The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 2 · Reasons

The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism · Part 2 · Reasons

p. 186Mr Smythes Reaſons for Anabaptiſme of Elder people, Anſwered.

R. Clyfton

THus having ſet down Reaſons to prove that Apoſtates or Antichriſtiās cōverted ar not to be rebaptiſed: let vsus come to the examination of the reaſons alledged to the contrary, the firſt whereof is this.

1. Becauſe Churches are to be constituted now after the defection of Antichriſt, as they were firſt erected by the Apoſtles: but in the conſtitution of Churches the Apostles receved in the members by baptiſme. Ergo, ſo must we do now.

Anſwere

The eſtate and conſtitution of people now, is not a like to the ſtate of the Gentiles or Iewes in the Apoſtles tymes, they differ in divers reſpects. Firſt l the people then both of Iewes and Gentiles never had bene themſelves, nor were ever of the poſteritie of thoſe that had bene mēbers of the Church of Chriſt vnderunder the Goſpel: ſeing then was the firſt planting of Evangelical Churches. But we are now the 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 p. 187gathered 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 covenāt they & their ſeed as he & his ſeed entered, that is, as he & his, were received in by circūciſion: 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 cōcerning the cōſtitutiō of Churches, here it is to be noted, that the cōſtitutiō of Churches ſet down by the Apoſtles was by the imediate directiō of the H. Ghoſt, And ſo ſerveth for a cōtinual 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, ma… 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 vntounto vsus 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 onelyonly 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 ou… p. 188of 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 corruptiō) the other partaker of neyther at all: the one profeſſing Chriſt & teaching many truthes of God, & ſo many as the elect thereby might cōe 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 mēbers 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 vponupon 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 p. 189Teſtament: 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 vsus againe to ſchoole to Moſes, as if Christ had not been faithful enough to teach vsus 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 prefixAnſw. 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 ſhalbe iuſtified. Now where you except about the former point for baptiſing of infants againſt my running to the old Teſtamēt 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. … 23. & 2. … 15. 28. & 3. & 22. … 32. Joh. 23. & 5. 3… Luk. 24. 2… Act. 2. 2… & 3. 22. & 4: 25. 26. & 18. 28. Ro… 4, 3, 6. & 7. 9. & … 11 with d… vers othe…Matt 23Luke 24:2Acts 2:2Acts 3:22Acts 4:25Acts 4:26Acts 18:28Rom 4:3Rom 4:6Rom 7:9Rom 7:11places 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▪John 5:39that 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 &Characte… 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 vsus. p. 190Do 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 the2 Tim. 3. …. - 17. Pet. 1. 9. - 21.2 Tim 3 Prophets, ceaſe to be in force to teach us that live under the Goſpel. And if they be in force to teach, then are we to learne and to be taught by them.

As for Chriſt his faythfulnes in teaching us his new Teſtament, (which you think is diminiſhed, if we labour to prove any of the ordinances thereof from the Scriptures of the old Teſtament) know you, that we hold Chriſt **Heb. 3. 2.Heb 3:2to be faythful to him that hath appointed, even as Moſes in al his howſe. And yet no diſparagement to him or the new Teſtament, (but rather an honour) to prove the parts and obſervances thereof, from Moſes and the Prophets. For he that bad us Search the ſcriptures, did alſo himſelf to the two diſciples that went to Emaus, ““Luk. 24. ….Luke 24beginne at Moſes and at all the Prophets and interpreted unto them in al the Scriptures the things which were written of him. Which practiſe of Chriſt, as it doth teach us that we may learn Chriſt and the new Teſtament out of Moſes and the Scriptures of the old Teſtament: ſo doth it manifeſt his faythfulnes, that taught and fulfilled al that was propheſied of him, not impoſing upon his church any new doctrine not heard of before. Baptiſme under the Goſpell is proved out of the old Teſtaments the Iewes did not think it ſtrange to be at the coming of the Meſſiah, Ioh. 1. 25. And Mr. Smyth ſayth, that the Iewes baptiſmes were into the Meſſias to come in type. Ergo, our baptiſme being the thing typed, muſt needs have warrant from the old Teſtament, and then it is no diſgrace to goe to ſchool to Moſes to learn it.

And firſt I would know why we may not as wel with the Papists, fetch one high Repl.Prieſt from Moſes, ſucceſsion in the Miniſterie from Moſes, ſucceſſion in the Church from Moſes, as a ſucceſsion in baptiſme from Moſes: and in effect you fetch a ſucceſſion of the Church from Rome, for in fetching a ſucceſsion of Baptiſm… from Rome, which is the forme of the church, yea and in fetching a ſucceſsion of the matter of the church, which is the ſeed of the Parents baptiſed, you of neceſsitie make the church of Rome a true Church.

Firſt, for the Prieſthood of Moſes, the Ceremonies and ſuch like ordinancesAnſw. of the church under the old Teſtament, they are ††Heb. 7. 12. &c. & cha. …. & ch. 9. … cha. 10. Col. 2. 16. 17.Heb 7:12Col 2:16Col 2:17removed by the coming of Ieſus Chriſt, and therefore there cannot be any ſucceſſion thereof under the Goſpel, ſave in Chriſt: but of the everlaſting covenant p. 191made with Abraham, and ſealed to him and his ſeed before the law was given, is no abrogation thereof. There is an everlaſting continuance (which you call a ſucceſſion) not onelyonly in the Church of the old Teſtament, but alſo under the Goſpell as the Apoſtles do **Gal. 3. 8▪ 9. Act. 2. 3▪Gal 3:8Gal 3:9Acts 2:3witnes, as alſo ““Mat. 28. 19.Matt 28:19a continuance of the ſealing of the ſame. And therefore we muſt plead ſuch a ſucceſſion both of the covenant and ſealing thereof from our father Abraham: ſeing it is the ††Gal. 3. 8. 14. - 17. 28. & 4. 28.Gal 3:8Gal 3:14–17Gal 3:28Gal 4:28ſame wherein we of the Gentiles are comprehended.

And this difference between this Covenant and the law and ordinances of the old Teſtament, if it pleaſe you to take notice of, will anſwer your queſtion about ſucceſſion. Yet I would not have you miſtake me, for although I hold in this ſenſe a continual ſucceſſion of the people of God partakers of this covenant of ſalvation, I affirme not that there hath been alway, and at al tymes known eſtabliſhed churches, keeping ſoundly all the ordinances of Chriſt, and making viſible profeſſion thereof. In the Apoſtacie of Iſrael the Lord had his ſeven thowſand that never bowed their knee to Baal, to whom this covenant belonged, and ſo had he in ““Rev. 18. 4▪Rev 18:4antichriſtianiſme.

