would folow that as circumcision was a seale of the covenant so should baptisme be a â—eale likewise for it is brought in here to answer circumcision as the dore into the Church But you deny * Charaâ— pag. 9 Baptisme to be a seale of the covenant 2. I answere that the carnall children of the Israelites were not admitted to be members of the Church of the old testament by circumcision for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day “ Gen. 17 the covenant apperteyned unto them and therfore were they circumcised for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong Also to the Majors consequent I answer that they which enter into the Lords covenant be they beleevers or their Infants we are to hold them †1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk â— 15. Ier. 1. â— spiritually circumcised and therefore to be partakers of baptisme Concerning your assumption as * Mat. 3. 8. Act. â— 12. 37. repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoyned to the Church of the new Testament so was it of “ Gen. 17 â—
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
there teacheth This visible seale of the new testament is confession as in the â—d testament circumcision was their confession and baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale First you deny a principle of religion and that which formerly you held for in your book of Difference c. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptisme seales of the covenant these are your words The publishing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the seales is onely one concrete action c. for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seales otherwise breaking of bread and baptising are but putting of seales to a blank And thus unstable are you in your wayes 2. What if baptisme be not called a seale yet if it can be proved by scripture that it is a seale we ought so to receive it The sacraments given of God unto the Israelites were called seales as †Rom. 4. 15. 8. circumcision by the Apostle is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith And when God made with Abraham his covenant to be his God and the God of his seed he gave him * Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1â— circumcision a signe thereof which did confirme unto him and to his seed that which God did promise as before the Lord had done to Noah to whoÌ„ he gave the “ Gen. 9. 9-17 rayn-bowe as a signe of his promise that the world should be no more destroyed with water so the Passeover is called a signe Exod. 13. 9. Now if circumcision be a signe and seale of Gods covenant as the Apostle testifieth then it must needs be granted that baptisme succeeding circumcision is also a seale of the Lords covenant though the very word seale be not expressely set downe in the scripture And this the Apostle intimates Act. 2. 39. where he exhorteth the beleevers to be baptised every one in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes for the promise is to you and to your children The Lord commanding his “ Mat. 2. 19. Gospel to be preached to all nations commanded them also to be baptised confirming by this outward signe his covenant to all the beleeving Gentiles and their seed as he had done to Abraham and his seed the same covenant by circumcision * Paul †Cornelius “ Lydia and the Gaylor after they beleeved and had â—ct 9. 17 received the covenant were baptised which confirmed unto them the free * forgivenes of all their synnes by the death of Christ And this is plainly Act. 10. taught us by Peter 1. Epistle 3 21. where he sayth that baptisme now also saveth us Baptisme cannot be sayd to save as any cause thereof Act. 16. â— 31. â—â—k 3. 3. â—ct 2. 38. â—â— 6. 3. â—al 3. 16 â—om 7. 11 Mar. 16. but in this respect that it witnesseth and sealeth unto us from God our salvation that which circumcision did type out to come the same doth baptisme now signifie to be fulfilled in Christ the true †seed of Abraham And as by “ circumcisiion the righteousnes of faith was sealed so by Baptisme salvation is sealed as Christ sayth * he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved Againe Rom. 6. 3. Paul sayth all we that have been baptized into Iesus Christ have beene baptized into his death In which words the Apostle giveth vs to understand that by baptisme the benefits of the death of Christ are on the Lords behalf confirmed unto us And if this be not the signification of baptisme let it be shewed out of the word what els is minded by these phrases baptised into the death of Christ and buried with him by baptisme into his death Thus have I shewed that baptisme is a seal of the new Testament which you deny affirming a new kind of seale thereof viz Confession say the seale of the spirit must go before baptisme Which two in my understanding differ farre one from another for confeession is the act of man as the Apostle sayth * with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation proveth sometime to be Rom. 10. â— Act. 8. 13 hypocriticall as that of Symon Magus was But the baptisme of the holy Ghost is an action of God and is eyther an internall work of the spirit as Mat. 3. 11. or els external by some visible signes and extraordinary guifts Act. 1. 8. 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44. 47. This latter now ceasseth being then given of God for the further confirming of the Gospel in the Churches newly planted until the faith of Christ was fully established amongst the Gentiles and therefore is no ordinary seale of the new Testament given by Christ to be continued unto the end of the world though I confesse those extraordinary giftes of the spirit miracles works done by the Apostles and other of the servants of Christ have still their use in the Church to confirme the truth of God by them published And as for mens confession of the faith that can be no seale of the â—ew Testament because it is imperfect and oftentimes hypocriticall many falling away from the truth which formerly they professed as Demas Nicholas the Deacon and those mentioned in the first epistle of Iohn chap. 2. 