merciful promise made to them but what is this to prove that Antic are beloved vnder the covenant for their carnal line descending from a beleving auncestor or if that were granted how doth it follow that the baptisme visibly receaved in the Antich false Chu is true baptisme sealing vp the covenant to them that the L. converteth in the false Chu No we have already proved that the baptisme is essentially false none of Chr. therfor it is the character or mark of the beast openly retained in the forhead of al the subjects of Antic who professing themselves to be of that baptisme do professe theÌ„selves to be of that body for of that body they are of whose baptisme they are of that baptisme they are of whose body they are 1. Cor. 12.13 Eph. 4.4 Gal. 3.27 we have also proved that the L. true baptisme doth not aperteyne to the carnal line but only to them that are of Abrah faith that is actually beleeving to justification shewing the faith of Abraham by the works of Abrah Lastly wheras you fetch the title to the covenant 〈◊〉 to baptisme for infants in the false Chu from some auncestor beleving 40. generations happily before acording to that Exo. 20. that the L. sheweth mercy to 1000. generations of them that love him I answer 3. things 1. you must prove that some off our predecessors had true actual saith were members of true Ch. this you must prove for every member you receave in without baptisme therby to assure you that he had title to the covenaÌ„t to baptisme by his carnal line 2. you must by the same reason receave by baptisme into the true Chu if you can come by theÌ„ al the infants of the Thessalonians the Ephesians the Galatians the Colossians the Philippians the Chu of Asia that did somtime beleve 3. I deny that you expound the place Exo. 22. truly For the L. directly doth require that they vpon whom hee sheweth mercy should feare him keep his commaundem I do vtterly deny that ever the fore-Fathers of the English nation beleved you can never prove it For that which you say that seing we are Apostates therfor it followeth that somtyme we or our auncesters had the truth I wonder at you for so saying for we are departed froÌ„ the faith of the Scriptures not from the faith of our auncestors who never a one of them at any tyme beleved visibly in a true constituted Chu Thus through Gods providence blessing I am come to a happy end of answering your writing wherin I praise the L. for his mercy I have receved such assurance of the truth as that you al the earth shal never be able to wring it out of my hart hands therfor I desire you Sir al the leaders of the Seperation to weigh seriously even betwixt the L. their own harts vpon their beds this which is written I doubt not but I may erre in particulars I have resolved to be vile befor men in confessing my erors but for the maine points in controversy the cause I defend it is the most vndoubted most evident â—oth that ever was revealed to me therfor as you love the L. his truth the people that depend vpon you seek it out embrace it resist it not but if we bee in error shew it vnto vs why shal we perish through your default wil not the L. require our blood at your hand are we not your countrymen al of vs in exile for the common truths we hold out against Antich Answer we beseech you in the L nay we adjure you in the Lord if we be in error it is ignorantly of a desire to see the truth to feare the L Thus hoping speedily either to heare an answer to this writing or to see you yeeld to the truth which I vnfeynedly ask of the Lo for you my countrymen I end writing this 24. of March 1608. Iohn Smyth Rich. Clifton If you reply shew your strength that we may make an end of these vncomfortable oppositions for if I see not weight in your reasons I wil bestow no more labour Ioh. Smyth Sir ther may be weight in my reasons you happily either cannot through prejudice or wil not through some sinister respect se the weight of them I pray you be not charmed by evil counsel but either shew me my 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 shal discharg a good conscience If you do not answer among you al I proclayme you are subtilly blind lead the blind after you into the ditch FINIS
that which is appointed to perdition to perdition let it goe I wil never vse meanes to support it Finally although I have professed my readines publiquely privately to forsake my errors vppon their discovery as I have already practised for the which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never professed my readines to bee perverted from the truth which you cal heresy therfore if you did vndertake to write vppon this ground you might wel have spared your paynes saved your self from so greevous a sinne as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth by blessing your labours in opugning at this breefly shal suffice for your preface general Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. That infants are not to bee Baptised Answere Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of Infants next after him Pelagius the heretike against whom Augustine others of the auncient Fathers have opposed condemned for heresy that according to the Scriptures which by Gods grace we shal together with them also fâ—rther manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vndertake then answere the reasons to the contrary Gen. 17.20 God made his covenant to Abraham to his seed from whence I reason thus 2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to bee sealed to him to al his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therefor that is commaunded to be fealed to vs c to our seede yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrahams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17.10.11.12 The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2.39 sayth the promise is made to you to your children to al that are a farre of as many as the Lord