Again, we fetch not a ſucceſſion of Baptiſme from Moſes, otherwiſe then the Apoſtles have taught us. Col. 2. 10. - 12. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21. The ſealing of the covenant was commanded to Abraham, and never repealed (ſave onelyonly the outward ſigne changed, as before is ſayd.) And as we fetch no otherwiſe ſucceſſion from Moſes or the old Teſtament, then hath been ſayd: No more do we ſucceſſion of the Miniſterie, or of any other ordinance of Chriſt, but in like manner and upon like warrant. 2. Concerning fetching of ſucceſſion of our church frō Rome becauſe of our Baptiſme: I anſwer, 1. that Baptiſme, as alſo the Scriptures were given to the Church of Rome when ſhe was a true church and ſhe retayning them in her Apoſtaſie, we receive them as Chriſte word and baptiſme, though continued through her corrupt Miniſterie and eſtate. 2. If (according to your terming) ſucceſſion of Baptiſme be graunted, (being an ordinance of God,) yet will it not followe, that therefore we muſt reteyn the whoredomes of the church of Rome (which we are cōmanded to ſeparate from, Rev. 18. 4) becauſe we retein baptiſme, but rather thus, as we have baptiſme frō Chriſt, ſo are we to have the cōſtitution of our church, & what is polluted in eyther by Antichriſt▪ to reject.

p. 1923. Our retayning of baptiſme adminiſtred in the Apoſtate churches, doth no more prove that we fetch ſucceſſion of our church from Rome: then the Iſraelites, that were circumciſed in the church of Ieroboam, returning to Ieruſalem did fetch the ſucceſsion of their church frō the Apoſtate church of Iſrael.

If it be objected that this people now ſeparated from that Apoſtacy, were matter of that falſe church: and ſo we fetch a ſucceſſion of the matter of our church from a falſe church. I anſwer, that al ſuch of Gods people that ſtand members of thoſe Antichriſtian aſſemblies muſt be conſidered two wayes. 1. in reſpect of us and their outward ſtanding, ſo are they members of thoſe Aſſemblies: 2. in reſpect of the Lord and their election; ſo are they no members thereof, but the matter of Gods inviſible church in tyme becoming viſible. As on the contrarie in a viſible church, al the people thereof in our account are held true members, yet † hypocrites1 Ioh. 2. 19.1 John 2:19 in the Lords account, are no members or matter thereof. And as the Apoſtle ſayth of Antichriſts, if they had been of us, they ſhould have continued with us: ſo I ſay of Gods people in Babilon, if they had been of that Antichriſtian church they ſhould have continued with them, but by their cō ing out, it appeares that they are not of them, and therefore we cannot be ſayd to have the matter of our church by ſucceſſion frō Antichriſtianiſme: but by the gracious work of God in his people of al ages, and (to uſe your word of Succeſſion) as it were by a ſecret and hidden ſucceſſion, even from the Apoſtles tymes. And thus it wil not follow (as you ſay) that we make the church of Rome a true church.

If Infants of the church of Rome have true tytle 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 toAn. 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. 4Rev 18:4viſible going out of Babylon: ““2 Cor. 6. …6.2 Cor 6:6f…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 p. 193ſtanding 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 cōſtitutiō & eſſential Repl.cauſes therof. That the Church in the new testamēt cōmeth by ſucceſſiō 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 vponupon 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 membersAnſ. of a viſible Church, but that a viſible Church can ſtand of infants onelyonly, we deny. 2. Neyther Infants nor the elder ſort ſtanding in Antichriſtianiſm, can be the matter of a true viſible Church, being ſo looked vponupon 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. Cōcerning the Churches ſucceſſiō by carnal genealogie, I anſwer, that as the covenāt was made with Abrahā and his ſeed; ſo vnderunder the Goſpell, doth the promiſe belong to the parents & their childrē. And that God had ““Apoc. 14. & 4.Rev 14his 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.Rev 1:13Rev 1:14Church 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 p. 194be 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 hathKing. 12 33. …ev. 11. 7. 12. 14. … 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 whatſoeverAnſ. 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 ſeparateRev. 18. 4 Cor. 6. 17.Rev 18:4 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 cōmunion thereof without ſinne.

But becauſe I know the Ministerie and Church of England is falſe, therefore it p. 19must 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 **Char… 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 vsus 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 underſtād the truth, which you labor to obſcure by your ſtrāge expoſitiōs. 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. 7Rom 7law it ſelf is holy & ſpiritual, and therefore are called ““Heb. …ordinances of religion, and the Tabernacle, Mikdaſch, to teach that it was of an holy vſe for the Lord. The old† Ioh. 1… Ephe. … 19. & 3. 1 Cor. 10 4. Eph. 4John 11 Cor 10:4Eph 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.Heb 1the ſame, onelyonly 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. Rō. 10. 9. Act, 8. 36. 37. &c.

Concerning your carnal matter and forme I hauehave anſwered, pag. 12. and have alſo proved that God did require of that his people Iſrael to be ††Exo. …holy and ““Rō. 2. 29. D… 10. 16 Jer. 4. 4 Anſ.Jer 4:4ſpiritual. And for the forme of the old Church, I have ſhewed likewiſe that they became **Gen. Deut. 2… 10 - 15.Deut 2:10–15a Church & people of God, by vertue of Gods covenant made with them, wherevnto circumciſion was added as a ſeal to cō 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 circūciſion 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.Ps 43Church all that time notwithſtanding.

p. 196That 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…ct. 8. … 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 denominatiō of a Church, & that is their ſolemn ētring into cōmuniō vnderunder the covenant of the Lord vniting together, to walk in all his wayes & to be his…eu. 29. … 13. …. 18. 20 …i. 1. 5. …. 2. 42 …ifferenc …he pre…. people, which all that ar afterward † added to the Church muſt promiſe to obſerve. And ſuch a cōmunion do we hold for a Church (& ſo “did you) For as many ſtones may be hewē & 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 vntounto bondage vnderunder the rudiments of the world. Gal. 4. 24.-25. vnderunder 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 vsus all. Gal 3. 7. 9. 14. Rō. 4. 10. 11. Their parents in that carnal Church, was carnal Abraham, and carnal Agar, &c. our ſpiritual parent is Abrahā 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…. 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 p. 197with 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. cōf. w… Luke 1. 7… 73. 74. Cor 6. 1…Deut 13Luke 1:7covenant 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 vnderunder 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.

As for the ſpiritual genealogy, both vnderunder the law and the Goſpel, I do approve to be the true ſeede of Abraham, but not in your ſenſe, that excludes the infants of the faithful from the covenant, which of vsus are to be **Mat. … Act. 3.Acts 3accounted the children thereof, as wel as theſe that outwardly profeſſe their faith.

And concerning the Miniſterie of the old Church, although none could be Preiſts ††Exo. 28.Exod 28but of the line of Aaron, yet was the ““Num. 6-19. D… 33. 8-…Num 6tribe of Levi choſen by God himſelf for that office. And God * ſanctified them to the ſervice of his name, and to the Miniſtery of holy things.

Laſtly, you charge vsus, with an introducing of a carnal line into the Church, to be baptiſed, & by ſucceſſion fetch baptiſme vponupon the carnal line through the Church of Rome, &c.“Numb▪ 19. 1 Cor. … 13.Num 191 Cor 13

Of this I have ſpoken before, and I anſwer further. 1. that we do not introduce any other carnall line into the Church to be baptiſed, then the Lord himſelf introduceth, that is, the children of the faithful. And this is not (as you ſay) to ſet up Iudaiſme in the new Teſtament, ſeing all the people of God, of al nations and ages are bound vntounto it: for we know no other covenant, by which we become the People & Church of God, but that ſame, which was made with Abraham and his ſeed.