19. Now that which must seale Gods covenant unto us for the confirmation of our faith must be certayne and perfect and that from God because it is he that promiseth salvation to all that beleeve therefore it is he that onely can give assurance of his owne covenant And as â—or our confession it is but an outward testification of the grace of God bestowed upon us it can no more be a seale of the new Testament then the profession of the Iewes was of the old And as you require of me â—here in all the scripture baptisme is called a seale so more justly may I demand of you where in all the new Testament that confession is called a seale Besides if confession be a seale of the new Testament then a man may be par taker of the scale that is not of the Church as they that confesse their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints 3. That the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water c. Vnderstanding it as you do of confession then I graunt that such as were never of the Church ar first to make coÌ„fessioÌ„ of their faith to testify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptised Act. 8. 37. 38. but neyther is such confession required of their infants neyther is it a seale of the new Testament as before I have proved Otherwise understanding the seale of the spirit as the Apostle doth Rom. 8 15. 16. Ephe. 1 13. 14. so goeth it before and together with Baptisme in all the elect of God whether infants or of yeares As for that sealing with the spirit of Cornelius company which you instance Act. 10. 47.
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
that is which by the works thereof †seek justification â—l 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. â—or 3. 7. and so were some members of the old church under the law as the Pharisees that * sought to justifie themselves as now they ar that do the like but to hold that the whole church was under condemnation without faith in Christ is an error to be abhord That scripture 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death coÌ„pareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that coÌ„tinued not in al things to fulfil it then much more the ministration of righteousnes shal exceed in glorie which bringeth salvation to them that beleev This is the meaning of the Apost and not to shew that Israel was under condemnation seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ And as they so wee under the Gospel have the law to accuse condemn us if we transgresse it but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Christ are freed from the curse of the law so were the Iewes also Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur eyther before or since Christ but to the “ faythlesse and disobedient both â—s 1 Tim. 1. â— 10. under the old Testament and under the Gospel Finally you say the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iustification by fayth in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iustification Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the disputation of Paul concerning justification is a notable error For where Paul reasoneth against such as mainteyned justification by the works of the law he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holynes for albeit some of the Iewes fel into this error to hold justification by works of the law yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then as wel as now And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification yet fayth in Christ could effect it which I have proved that the old church had in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could â—ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament iâ— the matter or constitution of it was not really holy but onely typically c. I have shewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes not to make them holy and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given and therefore your bould defence against al men that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically hath in it more boldnes then truth the contrary is proved †pag. 23. c. before And therefore your inference is false fiz that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant c. but onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham and afterward assumed written â—mplified by Moses Ioh. 7. 19-23 with Heb. 8. 8. 9. That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed see pag. 20. c. concerning these scriptures in the former Christ charging Iohn 7. 19-23 the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabboth day proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practise reasoning thus if you may circumcise on the Sabboth and not break the law then why may not I as lawfully heal a man this is that Ch. intendeth now because it is sayd ver 22. that Moses gave them circumcision c. it seemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test were given first to Abraham and afterward assumed written by Moses but thaâ— cannot be proved by this place For circumcision was a signe of the promise in Christ not of the law as before is proved In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apostle sheweth that Christ is the Heb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Priests and ther fore his ministerie more excellent then theirs this first hee proveth because this covenant was established upon better promises and then he sheweth the excellency of it compared with the former And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of Ieremy Now concerning the first Testam it was made with the church when the Lord gave his law in Sinai the people did covenant with him saying Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do of Abraham we do not finde that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse as Israel did Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law the covenant of works or old Testament was not first made with him and after examplified by Moses but â—xo 19. 