our God shal cal In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant promisse that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive were baptised into And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17.4 also Gal. 3.13.4 Christ is said to redemne vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ies Chr. that wee might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8.9 Now then if wee bee partakers of the same covenant for otherwise Abrahams covenant should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.7 seing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a tyme Rom. 11 15.17.20 it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs to our infants els is it not the same that by the commaundement of God For the abolishing of circumcision the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospel doth not abrogate or disanulle the commaundement of sealing the covenant to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seal thereof to them to their seede as that did to Abraham to his seede The outward ceremonie onely changed Iohn Smyth Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point affirming that baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius whom Augustine others refuted condemned for heresy that by Scripture I say that one heretique condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answere I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Ciprian Origen Nazianzen Ambrose many others were almost as grosse heretiques if he be an heretique that holdeth an heresy as Auxentius Pelagius you your selves account theÌ„ all Antichristians therfor the auncient practise of pedobaptistry in auncient antichristian Churches is no more to be respected then the auncient practise of the Prelacy read prayer in the fame but these are but Florishes let vs heare your arguments from the Scripture proving 1. That infants are to be baptised Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10 is framed thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him to al his seed yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel do receave is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfor it is commaunded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea eveÌ„ to our infaÌ„ts for so was it to Abrahams To this argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments for a covenant testament is al one in the originals though the English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham his carnal seed of that covenant was circumcision a seale another covenant made with AbrahaÌ„ his Spiritual seed of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seale for the carnall covenant had a carnal seale vppon the carnal seed the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seale vppon the Spiritual seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnal seale could not seale vp the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed for to say so is to leap over the hedg to make a disproportion betwixt the type the truth These things being thus distinguished let theÌ„ bee remembred applyed orderly the argument wil appeare of no value for the major is thus to be vnderstood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with AbrahaÌ„ his carnal seed was to be sealed vp to his infants with a carnal seale viz circumcision if it be not so vnderstood it is false Now the minor if it be assumed out of the major as it must be els it is a Sophisme is very false flatly contradictory to the Scripture for we vnder the gospel do not receave that carnal covenant which was made to Abraham his carnal seed whereof circumcision was the carnal seale but that carnal covenant seale together with the subject of that seale viz a male of 8. dayes old is taken away by Christs crosse in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant the Spiritual seale viz the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seale the Spiritual infant viz a new borne babe in Christ in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed signified by that carnal infant That al these particulars are so I prove vnto you plainly by these places of Scripture 1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham Gal.
so true holines that is Faith repentance was not required to the mēbers or matter of the Church of the old Testament 3. Thirdly that which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected or produced by the walking or communion of the Church off the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the Church of the Old Testament Iustification Faith Sanctification repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the Church of the Old Testament Heb. 9.9 Gal. 2.15.16 Ergo justification Faith Sanctification repentance were not required to the constitution of the Church of the old Testament so by consequent the members of the Church of the Old Testament were not truly holy in their constitution 4. That which brought not perfection life to the members presupposed not Fayth repentance to the members and so not reall or true holynes But the Old Testament the Law the obedience of the Law brought not perfection life to the members of the Church of the old Testament Heb. 7.19 Gal. 3.21 Ergo The Old Testament or the Law or the Church of the old Testament did not presuppose Fayth Repentance or true Holynes in the members 5. That which was a Schoolmr only to teach Christ did not presuppose that the Schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Faith repentance The law or old Testament was a Schoolmr only to teach Chr Gal. 3.14 Rom. 10.3.4 Ergo The Law or Old Testament did not presuppose that the Schollers had learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Fayth and Repentance 6. That which was hidden kept secreat was a Mystery not revealed the members of the Church of the old Testament in their