Concerning the carnall lyne (as you cal it) though in reſpect of vsus it may ſeeme to ſtop in Apoſtacy, yet the Lord continueth his promiſe to his elect therin. Neyther by this our retayning of baptiſm do we iuſtify Rome to p. 198be a true church, nor make our ſelves Schiſmaticks: ſeeing we caſt of her adulteries, and keep that which is Chriſts ordinance, by her polluted. Alſo you charge us, To be fallen from Christ, and become a new ſecond image of the beaſt never heard of before in the world. For being fallen from Chriſt look that it be not your owne caſe. Of the image of the beaſt I † read, but not of a…ev. 13. …. 15. & …. 9. new ſecond image, and therefore no marveil though it be never heard of in the world. (as you ſay) and if it had been by you unſpoken of alſo, by ſo applying of it unto us, your ſinne had been the leſſe. And thus much in anſwer to your premiſed ground. Next you ſet down the ſumme of my exception.

First I ſay, that the new Teſtament is as ſufficient for the direction of al the affairs …l.and occaſions that befal in our tyme in the new Teſtament, as the old Teſtament was for the occurrents that befel under the old Teſtament, ſeeing Christ is as faythful as Moſes, and the new Testament as perfect as the old. Gal. 3. 15. and therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apoſtalike conſtituting of Churches and our constituting of them, in respect of the perſons to be admitted into the church, and in respect of baptiſing, and not baptiſing, or rebaptiſing of them, he could & would have done it▪ &c.

The ſufficiencie of the new Teſtament we acknowledge, & of the booksAnſw. thereof for that uſe wherefore they were written. But it ſeemes that you confound the new Teſtament or covenant of grace with the books thereof: for you reaſon thus, that the new Teſtament (meaning the bookes thereof) are ſufficient for direction of al affaires of the church. And your proofe out of Gal. 3. 15. is of the covenant it ſelf, and not of the books thereof. And afterward you alleadge as a reaſon for the ſame end, that the new Teſtament is perfect and ſealed with the blood of Chriſt, thus deceiving the Readers with an homonomy of the word Teſtament.

The books of the new Teſtament were al unwritten when Chriſt ſufferred and had ſealed the covenant of Grace. This Teſtament had been perfect, if there had been never a book written. The hiſtorie of the Goſpel was written **Ioh. 20. 31 Rom. 1. 1. 2. & 16. 25. 26.John 20:31Rom 1:1Rom 1:2Rom 16:25Rom 16:26that we might beleeve that Ieſus is the Chriſt promiſed and foretold in the holy Scriptures of the Prophets, and that beleeving in him we might have eternal life.

Concerning the faythfulnes of Chriſt, it conſiſteth in ““Luk. 1. 70 & 24. 27. … Pet. 1. 10. …1. 12. Act. 26. 22. & 13. 29.Luke 1:70Luke 24:27Acts 26:22Acts 13:29fulfilling of thoſe things which Moſes and the Prophets had ſayd ſhould come to paſſe. And if he give us direction for all the affaires and occaſions that fall out in our p. 199tymes, eyther out of the books of the new Teſtament or old, we ought to be thankful to God, and accordingly to uſe them, and not bynd him, or our ſelves, onelyonly to the writings of the Apoſtles: Seeing Chriſt is the Author as wel of the doctrine & writings of the Prophets, as of the Apoſtles. 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. 1 Pet. 3. 18. 19.

Againe, concerning the difference between the Apoſtolicke conſtituting of Churches and ours, which you charge us with: I anſwer, we plead for no difference, neyther do we practiſe contrarie to the firſt planting of the church (witneſſe Mr. Smyth. Differences, in the preface lin. 12.)…nſ. … for as then ſuch as were to be received into the Church, did confeſſe their fayth, and ſo with thir families were baptiſed, ſo wee hold, that all ſuch that are unbaptiſed, and to be added to the church: muſt enter thereinto they with their families, after the ſame manner, as in the Apoſtles tymes. And we do acknowledge that all churches which have Apoſtated, are to be reformed according to the patterne and platforme layd downe by the Holy Ghoſt in the Scriptures. But this difference we put between perſons that were never baptiſed, and ſuch as have received baptiſme in an Apoſtate church: affirming that the former are to be adjoyned to the Church by baptiſme, the latter not to be againe baptiſed: which if it had been neceſſarie, the Lord no doubt would have cō manded, when he bad his people to goe out of Babylon. But ſeing he ſayth not a word of the renuing thereof, we are to content our ſelves, and to practiſe as the Holy Ghoſt ††2 Chr. … 5. - 13.2 Chr 5elſe where doth teach us, by the example of the Iſraelites in an other like caſe. Now if you can ſhew us eyther commandement or example or any good reaſon in all the new Teſtament, to rebaptiſe them which have been baptiſed in Apoſtate churches, we will receive it and practiſe it: if not, why do you plead for it, & without warrant do rebaptiſe your ſelves, & alſo affirme ſo confidently, that all things be ſo manifeſt in the APOSTLES writings, that upon every occaſion that falles out in our tymes, we have direction for it.

Laſtly, it is not wee that adde to this new Teſtament (as you charge us) or that bring in a new CHRIST, a nevv Church, a nevv Covenant, a nevv Goſpell, and a nevv Baptiſme: but you your ſelves are guilty of this ſinne, for you by your nevv devyſed baptiſme, have rejected the ſeal of GODS Covenant, and conſequently the covenaunt it ſelf, and ſo the Author of it. And as IEROBOAM p. 200† forged the eight monethmonth out of his owne hart, for to keep a feaſt unto…in. 12. the Lord: ſo have you forged a church of your own invention, and the receiving in of members into it. And that which you would impute unto…v. 22. …. us, is fallen upon your ſelves, even that * woe for adding to the word.

Secondly, I affirme that (as the holy Ghoſt ſayth) the Antichristians are in condition equal to Pagans, not called Iſraelites or Samaritanes, but Babylonians, Aegyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles: But the holy Ghoſt knoweth what and how to speak: And therefore as the Babylonians, Aegyptians, Sodomites and Gentiles waſhings were nothing, no more is the Baptiſme of Antichristians any thing▪ &c.