5 24. 3. Lev. 34. â— Dâ—u 5. â— Heb. 9. â— 23. it was †made with Israel as further also may be shewed by the description thereof in Heb. 9. 1-10 which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme. Agayn the Apostle * sayth when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law he toke the blood of calves and of goates and sprinckled al the people saying this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you c. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministerie of Moses And Paul sayth that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham his seed in respect of Christ Now if the law had been geven to Abraham the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of tyme had been of no force And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs Next followes your answer to my objections wherein stil you afferme That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy but tipically that their holynes was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trained or schooled to Christ c. What is here sayd is answered elswhere here I deny that the Iewes holines was onely typical though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Christ whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Israel was called a holy â—od 19. 6 people you answer thus I say that eyther the meaning is that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes or that they by atteyning the end of the law should attayne true holynes in Christ so that this place
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
Mat. 3. 11 man it is administred But if an infant c. be washed with water into the Trinitie I say there is neither An. true matter nor forme And so al infants baptised by Antichrist c. are to renounce it and to receave Christs marke of baptisme c. and when they shal manifest a new creature c. and then be baptised into the Trinitie this is not Anabaptistry but the true apostolick baptisme and so Christ Iohn and Christs Apostles were Anabaptists with you Sir c. for they baptised men that were washed before a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes Heb. 9. 10 c. if it be blasphemy to say Christ John or the 〈◊〉 Apostles were anabaptists though they were oftentymes some of them baptised into the Messiah in type c. so shall it be blasphemy in them that cal the true Christianes Anabaptists c. Sir if you mind wel your comparison it holds not for those washings â—p vnder the law were proper ordinances of the old TestameÌ„t declaring their repentance †and clensing from their dayly sinnes and pollutions by faith Joh. 13 10 in Christ then to come But baptisme whereof we speak is an ordinance of the Gospel and that but * one as their circumcision likewise was and Ephe. 4. 5 therefore being once administered though in some corruption is Anabaptisme to be iterated And it is such a washing as preacheth 〈◊〉 vs the purging of our sinnes by Christ And therefore it is not 〈◊〉 often washings under the law that can make men ANABAPTISTS for you know in what sense people now are called ANABAPTISTS viz. for their reiection of the baptisme of the Gospel which they have received and Baptising themselves agayne as you have put in practise And seing that which was administered in the Popish Assemblies is Baptisme it wil be no blasphemy in vs to cal them ANABAPTISTS that have there with bene once baptised and do recounce it and take to themselves a new of mans invention What els is here sayd is answered before And thus I conclude the confirmation of this fourth Argument that although the POPISH CHVRCHES be apostate the MINISTERY WORSHIP AND GOVERMENT false yet the word and baptisme therein reteayned being the Lords ordinances are not to be reiected with their pollution but purged from these staynes stil to be retayned and with Gods people to be caried with them out of spiritual BABYLON as the Iewes did the vessels of the Lords house out of Babilon of Chaldea For the precept concerning Apostate Churches is †Hos â— Rev. 1â— to take away their fornications and not the things of God polluted therewith V. Argument IF Antichrist be not the author of Baptisme but of some humane devises annexed unto it in the adminstratioÌ„ therof then are we not to pluck vp the wheat with the tares Mat. 13. 29. to cast away that which is Christs with Antichrists but to separate from that which is mans invention and still to retayne that which is of God But to baptise with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19 is from heaven Mat. 21. 25. and not from Antichrist Ergo we ought not to cast it away but those traditions wherewith Antichrist hath polluted it as examples K. Iosias and before him K. Ezechias when both the land and Temple were polluted 〈…〉 ng 21 7. 23. 4. did not pul downe the Temple but appointed the Preists to clense it who did so and brought out all the uncleannes that they had found in the house of God 2 ChroÌ„ 29. 16. 18. and 34. 