constitution were not indued withal Faith or obedience to the gospel was a mistery not revealed but kept secreat from the beginning Gal. 3.23 Rom. 16.25 Ergo The members of the Church of the Old Testament were not indued with Fayth or obedience to the gospel in their constitution 7. Ther is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Rom. 8.1 Ther is condemnation to them that are vnder the Law Gal. 3.10 For it is the Ministery of death or condemnation 2. Cor. 3.7 Ergo The Law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ or they that are vnder the Law are not in Christ so the members of the church of the old Testament were not truly holy Finally the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes Galatians concerning justification by Faith in Christ without the workes of the Law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth Teaching that seing the vtmost obedience of the Law did not effect or produce justification therfor of necessity it followeth that the Law or old Testament did not presuppose it or true holines in the members therof For it had been a vanity to have given them a Law which should not or could not preserve produce that which was in them in ther first constitution wherfor I doe bouldly defend against all men that the Church of the Old Testament in the matter or constitution of it was not really Holy but only Typically therfor the members therof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or sanctified or in actual possession of that everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it in that typical Testament given to Abraham afterward assumed written amplified by Moses Ioh. 7 19-23 compared with Heb. 8.8.9 Having sufficiently confirmed this truth I returne in particular to answer your objections saying stil that the nation of the Iewes was holy not truly but typically that their holines was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trayned vp or Schooled to Christ being by all the ceremonial law old Testament or carnal commaundement as it were by so many meanes consecrated or dedicated to that holy cad purpose which was tiped shadowed by those figures similitudes of heavenly things Therfor as the word sanctifying or hallowying is vsually taken in the old Testamēt for the setting of any thing apart to a holy vse so were the people of Israel holy even an holy natiō above al the nations of the Earth See Exod. 19.10.14.15 Iob. 1.5 Deu. 14 1-4 compared with Act. 21.28 for the place which you aledg Ex. 19.6 to prove the Israelites an holy nation I say that either the meaning is that they were typically holy trayned vp to holines or that they by attayning the end of the law should attayne true holines in Christ So that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holines of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham So that though infants be vnder offer of the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ yet shal not baptisme be administred vppon them as your consequent doth import bicause that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually feased vppon that external covenant therefore none in the New Testament shal be baptized but those that are actually possessed of the covenant of the New Testament but the actual possession of the promise is by obedience to the Faith For by Faith saith the Apostle Gal. 3.14 we receave the promise of the Spirit we receave the Spirit by the hearing of Faith preached Gal. 3.2 Faith cometh by hearing of the word preached Rom. 10.17 Secondly I answer concerning the consequent of your Majors consequent that it shal not follow that bicause children are vnder the covenant as you suppose but we deny that therfor they thal have the outward signe or seale therof for you know vnder the law the females were actually vnder the covenant of the old Testamēt yet were not signed with the seale before the law was given al that were actualy vnder the covenant vntil the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seale therof if you say in opposition to the circumcision of the female that she was vncapable of it I answer the L. had abundance of Spirit if it had been his wil that al vnder the covenant should be pertakers of the signe or the seale therof he could in wisdom would vndoubtedly have appointed such an external signe or seale that might have bene administred vppon al vnder the covenant but seing the L. chose out the male only for circumcision the by he purposed to teach in a type that only the male that is one that is in Christ shal be sealed with the Spirit of promise vnder the new Test But if you say in oposition to that before the Law that ther was no seale or signe appointed by God for them vnder the covenant bicause the L. thought it not meet or needful I say that herby it apeareth that to be vnder the covenāt was not
other when we want light as with the Iewes who deny the new Testament in other like occasions Besides the trinity of persons vnity of essence in the Godhead is proved by playne words 1. Iohn 5.7 hereby the Homoiousia of Arrius is confuted as also Phil. 2.6 for the word person it is Heb. 1.3 the word Godhead is Roman 1.20 So that hereby you gett nothing but I say still that whatsoever cannot bee playnly shewed in the New Testament is not needfull for vs to know in the New Testament if it bee an ordinance of the New Testament as baptisme is but the trinity vnity is no part of the New Testament more then of the Old Testament being common to both may be sought out of both so any other common truth Finally I say shew mee any necessary consequence for baptizing infants eyther out of the Old Testament or New Testament I yeeld but I desire it may wel bee observed first that you are driven to consequents for this matter therein simple witted people may easily bee mislead by a Logician Secondly that the Gospel of Christ is for babes Mat. 11.25 therefore the most