I have Anſwered to this before pag. 150. 151. And ſhewed that the Iewes, which were called the people of “Gomorah, and their Rulers the Princes of Sodome, ſhould then ſtand in the ſame eſtate with Pagans, and… 10. in condition be equal unto them, and their circumciſion voyd, if the holy Ghoſt, in ſo terming them, did mynd as you doe. This is a ſtrange kind of reaſoning, that becauſe the Antichriſtians reſemble the Gentiles in ſome filthie practiſes, for the which the ſpirit calls them Sodomites, &c. therefore their condition in al reſpects, is as theirs. Chriſt called Peter Sathan, ſhal we thereupon conclude, that therefore Peter was as Sathan in al reſpects, becauſe in his counſeling his maſter to favour himſelf, he was like him? Of Iudah it is ſayd, that ſhe was more † corrupt in al her wayes, then Samaria and Sodome, ſhal we ſay (becauſe the Lord thus ſpeaketh) that Iudah was now to be recircumciſed? If the holy Ghoſt calling the Antichriſtians Sodomites &c. ſhould teach us thereby, that he eſteemeth no otherwiſe of the church and Baptiſme, then of the Synagogues of Babylon, the waſhings of Aegypt, then of the worſhip of Sodome and the Pagans (as you ſay) then muſt he needs teach us, the like to eſteeme of the churches of the Iewes, and of the circumciſion, when he calls them the people of Gomorrah, and more corrupt in her wayes then Sodome, as before I have obſerved.

For your compariſon of the Gentiles waſhings, with the baptiſme of Antichriſtians, affirming, that as the former were nothing, no more is the other. This is not to compare things alike: for the waſhings of the Gentiles were of mans invention, and baptiſme is the ordinance of Chriſt. And therefore it wil not follow, that becauſe mens deviſes are nothing, when any of thē turne to God; that baptiſme alſo (God, ordinance prophaned in Popery) is therefore nothing, when any ſuch Apoſtates repent and returne to Sion. p. 201No more is this a good reaſon to prove that the Holy Ghoſt did fore ſee, that the Antichriſtians would aboliſh true baptiſme, by baptiſing Infants, becauſe he calleth perſons Apoſtating, Babylonians, Sodomites, Gentiles.

Thirdly, whereas you ſay that repayring the Church now after the Apoſtaſie of R…pl.Antichriſt is a fitter speech then conſtituting, herein do you both tax your ſelves of the vſe of that word, conſtitution, and playnly ſignifie that you incline to maintain the Churches of England or Rome to be true churches, wherein whether you do not forſake your first fayth, and turn with the dogge to the vomite, look you unto it. &c.

If it had pleaſed you to have taken my whole anſwer, you had neitherAnſ. cauſe to have excepted againſt the word, repayring, nor yet have gathered thereby any inclination in us, to maintayn any thing that is corrupt eyther in the churches of England or Rome, much leſſe (as you ſay) to forſake our firſt fayth, and turne with the dogge to the vomite. But you that thus ſpeak, it were good to take heed, you be not the dogge that vomits out your blaſpemous errors, to the diſhonour of God and offence of his people. If the word of repayring, had been ſo faulty, you had done better to have manifeſted the untrunes thereof, then to have bewrayed your evill thoughts in the unjuſt cenſuring of others.

But concerning repayring or reforming, let the indifferent Reader judge, if it be not more proper to us, then to conſtitute or plant, for who knoweth not that there is but one conſtitution or planting of the church under the Goſpel, which is founded by the Apoſtles. And other forme or frame can no earthly power devyſe then that which the Apoſtles have left us. And ſeing at the firſt they did conſtitute churches in divers partes of the world, and thoſe churches ruinated by Antichriſt: ſhal not the reſtoring of them to the firſt patterne of the Apoſtles, be properly called a repairing? ſeing they did not ceaſe utterly to be no churches, but are churches in corruption or ruine. But I wil not contend about words, for that which I ſtrive for, is, to have the church in that forme as the word preſcribeth, both for people, worſhip, goverment, and what els appertaynes thereunto.

Fourthly, I ſay that the Iewes that were converted to the ſayth & new Teſtament Rep.of Chriſt, by Chriſt, Iohn and the Apoſtles in your account, were in a farre better eſtate then Antichriſtians, for they, as you ſay, were of the ſame body with the church, of the new Teſtament, and their circumciſion was a ſeal of the new Teſtament, as you ſay, and they were in Chriſt Ieſus, as you ſay, and were waſhed I doubt not many of p. 202them into the Meſſiah &c. and why might not they by Iohn, Chriſt, or his Apoſtles be admitted into the church without baptiſme: If therefore Christ, Iohn and the Apostles would needs baptiſe them, and ſo by baptiſme conſtitute them into the new Teſtament, that had al theſe prerogatives in your iudgment: much more wil they have us to conſtitute Antichristians converted into the true church by baptiſme.

This your reaſon is alike the reſt, nothing good, for albeit that the Ch.…nſ. of the Iewes was a true church, yet had it not Chriſt exhibited in the fleſh afore this tyme, wherefore it was meet, ſeing the Prieſthood and ceremonial adminiſtration of that Church was changed, and the † old was to ceaſe,…eb. 8. 13 that the Iewes, as wel as the Gentiles ſhould be partakers thereof alike; that therby they might acknowledge Chriſt their Meſſiah to be come, whō they looked for. And as it was required of the mēbers of the old Church, that they ſhould * beleeve in the Meſſiah to come: So was fayth “required…en. 15. 6 …m. 4. 11. …k 2. 25. …or. 10. 3. of them that ſhould be admitted into the church of the Goſpell, wherein both Iewes & Gentiles ſhould be alike received & baptiſsd into his name.

As for the Apoſtate church of Antichriſt, it is ſuch a one as acknowledgeth Ieſus Chriſt to be come, & profeſſeth the Goſpel, though corruptly. And baptiſme received in the Apoſtate church hath his uſe unto ſuch asActs. 8. 37. & 2. …1. 44. Cor. 10. 3Acts 8:37Acts 2:1Acts 2:44 repenting, turne to the true church of Chriſt, becauſe baptiſme is an ordinance of the new Teſtament, appointed by the Lord himſelf. And though the beleeving Iewes were in Chriſt members of his myſticall body, and their circumciſion a ſeal of the righteouſnes of their fayth, yet was their fayth in † Chriſt to come: and circumciſion did ſeal up unto them Chriſt to come. And therefore al this being but by fayth in the Meſſiah to come, it was neceſſarie, that they ſhould alſo receive him now being come, and be baptiſed into his name, if they would continue members in his body. And ſo this may anſwer you, why Iohn, Chriſt, and his diſciples did not admit the Iewes, as members of the church of the Goſpell with out confeſſion of fayth in CHRIST now come, and Baptiſme in his name. And yet we may receive into our Church, them that have been baptiſed in the Apoſtate Churches without iterating of baptiſme, upon the confeſſion of their fayth and repentance. Neyther is this, to offer indignitie to the LORDS ordinances in the old TESTAMENT, (as you do ſeeme to charge us) for wee honour them in their place, and right uſe, as the Lord then appointed them, and your ſelf, I ſuppoſe wil not ſay, that you offer indignitie to thoſe ordinances p. 203of the Lord although you acknowledg that baptiſme received in Popery, is not be to repeated, being adminiſtred to ſuch as are of yeares, upon their owne profeſſion of fayth.

Agayne &c. I deny that ever the Engliſh nation or any one of our predeceſſors were of Re.the fayth of Christ, ſhew it if you can, but we came of a Pagan race, til Rome the mother came and put vponupon vsus her falſe baptiſm. And therefore though the Romanes might plead this, yet England cannot plead it,, and ſo your diſſimilitude cannot hold in that thing, and our caſe ſimply Paeganiſme.