8. For in reformation of things difference must be put betweene those things whereof God is the authour and such as are devised by man the former is to be purged from all profanation the things stil to be reteyned the other quite to be abolished This rule in all reformation of religion ought to be followed Mr Smyth I answere that as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple the Iewes Ans built it agayne so when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Church then must we build it vp agayne And when he hath destroyed true baptisme then must we rear it up againe therefore seeing Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme and hath reared vp a baptisme of his owne it must therefore be abolished c. R. Clyfton First I answere that baptisme in apostate Churches though it be polluted yet can not be sayd to be vtterly destroyed And therefore your answer is not sufficient to prove the rebaptising of them that were baptised in the Antichristian assemblies 2. In reiecting of that baptisme altogether and baptising a new you doe renounce that which is true therin by your owne confession viz. To wash with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost in that in your new baptising of your selves you repeate it agayne which you ought not if it be of God and so indeed you reteyne not any truth in it at all 3. As for your comparison of a false Church or Ministery with baptisme it is not equal for if you vnderstand by false Church and Ministry that which is devised by man onely then the constitutions thereof are not of Gods ordinance as in Iereboams Preists and as in Provincial or Diocesan Churches wherein not one beame rafter or stone is appointed by the lord and therefore can not be reteyned with the purging away of the corruptions therof But in baptisme I meane that which is administred in Popery there remaynes the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie which you with the tares pluck vp and cast in to the fyre 4. Wheras you say That in the false baptisme Church and Ministery the corruptions ar essential and the truth onely accidental and those accidental truthes must â—â— reserved and iterated I demaunde of you what be these accidental truthes in a false Baptisme Church and Ministery that are to be iterated and how you prove such iteration of accidents in baptisme if you say That to baptise with water into the name of the father c. be an accident to baptisme then is it not of the essence therof but Christ maketh this applied to a right subject the †Mat. 2â— 19. form of baptism And your self a little before have so * Characâ— pag. â—4 written â—ow if it be of the forme which gives the being of the thing how is it an accidet for you say necessarily for having true baptism we must repeat washing into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost which are but accidents And further you say a Turke so washed is not baptised How prove you this repeating of washing into the name of the Trinitie c. and how doth the baptising of a Turke prove this forme of washing to be an accident to the ceremony of baptisme seing
churches degenerate from the truth remaynes some remnants of Gods ordinances that were given to his church The covenant is spoken of and preached in those Apostate churches And baptisme likewise administred but not in that puritie and light as they are in true churches And as in the heavens when the sunne is shadowed with clouds or mist the proportion of it may be discovered in the mist or cloudes be perceived to be the sunne So is the covenant of God and the seal thereof wading through those foggie mysts of Popish errors and Antichristian superstitions discerned seen to be from heaven of al the people of God whose harts the Lord opens to apply them aright Which if it were not so God could not have his people in Babylon or church in the wildernes As you take upon you to set up a true church as you say but we say a false church An. wil not be sayd to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel c. for you in your self conceitednes wil reiect them as Heretiques if there be any that dare so say of you forsooth So the Anabaptists as you cal them do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had â—verthrowen To passe by the manner of your speeches which well might be amended Rep. I answer first that for the setting up of churches it is the Lords work and not ours †Ioh. 10. who gathereth his sheep into his fold and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to joyne together to walk in his ordinances who also inableth us hereunto accepteth us to be his people and * Eph. 2. to be citizens with the Sainctes and houshold of God Therefore it cannot properly be sayd of us that we sett up a church but that God buyldeth us up to be his Temple And being thus “ Mat. â— 20. gathered together in his name we have the †Mat. 2â— 20. promise of his presence and are assured of our standing and that we are a true visible church of Iesus Christ though it please you to call us a false church and doubt not to approve our calling against you and al our adversaries And whereas you account it self conceiptednes in us to reject for Hereticks such as bring in damnable Heresies it were good for them whom we so reject to look into their estate and not wilfully to abyde in their errors to their perdition For the Anabaptists whom you say do not set up a new covenant and Gospel though they set up a new baptisme What they do both their writings and practise shewes but howsoever they perswade themselves to retayne the old covenant and Gospel yet is it not so for whosoever receives not that Gospel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham and pretends to receive a Gospel or covenant they receive a new covenant and Gospel But the Anabaptists receive not the Gospel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant Therefore it is a new covenant and Gospel which they receive For that Covenant which was given to Abraham was given to him and to his seed to the Iewes and their seed but the covenant which the Anabaptists plead for is a covenaÌ„t that should be made to the parents and not to their seed therefore is not the same but a new and strange Gospel never heard of in the dayes of Abraham Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a sealed covenant to * Gen. 1â— 10. 