simple person is capable of it so ther shal need no obscure consequents out of it for they are not able to comprehend them lastly that the consequents that are brought I avouch to be meer hallucinatious sophismes as I have already declared shal doe hereafter more fully as they shal be produced Your second answer exception is that if want of Special precept example barre infants from baptisme it shal also barre weomen from the Lords Supper I deny it for in playne termes it is said 1. Corinth 11.28 Let Anthropos viz eyther man or woman eate after examination Gal. 3.28 Ther is neither male nor female in Christ Iesus but al are one 1. Corinth 10.17 wee that aâ—e many are one bread one body being al pertakers of one bread 1. Corinth 12.13 whee have been al made to drink into one Spirit Dorcas is a Disciple Act 9.36 the Disciples meet together to break bread Act. 20.7 the Disciples continned in breaking bread Act. 2.41.42 being first 3000. then 5000. amongst whom ther was Sapphyra the VVidowes of the Grecians Act. 2.41 5.1 6.1 so this exception is nothing to the purpose Your third answer exception followeth wherein you doe affirme that there is both precept example for baptising infants the Commaundement is Mat 18.19 The example is of the infants of Lydra the Keper of the prison Act. 16.15.33 To these I have already given answer in the 6. 7. reasons going before therefore hold it needles to repeat it heer againe onely one thing is heer to bee answered that you object viz That the Law once given of sealing the infants aswel as parents must bee retayned except a repeale can bee shewed I answer besides that baptisme is not the seale of the New Testament but the Spirit that circumcision was not a seale of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ but of the Old Testament that when Princes common wealths make Lawes to endure but for a tyme when the tyme is expired then they are repealed if they be not reestablished So though it were graunted that infants of the Old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in respect of Chr. which I peremptorily deny yet seing the tyme of circumcision is exspired therfor infants are not now to be sealed as you say by baptisme for the exspiring of the tyme is the repealing of the Law therfor vntil you can shew that baptisme of infants male female is in the new Testament established I wil desend that they are not to be baptized especialy the female infants which were never appointed to be circumcised but I count these but slender exceptions In the last place you require proof that only persons that confessed their sinnes their faith were to be baptized I prove it vnto you thus 1. They only were to be baptized that Christ commaunded to be baptized Persons made Disciples by teaching were only commaunded to bee baptized by Christ Mat. 28.19 Ergo persons made Disciples by teaching were only to be baptized The minor of this argument is evident Mat. 28.10 wher this being the affirmative you shal make then Disciples by teaching them then baptise theÌ„ this must needes be the negative you shal not baptise them til you have made them Discipâ—es by teaching so persons taught were baptized they only 2. Againe considering that in every affirmative ther is included a negative therfor whersoever an example is that persons coÌ„fessing the r sinnes their faith were baptiâ—ed theâ— is signified that those that did not confesse their sins their Faith were 〈◊〉 baptized For wee must know that the body is one the Fayth is one the Spirit one the baptisme one the seed one that there is not two in Christ but one For in the new Testament they know God from the least vnto the greatest Heb. 8.11 they are al taugit of God Ioh. 6.45 the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater then Iohn Mat. 11.11 this do I take to be a plaine proof of the point which you desire You say further that the reason why Iohn baptized no children is for that they offered them not wel I say that his preaching was such as peremptorily excluded infants For it was the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes Marc. 1.4 he required confession of sinnes repentance of them that he baptized Mat. 3 6-11 compared with Luk. 7.29.30 otherwise he would not baptise them therfor Chr doctryne is the same with Iohns Mar. 1.15 both therby signified vnto their hearers that whosoever would be baptized enter into the Kingdome of God must repent beleeve the gospel For being not regenerate though they were Iewes begotten of Faithful parents yet they could not enter into the Kingdome of God Ioh. 3.3.5 heer it would bee considered vnto whome Christ Iohn Baptist preached did he not preach vnto the Iewes the Lords owne holy people yet he said repent beleeve required of them amendement of life Now if they had been truly regenerate in their comunion as is pleaded Iohn needed not thus have preached nor Christ have required such conditions of them but onely they might in few words have said come you Faithful beleeving Iewes you all your infants be baptized at once For baptisme is for circumcision but Iohn saith think not to say you have Abraham to your Father Christ saith you are of your Father the Devil Iohn saith the Lord wil purge his floore wherby it is evident that the Iewes were not Faithful in their communion that they perceaved plainly that seing repentance Faith were required
equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme the one being an Apostate Church the other no Church The one partaker of the word Sacram though with much coruptioÌ„ the other partaker of neither at all the one professing Christ Teaching many truths of God so many as the elect therby might come to faith Apoc. 18.4 The other neither professing Christ nor teaching any truth of God wherby any might be converted to Christ become Gods people in the estate of Gentilisme And thus having made plaine the different estate of the first planted Churches ours in Apostacy I answere fi st That Churches now are to be constituted if repairing be not a fitter speâ—ch as in the Apostles tymes that al such as are receaâ—ed in as members being vnbaptized must be receaved in by baptisme but for such as were baptized in Apostate Chuâ—che their repentance is sufficient without rebaptisatioÌ„ as it was to the Apostate Israelites who vppon their repentance returning to Ierusalem were receaved of the Church without any new circumcision therfore to adde a second baptisme with the Anabaptists is to Apostate from Chr. not to enter into his covenant And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme they could doe no otherwise seing the whole world was vnbaptized but if they had met with any that before had bene baptized into the name of Chr. as they that receaved the baptisme of Iohn as we are I make no question they did not nor would not have rebaptized them theâ—for the conclusion wil not follow that we are now to receave in by baptisme them that are already baptized Iohn Smyth The next thing in your answer is a solution of the arguments brought by mee to prove the truth viz. That Antichristians converted are to bee admitted into the true Church by baptisme This truth of the Lords I have proved vnto you by three reasons The first â—hereof may bee framed thus So are Churches to be restored or constituted after the defection of Antichr as they were erected by the Apostles at the first But the Churches were at the first erected by baptisme in their primitive institution by Iohn Chr. the Apostles Ergo so are they now to be restored therfor the members are to be receaved in by baptisme as they were then As in the former point for baptising of infants you were compelled to runne to the old Testament from thence to fetch the cheef corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new Testam of Chr. the true constitution Apostolique of the Church of the new Testament set vs againe to Schoole to Moses as if Chr. had not beeÌ„ faithful enough to teach vs his new Test but we must go learne the new Test of the old Testament Chr. of Moses The Gospel of the Law And first I would know why we may not aswel with the Papists Prelates goe fetch one high Preist from Moses a sacrificing Preisthood from Moses succession in the ministery from Moses a succession in the Church from Moses as a succession in baptisme from Moses in effect you do fetch a succession of the Church from Rome For in fetching a succession of baptisme from Rome which is the forme of the Church in fetching a succession of the matter of the Church which is the seed of the parents baptized you of necessity make the Church of Rome a true Church For if infants of the Church of Româ— have true title to baptisme by reason of the Faith of some of their auncesters oâ— forfathers that were Faithful then are they the true visible matter of the Church if by reason of that title to baptisme they receave true baptisme in substance as you say in the Church of Rome then they have the true visible forme of the Church for they that have the true matter forme of a true Church vppon them are the true Chuâ—â—â— so are the infants of the Church of Rome a true visible Church in the constitution essential causes therof so as in the old Testament the Church came by succession of genealogie in respect wherof they made so much account of genealogies carnal Philip. 3 3-5 1. Timoth. 1.4 So in the New Testament the Church commeth by succession of carnal Genealogie through the Church of Rome to our dayes then as the matter of the Church viz infants descending of baptized parents is by Genealogie the forme of the church viz baptisme vppon these infants is by descent therfor the Church is by succession I demaund why may not the ministery be by descent succession aswel as the Church then why is not the Church of Rome or England a true Church the ministery of the Church of Rome or England a true Ministery so why may not you returne back againe into England take vp your former ministery renounce your Schisme which you have made so I heare that some are mynded to doe truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retaine the Church Ministery of England as to retaine the baptisme when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of EnglaÌ„d I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church ministery of England I wil confesse I have been a Schismatique returne acknowledg my error but bicause I know the ministery Church of England is false therfor it must needes be that the baptisme which is the forme of the Church is false essentially therefore having Seperated justly from the Church Ministery of England for the falsehood of them I must needes also Seperate from the baptisme which is false for the Church is false bicause baptisme the forme of the Church is false if baptisme the forme of the Church of England be true the Church of England is true also You are to know therefore so I wish you all the Seperation to mynd it well the Lord give you eyes to see harts to vnderstand that all the old Testament was carnal taken from the Elementes of the VVorld thereby to type out to teach them heavenly things therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs in the New Testament a Spiritual Church The matter of their Church was a carnall Israelite the matter of the Church of the New Testament is a true Israelite in whom ther is no guile The forme of their Church was carnall circumcision a carnal seale Genes 17 10-14 The forme of the Church of the New Testament is the circumcision of the hart a new Creature the Holy Spirit of promise whereby wee are sealed which is manifested by confession baptisme in water Act. 10.47 Ephes 1.13 Gallat 3.27 6.15 Iohn 3.5 Matth. 3.6 Roman 10.9 Act. 8.36.37 Their carnall Church in the matter forme came by carnall Genealogie so they all of them were gendred vnto bondage vnder