If al this were graunted that you ſay, yet is the ſtate of England in asAnſ. good caſe as Rome, ſeing ſhe by your own confeſſion hath Rome for her mother, ††Ezech 44.Ezek 44and as the mother, ſo is her Daughter. If England partake with Rome in her Apoſtacy and whoredomes, ſhe muſt nedes be a member of her. But I pray you Sir, wil you admit of that baptiſme in Rome without new baptiſing of ſuch as ſhal come from thence? if you do, you overthrow your owne poſition, viz, That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptiſme. And if you doe not, why put you this diſſimilitude betwene England and Rome which ſerves not to the queſtion in hand?

But you deſyre me to ſhew if I can, that the Engliſhe nation or any one of our predeceſſors were of the fayth of Chriſt: it may be I cannot ſhew, that any of them were Anabaptiſts before you, which you falſly call the fayth of Chriſt but I can ſhew to them that wil heare, that our Engliſh nation receaved the fayth before Rome fel into this Apoſtacy.

Firſt, Gildas affirmeth **Act. Monu… Book. 2. p. 95. Gildas li… de vict. Aurelij Ambroſ…that Britayne receaved the Goſpel in the tyme of Tiberius the Emperour vnderunder whome Chriſt ſuffered. And then was not Rome ““Rom 1.Rom 1apoſtate. And further he ſayth, That Ioſeph of Aremathea after the diſperſion of the Iewes, was ſent of Philippe the Apoſtle from France to Britayne, about the yeare of our Lord, 63. And remayned in Britayne all his time, who with his fellowes layed the firſt foundation of Christian faith among the Britayne people. 2 ††Tertul. con. IndeosTertullian teſtifyeth how the Goſpell was diſperſed abroad by the ſound of the Apoſtles, & there reconeth up the Medes, Perſians, Parthians and dwellers in Meſopotamia, Iury, Cappadocia, Pontus, Aſia, Phrygia, Egypt, Pamphilia with many more, at length commeth to the coaſt of the Morianes and all the borders of Spaine, with divers nations of France: And there amongest … other reciteth all the parts of Britayne, and reporteth the ſame to be ſubiect to Chriſt.

p. 204And alſo reckoneth vp the places of Sarmatia, of the Danes, the Gerrmanes & Schythians with many other Provinces and Iſles: in all which places, ſayth he, reigneth the name of Chriſt, which now beginneth to be common. 3. † Origine ſayth, that Britayne did conſent to Chriſtian religion. 4. * Nicephorus, ſaith, That Symon Origin. …. 4. in …ch. …icep. li. …. …0.Zelotes did ſpread the goſpel of Christ to the weſt Ocean, and brought the ſame into the Iſles of Britayne. 5. In the time of the Abbot of Cluniake, the Scots did celebrate their Eaſter, not after the Romane maner, but after the Greeks, as he teſtifieth to Barnard. Which argueth that they had received the faith, and not from Rome. 6. Alſo it appeareth by a letter of Elutherius Biſhop of Rome written to Lucius King of Britayne, anno 169. that Lucius had received the faith of Chriſt in his Land, before he ſent to Elutherius for the Romane lawes: for ſo do the words of the letter purport, which are theſe:

Ye have receiued of late through Gods merciemercy in the Realme of Britayne, the law and faith of Chriſt: you have with you within the Realme both the partes of the ſcriptures, out of them by Gods grace take ye a law, and by that law, through Gods ſufferance rule your kingdome of Britayne, &c. And thus was fulfilled in Britayne as wel as inIſa. 42. 4Isa 42:4 other lands the words of the Prophet, who ſayth, “he ſhall not fayle nor be diſcouraged, (ſpeaking of Chriſt) til he hath ſet iudgement in the earth, and the Iles ſhall waite for his law. And it is alſo further written of this King Lucius, that he did not cōpel the heathen, but imbraced ſuch as by the word were converted. Which is to be obſerved concerning the conſtitution of the Churches then. For it is ſayd, that he founded many▪ Churches, and gave great ritches and liberties to the ſame. And becauſe of this imbracing of the faith, it cauſed thoſe great troubles that fel out between the Britaynes which were Chriſtians profeſſing the faith, and the infidels, who brought in the Romanes which exerciſed much crueltie amongeſt the Chriſtians. In Diocleſians tyme the Churches of Britayne were greviouſly perſecuted & many ſufferred for the faith of Chriſt, as Albanus, Iulius, Aaron, Amphibulus & many more.

And thus if it pleaſe you to take notice from theſe writters, you may ſee that this Engliſh nation were of ſuch as profeſſed the faith of Chriſt and and not of a Pagan race, til Rome came and put vppon vsus falſe baptiſme, as as you ſay, neyther that our caſe is ſimply paganiſme, if theſe things be thus, as is aforeſayd.

Next whereas I ſayd that repentance of ſuch as were baptiſed in Apoſtate p. 205Churches was ſufficient without rebaptization for their admittance into the church &c. You anſwer. That the Churches of Antichriſt were falſe, and Rep.the churche of the Iſraelites was not falſe. The churches of Antichriſt were falſe, becauſe they conſisted of the carnal ſeed baptiſed, which was not that one ſeed, unto the which the promiſe was made▪ that is the faythful▪ &c.

I have ſhewed before how wel you agree with your ſelf concerning theAnſ. church of Iſrael, which here you ſay was nor falſe, and yet have publiſhed to the contrarie. As for your grounds or reaſons of the trunes of the Iſraelitiſh church, and falſenes of Antichriſts, whatſoever you can plead for the one, the like may be alledged for the other. If Iſrael in her defection be accounted a true church: then muſt Rome alſo in her Apoſtaſie. Certayn it is, that both are to be eſteemed Apoſtatical Churches, and this is that which we teſtifie. And towching Iſrael, if the carnall circumciſion alone of the Iſraelites, had ben the ſufficient cōſtitution of that church, to keep it free from being Apoſtate, they continuing it; why ſhould the Lord bidde tel her, ††Hoſ. 2. …Hos 2that ſhe was not his wife, nor he her huſband. Or did the **2 Chro. 13. 14.2 Chr 13:14Prieſts and Levites wel to leave their ſuburbes and poſſeſsions, to leave that church to goe to Iuda and Ieruſalem? but hereof before.

2. For the matter of the Antichriſtian churches, which you ſay was falſe, becauſe they conſiſted of the carnal ſeed baptiſed. I anſwer, that they were not therefore falſe or Apoſtatical▪ becauſe infants were baptiſed (whoſe baptiſme is proved lawful already) but for that they brake covenant with God, forſoke their firſt love (as now you do) and followed ſtrange lovers, ““Rev. 17. 2-6 16. … 18. 2. 3. 9▪ 24.Rev 17:2–6ſhed the bloud of the Saincts, were a cage of every unclean and hatefull bird, &c. and theſe are the ſinnes which they are charged with, but never is it imputed to them for ſinne, their baptiſing of Infants.

Wherefore an Edomite or Iſmaelite coming to be a proſelyte of the Iewes Church Rep.that had omitted circumciſion, is a true preſident of the Antichriſtian Apoſtaſie. &c.