13. The Aâ— baptists â—ny baptisâ— to be a seâ— of the covâ—nant indeed tâ— have no outward sâ— led covanâ— at al. him and to his natural seed but that covenant which the Anabaptists wil enter into and receive is an unsealed covenant at least but sealed onely to the parents and not to their seed and so is not the same but a new Gospel In my former answer I sayd that it can not be shewed that any man did ever baptise him self without special commandement from God c. and you thus replie I say as much as you have to set up a true Church wherein you answere not directly to the point but shift it of with saying that you have as much power to set vp baptisme or baptise your selfe as we to set vp a Church for suppose we have not this power to set vp a Church then how is your action of baptising your selfe iustified But how we have power for that we have done I have formerly shewed viz. that we have power by the Lords commaundement to * come out of babylon to obey the truth reveiled â—ev 18. vnto vs and to ioyne together in the †feloship of the Gospel to walk in al the wayes of God This is that we can do and all that we do is by Phil. 1. 5. divine commaundement for if the Lord had not so inioyned vs our coming together should have bene but an assembly of our owne devise and no Temple for the Lord. Now if you wil make your argument which stands vpon comparison answerable you must bring like warrant from the Scripture that you being vnbaptised may baptise your selfe or els that which we have done shal be iustified to be of God and your baptisme prove but a vayne fansie Further I desire it may be shewed that baptisme which is a part of the worke of the Ministery can lawfully and by warrant from God be administred by any but eyther by extraordinary authority as by Iohn Ananias the Apostles Prophets Evangelists or ordinary as by Pastors and Teachers Or that a person vnbaptised without speciall commaundement from heaven for ordinary rule there is none may baptise himselfe and having so done without any further calling to office take vpon him to baptise others And to do this I would knowe if it be Cor. 4. 6 not †to presume above that which is written For if you that baptise your self being but an ordinary man may this do then may an other do the like and so every one baptise himselfe You that stand so much for commaundement and example shew vs eyther of these two if you can or any sound reason out of the word or els consider wel if that you be not fallen into that which you would condemne in others viz. the practising of an vnwarrantable action But you say A true Church cannot be erected without baptisme c. If this be so as you say then eyther that baptisme which we receaved in the Antichristian assemblyes is baptisme or els one that is no member of a Church may induce the forme as you cal it vpon Disciples to make them a Church and this have we neyther commaundement nor example for He that was the first Minister of baptisme stode then a member of the Church of the Iewes had also commaundement to baptise but this new doctrine teacheth that one that was never
posteriety of such parents as were members of the Church planted by the Apostles els could we not have Apostated 2. That people which the Apostles gathered into Churches were never baptised And baptisme coming in steed of circumcision and being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant it was fit that they which beleeved and became the seed of Abrah should so enter in to covenaÌ„t they their seed as he his seed entered that is as he his were received in by circuÌ„cision so they theirs should be receved in by baptisme Act. 2. 38. 41. 8. 38. But we are a people that ar already baptised the seed of them that were baptised had received the Gospel And although through Antichrists deceaveablenes both we and they were taynted with many corruptions yet had they or might have in that Apostasie and so we also so much faith as thereby both we and they might become the people of God Apoc 18. 4. And coÌ„cerning the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches here it is to be noted that the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ of Churches set down by the Apostles was by the imediate directioÌ„ of the H. Ghost And so serveth for a coÌ„tinual rule of establishing Churches to th' 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. 6. 14. But the constituting of Churches now after the defection of Antichrist maâ—â— more properly be called a repayring then a constituting of Churches which through Apostacy have bene ruinated or a gathering together of the dispersed sheepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Churches the patterne 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 And so it wil not follow as is aledged that the receiving in of members into our Churches necessaryly must be by baptisme as in the primitive tyme it was except onely of such persons as have not bene baptised before And herein I take it lieth the deceat of this Argument that it putteth no difference between the people of God coming ouâ— of Babylon and them that came to the fayth from amongst the Gentiles equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an apostate Church the other no Church the one partaker of the word sacraments though with much corruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neyther at all the one professing Christ teaching many truthes of God so many as the elect thereby might coÌ„e to faith Apo 18. 