This is againſt your ſelf, for if they were uncircumciſed, they ought toAnſw. be received into the Iewes Church by circūciſion. And ſo if any be unbaptiſed, they ought now to be received into the ch. by baptiſm. But tel me if an Edomite or Iſmalite having circūciſiō & becōing a proſelyte, was recircūciſed? Now if the Edomites & Iſmalites turning to the fayth, eyther were uncircumciſed, or being before circumciſed were not recircūciſed, what is this to the purpoſe, to prove that Antichriſtians muſt be rebaptiſed? p. 206You adde alſo, ſo I take it the Proſelytes were types of Antichristians converted to the fayth and admitted into the true church. Why ſay you not rather, the Proſelytes were types of the Gentiles, that under the Goſpel are converted to the fayth, and admitted into the true church? As for their being types of Antichriſtians, you know there is a great difference, ſeeing the Proſelytes were uncircumciſed afore their convertion, but the Antichriſts are baptiſed already. But if this be your thought that Proſelytes, & their entrance into the Iewiſh Church were types of Antichriſtians converted and admitted into the true Church, then I truſt you wil, that the thing typed be anſwerable to the type: But you know, when a Gentile or Edomite was cō verted to the profeſsion of the Iewes, and became a proſelyte, he vvas received… 12. into the church of the old Teſtament vvith his familie, and † al his males muſt be circumciſed, as vvel as himſelf. Why admit you not that the Proſelytes of Antichriſtianiſme (as you call them) ſhould enter into the church with their children, according to the type propoūded by your ſelf.

Moreover, whereas you ſay, that if the Apoſtles had met with ſuch as we are, they would have received us into the Church without baptiſme. I anſwer, if ſuch an example had been left us, we would then have reſted ſatiſfied: but ſeeing the Apoſtles have left no ſuch example or precept, therefore you are ſtil in your Apoſtaſie & having not repented of, nor forſaken your Egyptian baptiſme, are ſtill unſeparated, do ſtill retayne the mark of the beast, and are ſubiect to the woe that the Angel threatneth to perſons ſo marked.

Example is left of ſuch as vvere circumciſed in the Apoſtaſie of Iſrael, & were not circumciſed againe when they came to the church of Iudah, and…ſ. this is written for our learning. Rō. 15, 4. That baptiſme is but † one, & not to be iterated, the ſcripture teacheth no precept nor example for rebaptiſing. And therefore we may not forſake our baptiſme (howſoever you cal…ph. 4. 5. or eſteem it) ſeeing we know it is not to be repeated, but upon our repentance it ſealeth unto us the covenant of ſalvation, & is effectual for the confirming of our fayth.

As for Apoſtacy, whether we ſtand therein or no, let it be tryed by the word, we know you an unequal judge, that hath apoſtated from the fayth. And for the marke of the beaſt, and the woe that followes, we know it is due to them to whom it belongs. And if this marke were the baptiſing of infants, as you ſay it is, then the Angel ſhould threaten the woe to ſuch as keep the commandements of God and fayth of Ieſus, which is directly contrarie to the Angels ſpeech & intendement. But it were good for you to take p. 207heed leſt while you ſhoot of ſuch thundering peeces againſt others, they do indeed recoyle upon your ſelves.

Of M. Smyths ſecond Reaſon for Anabaptiſme of elder people.

R. Clyfton.

Now let us come to the 2. Reaſon which is this:

2. Becauſe true baptiſme is but one, but the Baptiſme of Antichrist is not true baptiſme, and ſo not that one baptiſme of Chriſt. But al the members of Chriſt must have true baptiſme.

Anſwer.

1. There is but one fayth and one baptiſme, Eph. 4. 4. and therefore it is ſufficient to be once baptiſed, as it was to be once circumciſed.

2. That the baptiſme of Antichriſt is not true baptiſme, I graunt, and do alſo affirme that al members of Chriſt muſt have true baptiſme, and what then? muſt it follow, that now ſuch as are baptiſed, muſt be rebaptiſed, els cannot be members of a viſible church? I deny it, and do further anſwer, 1. That the baptiſme which we received in the Apoſtate church is no more Antichriſts, then the word that we received therein: For Antichriſt did never ordeyn a new kind of baptiſme, but did onelyonly pollute with his inventions that holy ordinance of Chriſt. And therfore if this baptiſme that we have received, be called the baptiſme of Antichriſt, it is to affirme an untruth, ſeing the inſtitution thereof was by Ieſus Chriſt, who commanded his Apoſtles to baptiſe all nations with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, & of the H. Ghoſt. Mat. 28. 19. And the ſame baptiſm for ſubſtāce is ſtil reteyned in the Apoſtate churches, and none other.

p. 2082. This baptiſme may in ſome reſpects be called true baptiſme, as before I have noted in my firſt reaſon againſt rebaptiſing▪ for 1. it hath Chriſt for the Author. 2. it hath the true matter outward ſigne or element, which is water 3. the true forme of adminiſtring the ſame, which is, baptiſing into the name of the Father and of the ſone, and of the holy Ghoſt, all which is practiſed in the popiſh Church: Neyther is any baptiſed into the name or fayth of Antichriſt, but into the fayth or profeſsion of Chriſt. And therefore our baptime is the baptiſme of Chriſt, and to us that repent, true baptiſme, and ſo conſequently not to be iterated.

M. Smyth.

I make Anſwer, that ſeeing Infants are baptiſed, which is the falſe matter of baptiſme, and ſeing in them there is not the queſtion of a good conſcience unto God. 1 Pet. 3. 21. nor the hart sprinkled from an evil conſcience. Heb. 10. 22. which is the forme. Seeing they cannot expreſse, credis? credo: abrenuncias? abrenunci…: which is the forme of baptiſme, even the mutual contract betwixt God and the partie baptiſed, expreſsed viſiblie in confeſſion: therefore the baptiſme is not Christs, but antichriſts. &c.

R. Clyfton.

This is the ſumme of your reply to my anſwer, that Baptiſme adminiſtred in the Antichriſtian aſſemblies is of no uſe to the penitent, and is not baptiſme at all, becauſe both matter is falſe, and the forme is wanting. Of the matter (whereof you ſpeak) which are Infants, and of the lawfulnes of the baptiſing of Infants, I referre you for anſwer to the former part of this writing: Alſo for the matter & forme of baptiſme, to that which hath been ſpoken thereof in this latter part. OnelyOnly thus much concerning that which you here inſert to the forme, To be the queſtion of a good conſcience vntounto God, the hart sprinkled from an evil conſcience, to expreſſe Credis? Credo, abrenun…? abrenunci…. I wil anſwer, firſt, that which the Apoſtle ſpeaketh to ſuch as p. 209were of yeares, he applyeth to infants. 2. In a good and true underſtanding we may and ought to think, that children have their harts ſprinkled from an evil conſcience, by the ſpirit of God, in the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, els how could we hope they ſhould be ſaved, ſeeing by nature they are the children of wrath. Eph. 2. 3. but yet by grace the kingdome of heaven appertayns unto them. Mat. 19. 14. 3. Although a good conſcience be it which miniſtreth aſſurance of comfort to the baptiſed, yet is not that the forme of this ſacrament, as now we ſpeak of it. Firſt, becauſe hypocrytes in the church receive the outward ſigne, as S. Magus did, of whō it is ſayd that he was baptiſed: & yet neyther Simon nor any hypocrite are ſprinkled from an evil conſcience. 2. That which is required in the receiving of every ſacrament and in al parts of the worſhip of God, & in the whole courſe of our life, cannot be the proper forme of one particular ſacrament: But a **Deut. … 16. 1 Cor. … 28. 29. 3…Deut 16good conſcience is required to be in the receivers of every ſacrament, &c. 3. There is an outward baptiſme, wherof ““Mat. 3. … Tit. 3. 5.Matt 3Titus 3:5Iohn and the Miniſters of the Goſpel are the diſpoſers: and “there is an inward baptiſme which the Holy Ghoſt miniſtreth, which is ††Hebr. 1… 22. 23.Heb 1:22Heb 1:23the ſprinkling of the hart from an evil conſcience, and is indeed the thing ſignified by the outward waſhing. But we muſt confider of Baptiſme as it is external, and ſo to have an external forme & matter.

Laſtly, for the meaning of **1 Pet. 3. 2…1 Pet 3:2that place of Peter, I take to be this. That the Apoſtle in applying the former example, to the tymes following the coming of Chriſt, would teach, that the peſervation of Noah in the waters was a figure of our baptiſme, which is a type of our ſpiritual preſervation from the floud of Gods wrath, ſaying, that baptiſme that now is ſaveth us alſo by the reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt▪ And leaſt any might attribute overmuch to the outward Ceremonie by way of correction, he advertiſeth us that ſalvation (to ſpeak properly) ſtands in the forgivenes of our ſinnes &c. by the death of Chriſt, and that baptiſme ſaveth, in that it teſtifieth and ſealeth the ſame unto us. And this remiſsion of ſinnes, is partly ſignified in putting away the filth of the ſoule, cloſely inſinuated, when he ſayth, not the putting away of the filth of the fleſh: And partly in declaring the effect thereof, to wit, the confident demanding, which a good conſcience maketh to God. For when we are waſhed from our ſinnes we may cherefully and with a good conſcience freely call upon God. p. 210Now this being as you ſee the effect of remiſſion of our ſinnes, & internal, how ſhall it be the outward forme of Baptiſme, which is an outward ordinance of Chriſt? To your credis and credo I have anſwered before. Neyther is that which is ſpoken to them of yeares to be miſapplyed to infants, as I have ſhewed divers times heretofore.

Of Mr Smythes 3. Reaſon for Anabaptizing of Elder people.

The third Reaſon.

3. Becauſe as the falſe Church is reiected and the true erected, the falſe Ministerie forſaken and the true received: So falſe worſhip (and by conſequent baptiſme) muſt be renounced, and the true baptiſme aſſumed.

Anſwer.

Firſt, I grant that we ought to ſeparate from all falſe or apoſtate Churches. Apoc. 18. 4. and to adioyne our ſelves to a true Church, reformed according to the patterne of the Apoſtles. 2. Alſo every falſe Miniſterie is to be forſaken, Mat. 7. 15. 2 Iohn, 10. Gal. 1. 8. and the true Miniſters of God to be received. Ier. 3. 14. 15. as did the faithfull in Iſrael, that forſooke the falſe Preiſts ſet vp by Ieroboam and returned to the Preiſts of the Lord to Ieruſalem, 2 Chron. 30. 11. 3. It is our dutie likewiſe to renounce all falſe worſhip, 2 Cor. 6. 14-17. Eſa. 30. 22. and to worſhip the Lord as he taught vsus in his word. And thus farre do I approve of this reaſon, but the conſequence I muſt deny, viz. that becauſe falſe worſhip is to be renounced, therefore baptiſme alſo. For 1. we are to conſider in that baptiſme p. 211received in apoſtate Churches two things, firſt that which is of God therein, ſecondly, that which is of man: that which is of God, is the ſubſtance of baptiſme, as before is obſerved, viz. the ſame matter and forme which the Lord inſtituted and likewiſe the ſame end, which is the profeſſion of the faith of Chriſt: and this is not falſe worſhip, and ſo conſequently not to be renounced. Againe, that which in the adminiſtration of baptiſme is deviſed by man, are thoſe vnwarrantable ceremonies of croſſing, annoynting and ſuch like, theſe are to be renounced as vayne worſhip, Mat. 15. 9. Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men, and not with their pollutions to be renounced. For if pollution might warrant men to ca… 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, hauehave 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 t…ue, neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or ſeale in that ſtanding, and it is not true baptiſme to ſuch.

p. 212This 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 onelyonly 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 …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 p. 213that children have to Gods covenant depends not onelyonly vponupon their immediate parents, but title therevnto deſcends vntounto them from their anceſtors, Exod. 20. (if we reſpect herein Gods merciemercy,) 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 hauehave 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 vponupon my head. And do alſo earneſtly pray that he that hath thus written, and both he and they that ſo practiſe, may ſeriouſly cō ſider of that which is done, and glorifie God by repentance.

March 14. 1608. Rich: Clifton.

p. 214Mr. 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 …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…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 …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…nſ. made conſcience of the truth, ever have applyed this place of the Galathians, p. 215to 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 his wife, and as a wife in one reſpect, ſo an heire in an other, as here the Apoſtle calls that church. And ſurely ſhe could not be called an heire, if ſhe had not title to an inheritance, and this then muſt be by covenant. Beſides the church of Iſrael was able, and did covenant with the Lord: You labour to chayn up the Lords grace, and to bynde him that he cannot promiſe good to the children of the faythful, or ſave them in Chriſt, except they do actually by voyce and words of their own ſpeaking, ſtipulate or cōtract with the Lord the contrarie ††Deu. 2… 10. - 15. A… 2. 39.Deut 2:10–15is witneſſed by the holy Ghoſt.

3. The Lord did never appoint that baptiſme ſhould ſeal up his new Tectament Rep.to infants. Of this I have ſpoken before throughout the firſt treatiſe.Anſ. And for your ſelves you hold that baptiſm ſealeth up the covenant, neither to yong▪ nor old, and therefore you might wel have ſpared this particular. As for that which followes, or that infants ſhould by his baptiſme be admitted in to the body of Antichriſt, &c. I grant, not into the body of Antichriſt, for Antichriſt hath no right to any of the ordinances of God: but the queſtiō is not what he hath right unto, but whether the Lords ordinance is to be rejected together with the pollution thereof. The Lord did not appoint that Belſha…her, his princes, wyves, and concubines ſhould drink in the veſſels of the Temple, or them to be caried into Babylō: but **Dan. 5. 2▪ 3. 4.Dan 5:2Dan 5:3Dan 5:4they being there prophaned, yet were ““Ezr. 1. 8. - 11▪Ezra 1:8–11caried out thence & ſerved for the uſe of the Temple. And ſo do we hold of baptiſme, & of the ſcriptures, rejecting the corruptions that did cleave unto them in Poperie, and applying them with their right uſe to our ſelves.