4. The other neyther professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God whereby any might be converted to Christ and become Gods people in that estate of Gentilisme And thus having made playne the different estate of the first planted Churches and ours in Apostacy I answere 1. That Churches now are to be constituted if repayring be not a fitter speach as in the Apostles tymes that all such as are received in as meÌ„bers being vnbaptised must be received in by baptisme but for such as were baptised in Apostate Churches their repentance is sufficient without rebaptization as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vpon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were received of the Church without any new circumcision And therefore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Christ and not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could do no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptised but if they had mett with any that before had bene baptised into the name of Christ as they that received the baptisme of Iohn and as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptised them And therefore the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptised Mr Smyth As in the former point for baptising of infants you are compelled to runne to the old Testament and from thence to fetch the cheif corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new testament of Christ c. and set vs againe to schoole to Moses as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach vs his new Testament but we must go learne the new Testament of the old Testament Christ of Moses the Gospel of the law c. Rich Clifton Before you come to answer my exception against your reason you prefix Answ as it were for a ground certayn thinges which you intreat me and al the Seperation especeally the leaders wel to weigh and ponder and not to be ashamed to learn of their inferiors In which your great observation 1. you charge me to be compelled to runne to the old Testament c. What my answere is to this your reason shal be iustified Now where you except about the former point for baptising of infants against my running to the old TestameÌ„t to fetch my cheif corner stone c. If I have done evil herein beare witnes of it but if I have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles who proved that which they taught by the Scriptures of the old Testament why impute you this unto me to disgrace search these * Mat. â— 23. 2. â— 15. 28. 3. 22. â— 32. Joh. 23. 5. 3â— Luk. 24. 2â— Act. 2. 2â— 3. 22. 4 25. 26. 18. 28. Roâ— 4 3 6. 7. 9. â— 11 with dâ—vers otheâ— places quoted in the margent and see if the things of the new testament were not proved out of the old Yet notwithstanding I have used other reasons from the Scriptures of the new Testament to prove the baptising of infants as in my answer is to be seen But my corner stone as you please to call it fetched from the old testament is so ponderous as you can not remove it Concerning the forsaking of the new Testament it is not I but your self Mr Smyth that sinns therin by casting the children of beleevers out of the covenant of salvation And as towching the scriptures of Moses and the Prophets Christ himself set us to schoole to learne of them the things †Ioh. 5. 39 that are witten of him and yet this you fault in me as if it were not lawful to prove doctrines and ordinances of the new Testament out of Moses Characteâ— pag. 44. the Prophets But I pray you Sir that findes fault to be set againe to the schoole to Moses why say you “ we must attayne to and learne all that the school-Maister of the old testament could teach vs. Do not you herein set us to school to Moses But it seemes you are past Moses teaching I would wish you were not past Christs also The old Testament is not so abrogated that withal the †writings of Moses and of the 2 Tim. 3. â— 17. Pet. 1. 9. 21. Prophets cease to be in force
to Baptisme by reason of the fayth Repl. of some of their Auncestors that were faythful then are they the true matter of the visible church c. We do not say that the Infants of the church of Rome have tytle to An. Baptisme by reason of their Ancestors fayth but do afferme that in respect of that Apostatical standing neither infants nor their parents have right to any of Gods ordinances neither is it inough that people be elected and thereby to have right to Gods covenant c. before God but to be members of the visible church and partakers of the holy things there must be a * Rev. 18. 4 visible going out of Babylon “ 2 Cor. 6. â—6 fâ—r what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols the vessels of the Lord must be caried out to Ierusalem then are they in their due place and shal have their true vse which in their Romish standing they could not have albeit in Babylon they were the vessels of the Lord. And herein are you deceived that if any of the ordinances of God be reteyned in the hands of Autichristians these ordinances must eyther make them a true visible Church or be none of his and when they are brought out thence have no vse These thing may also answer that which followes For upon this that we deny Baptisme administred in Poperie to be iterated you would conclude these absurdities to follow viz. That infants of the Church of Rome are a true visible Ch in the coÌ„stitutioÌ„ essential Repl. causes therof That the Church in the new testameÌ„t coÌ„meth by successioÌ„ of carnal genealogie through the church of Rome to our dayes That the matter of the church viz. Infants descending of baptised parents is by genealogie the form of the Church viz. baptism vpon those infants is by descent and therefore the Church is by succession I demaund why may not the Ministerie be by succession as wel as the Church and England and Rome true Churches their Ministery true c. To all which particulars I answer thus 1. Infants may be members Ans of a visible Church but that a visible Church can stand of infants onely we deny 2. Neyther Infants nor the elder sort standing in Antichristianism can be the matter of a true visible Church being so looked vpon according to that estate and respect 3. Baptisme which you would have the form hath his true use in the visible Church of Christ and to Gods people 4. let the people of God in Babylon and the Baptisme that there they receive be compared with Gods people in the apostate Church of Israel with their circumcision And it will appeare that the infants of the Church of Rome are not a true visible Church in the essential causes therof any more or otherwise then as they were in Israel CoÌ„cerning the Churches successioÌ„ by carnal genealogie I answer that as the covenaÌ„t was made with AbrahaÌ„ and his seed so vnder the Gospell doth the promise belong to the parents their childreÌ„ And that God had “ Apoc. 14. 4. his people in all the tymes of Popery that were within his covenant Neyther is this to hold succession of visible Churches but to vse your terme a succession of true beleevers in all ages though not alwayes known in publick it being the lot of the †Rev. 1. 13. 14. Church to be persequuted by the Dragon and driven to flee into the wildernes for a time times half a time And therefore seing the matter of the visible Church is not alwayes nor otherwise seen to descend from baptised persos by genealogie then as it did from parents circumcised in Israel there can be no other succession visible of the Church or Ministerie then is incident to such estate but as in Israel there was * a breaking off of both so hath King 12 33. â—ev 11. 7. 12. 14. â— 13. 7. 8. it fallen out under the new Testament a †surceasing of succession of true visible Churches and of the true Ministerie in the apostasie of Antichrist And this may satisfie you why we may not returne back againe to churches continuing in Apostasie But where you say you hear some are mynded to take up their former ministerie and returne back againe into England You should have done wel eyther to have forewarned such if you knew in them a purpose to sinne els not so easily to have received the report thereof to make it publike and so to cause suspition to arise against any brother undeservedly For myne own part I know none of the church to have any such thoughts If any that have left the fayth as you have done and departed from the church or for their sinne justly cast out so do purpose what is that to us look to it your selves And truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retayne the church and Ministerie of England as to retayne the baptisme and when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of England I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church Ministerie of England c. It may be you speak truer of your estate then you think But whatsoever Ans your perswasion is I mynd a difference to be put between baptisme administred in churches standing in Apostasie and the constitution and ministerie of these churches For baptisme being the ordinance of God may not be repeated as before is proved but those Assemblies that consist of confused multitudes and are not set in the wayes of God that have a false Ministerie and worship we have a speciall commandement * to separate Rev. 18. 4 Cor. 6. 17. from as we have from al corruptions of Gods ordinances but in no scripture to reject the ordinances themselves for any pollution that is upon them Now it is further to be remembred that we in retayning baptisme do not retayn the corruptions wherewith it was administred but that which is of God therein Neyther do we hold it lawful for them that are come out of Babylon to returne thither to fetch Baptisme And to make this difference to appeare more playnly Let be considered the example of those Israelites that returned to Ierusalem who cast not of theire circumcision yet might they not iustify for true that apostate Church or Ministery from which they did separate or continue in the coÌ„munion thereof without sinne But because I know the Ministerie and Church of England is false therefore it must needs be that Baptisme which is the forme of the Church essentially c. Repl. For the Ministerie of the Church of England whether it be true or false Ans is not the thing controverted between you and me but that baptisme in an apostate Church is false essentially I deny and your self confesseth * Charâ— pag. 35. that if it be administred by Antichrist to such as confesse their faith and sinnes it were true and not to be repeated which
opinion of yours can not stand if the essence of baptisme be destroyed For your wish that the Lord would open all our eyes of the separation to see and our harts to understand that all the old Testament was carnal to type out to teach them heavenly things therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs the new Testament c. It hath pleased God and we are thankful for it to open our eyes to discern of your carnal doctrine to understaÌ„d the truth which you labor to obscure by your straÌ„ge expositioÌ„s As for the old Test which you cal carnal the church carnal I tel you agayn and againe that al the ordinances under the old testament were spiritual in their ordination and right vse as the †Rom. 7 law it self is holy spiritual and therefore are called “ Heb. â— ordinances of religion and the Tabernacle Mikdasch to teach that it was of an holy vse for the Lord. The old †Ioh. 1â— Ephe. â— 19. 3. 1 Cor. 10 4. Eph. 4 Church also was a spiritual house notwithstanding that the first testament had ordinances of religion which did shadow forth things to come for in substance both it and the Church under the Gospel are * Heb. 1. 10. the same onely differing in the outward administration of the covenant To the former Church holy things were administred under types and figures to the latter more simply and in the playn manifestation of the truth Now to prove your carnal and typicall Church you say The matter of the old Church was a carnal Israelite and the forme carnal circumcision Re. a carnal seal Gen. 17. 10-14 But the matter of the Church of the new Testament is a true Israelite the forme is the circumcision of the hart a new creature the holy spirit of promise whereby we are sealed which is manifested by confession baptism in water Act. 10. 47. Ephe. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 27. 6. 15. Io. 3. 5. Mat. 3. 6. RoÌ„ 10. 9. Act 8. 36. 37. c. Concerning your carnal matter and forme I haue answered pag. 12. and have also proved that God did require of that his people Israel to be †Exo. â— holy and “ RoÌ„ 2. 29. Dâ— 10. 16 Jer. 4. 4 Ans spiritual And for the forme of the old Church I have shewed likewise that they became * Gen. Deut. 2â— 10 15. a Church people of God by vertue of Gods covenant made with them wherevnto circumcision was added as a seal to coÌ„firme the same which they also received pag. 12. 13. 23. c. The form of the Church can never be wanting the Church continuing to be a Church but circuÌ„cision may be wanting and was wanting to all the Israelites 〈◊〉 in the wildernes by all that space of 40. yeres and yet I hope they were 〈…〉 bers of his “ Psal 43. Church all that time notwithstanding That which you set downe for the forme of the new testament viz. Circumcision of the hart a new creature and the spirit of Christ is internal proper to every true member both of the old Church and new yea this forme if it be so called belongs to Gods people in Babylon and to all the members of the invisible Church but that outward forme of a visible Church which we are to know it by must be visible and such as we can discerne them to be a people of God from all other assemblies But this new creature and inward graces you wil say are manifested by confession and baptisme in water so may it also where baptisme is not had as it might be in Israel when they could not have circumcision Also the forme of the Church must be one indivisible thing common to the whol that gives the being thereof as before I have observed but confession and baptisme as it is particularly applyed to every member as to the * Eunuch Paul c. so may it rest in one man if all the rest should dye or fall away who could â—ct 8. â— 9. 18 not be a Church and yet he hath that which you set down to be the form of the Church Wherefore Gods people ioyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel must have one general form whereby they receive the denominatioÌ„ of a Church that is their solemn eÌ„tring into coÌ„munioÌ„ vnder the covenant of the Lord vniting together to walk in all his wayes to be his â—eu 29. â— 13. â— 18. 20 â—i 1. 5. â— 2. 42 â—ifferenc â—he preâ— people which all that ar afterward †added to the Church must promise to observe And such a coÌ„munion do we hold for a Church so “ did you For as many stones may be heweÌ„ squared so be fit matter for an house yet have not those stones the denomination of an house vntil they be ioyned together in one forme No more people confessing Christ are to beheld a visible Church vntill they be ioyned together in such a forme as Christ hath commaunded But to follow you in your comparison of these two Churches speaking of the Iewes thus you say Their carnall Church in the matter and forme came by carnall genealogie and so they all of them were gendered vnto bondage vnder the rudiments of the world Gal. 4. 24 -25 vnder the carnal Testament Our Church in the matter forme thereof is by spirituall generation that is the genealogie of the faithful of Abraham the father of vs all Gal 3. 7. 9. 14. RoÌ„ 4. 10. 11. Their parents in that carnal Church was carnal Abraham and carnal Agar c. our spiritual parent is AbrahaÌ„ spiritual c. Their Ministery was a carnal Ministery by carnal genealogie c. First I deny that eyther the matter or forme of the Church of the â—â— Iewes came by carnal genealogie as you apply it They were made a Church and people of God through the everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham and his seede els could not the Proselyts and their children have bene matter of that old Church seing they descended not by carnall genealogie from Abraham Agayne that Church must be of the same nature with the covenant which gives the being thereof but this †Deut. 13. coÌ„f wâ— Luke 1. 7â— 73. 74. Cor 6. 1â— covenant is spirituall Ergo the Church also is spirituall That place of Gal. 4. 24. 25. which you cyte to prove that old Church to be carnal you missaply as before I have shewed pag 14. Secondly I deny that Hagar was the mother of the Israelites after the flesh though Abraham was their father neyther was Ismael the type of the Israelits as they were by nature the seede of Abraham but of such Israelits and others vnder the Gospel that by the works of the law sought to be iustified whereby they came in bondage to the law as the Apostle witnesseth See the exposition of Gal. 4. 24. 25. in pag. 14.
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
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.
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