But the end of Christs baptiſme is to manifeſt viſibly that the partie confeſsing his Rep.ſinne, is ſealed by the spirit unto the day of redemption, that he hath viſibly put on Chriſt, that he is mortified, crucified, riſen againe &c. Rom. 6. 1. - 6. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. Theſe ends of baptiſme I deny not, but we muſt not deprive infants of this grace, neither exclude thatAnſ… ſpecial end of baptiſme, to wit, the ſealing up unto us the pomiſe of God, which is the thing you can not away with. I know the true beleevers ar ſealed with the ſpirit, (a ſeal inviſible): ſo were the godly under the old Teſt. al that are the Lords are in Chriſt & have his ſpirit dwelling in p. 216them, els could they not be his. And it is true alſo that the promiſe of the ſpirit, hinders not the outward meanes which God hath ſanctified for the begetting and increaſing of our fayth, for he worketh together with them.

Seeing therefore the matter, forme and end of baptiſme in the falſe church is from man, even from Antichriſt, therefore the Lord is not the Author of this baptiſme, but the baptiſme is Antichriſts wholly. And although he uſeth the words, In nomine patris, & filij, & spiritus ſancti, Amen, as the Papiſts do in sprinkling holy water in baptiſing of their belles, & as coniurers do in their charmes, yet this can not make true baptiſme &c.

How untrue that is which you ſpeak of Baptiſme in Poperie, as being…ſ. from Antichriſt, and not from Ieſus Chriſt for the matter, &c. I have ſhewed before. The Papiſts when they baptiſe children do intend to adminiſter baptiſme, and do baptiſe them into the name of Chriſt, and not into the name of the Pope. And though they do in the uſe of this holy ordinance adde a number of ſuperſtitious ceremonies and obſervations withal, yet keep they the forme * ſet downe by Chriſt without deviſing a new. AndMat. 2….Matt 2 therefore it is not true to ſay that baptiſme is Antichriſts wholly. The abuſing of the name of God by papiſts or conjurers in their baptiſing of bells and conjurations &c. is their ſinne, which we leave unto them ſelves: the ordinance of God we retayn, which we know their abuſe cannot annihilate. And though you except theſe words, In nomine patris &c. have been prophaned by the Papiſts, As much may be ſayd of the ſcriptures. And if prophanation be a cauſe ſufficient to reject baptiſme, then by lyke reaſon may the ſcriptures be caſt away. And this alſo you are in a reaſonable forewardnes, (for no tranſlated ſcriptures muſt come in your worſhip) yet for ſome uſes, you are contented to receive the ſcriptures, though they have been prophaned, but baptiſme, for no uſe at all: becauſe ſay you, it is eſsentially corrupted in matter, and forme and uſe, yet not another matter, forme and uſe: your ſelf hath confeſſed, † That if Antichriſt had baptiſed perſons confeſſing …haracter …g. 53.their ſinnes and fayth, into the Trinitie, it ſhould not have been repeated. So that all this floriſh that you make about the eſſential corruption in matter, forme and uſe, ſtands in this, that you hold that infants are not capable of baptiſme, which is proved already againſt you.

Againe theſe corruptions in or about the matter and forme of baptiſme are accidental, and not the changing of the matter, forme and end, as before p. 217is ſhewed. Furthermore, whereas I ſayd, that the Iſraelites in their Apoſtaſie were a falſe church, & you anſwer, If ſo you understand a falſe church, Rep…viz. meetings or companies of men aſsembled together in a wrong place, to a wrong worſhip, to a wrong Priesthood, I yeeld Iſrael to be a falſe church, but I deny that to be the true definition of a falſe church. &c.

By a falſe church I underſtand a church apoſtate, neither do I deſcribeAnſw. a falſe or an apoſtate Church, as in the firſt place you ſet downe, but ſuch a church I hold to be in apoſtaſie that hath ††2 The. … 1 Tim. 4.1 Tim 4fallen from the fayth and waye of Chriſt **Hoſ. 2.Hos 2broken covenant with God, and ““2 Chr. 12. 11.2 Chr 12:11forſaken him, ††2 Chro. 9. 1 Kin. 28. - 33. 14. 9.2 Chr 9that erects a new fellowſhip amongſt themſelves of their own invention, and worſhip God by the hands of falſe Miniſters with falſe worſhip, &c. This was the ſtate of Iſrael, which came to be without the ““2 Chr. 1… 3.2 Chr 1:3true God, &c. and therefore ſhe was a church in apoſtaſie, and not the true **Hoſ. 2. …Hos 2wi…e of the Lord. That falſe is contrarie to true, I graunt, but in that ſenſe I never intended to cal Iſrael a falſe church, as having nothing that belonged to the true church in it, no more is Antichriſts ſuch a one. Yet the having of ſome of Gods holy things in them in a corrupt manner cannot make them true churches. ches.

Here you indeavour to prove Iſrael a falſe church, &c. A true church is diſcerned in the true cauſes eſsential, and ſo a falſe church by the want of thoſe true cauſes eſſential, Repl.the true eſsential cauſes of the church of the old Teſtament was the posteritie of Abraham, or proſelyte circumciſed, the want of thoſe things onelyonly made a falſe church &c.

If this be the true definition of the church under the old Teſtament,Anſ. then what would let that the Iſmaelites and Edomites, being circumciſed, were not true churches, they were of the poſteritie of Abraham, as all do know. That Iſrael was an Apoſtate church, is before proved, and by you confeſſed. As to your eſſential cauſes of this church, & your carnal covenant, which is the ground of your definitiō, you may receive anſwer before, pag. 12. &c. And this more, 1. That the Iſraelites and proſelytes were a true church ſo long as they walked in the wayes of God, but apoſtating, the Lord did cal them an harlot. Hoſ. 2, 2. 2. If theſe be the eſſential cauſes of that church as you have ſet down, then the want thereof makes them not a falſe church (as you ſay) but no Church.

Laſtly, you bring us in a double respect or conſideration of members of the church p. 218Repl.of Antichriſt, &c. I anſwere, divers things 1. I do not deny but that men may be conſidered two wayes, viſibly as members of Antichriſt body, inviſibly, as pertayning to the Lords, election and that is the meaning of the Apoſtle Rom. 11. 28. but I deny that hence it followeth that when they came from their inviſible being in Chriſt to a viſible being in the true viſible Church they ſhal enter in any waye but by the dore which is baptiſm.

Firſt, you graunt a duble conſideration may be had of members of Antichriſts Church, but not altogether in the ſame ſence as I did propound it. The members of an apoſtate Ch. though in reſpect of their outward ſtanding they have no right to the holy things of God, yet as touching the election of God, divers of them may belong vntounto him, whom he knoweth for his people, and calleth them out of Babylon, when and as it pleaſeth him, even as that ſpeach doth ſhew vntounto vsus, which ſayth, come out of her my people &c. Rev. 18. 4. God for his promiſe ſake made to Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob did extend his love to their ſeed and poſteritie, to ſave ſo many of them as he had * elected: And when Iſrael fel into apoſtaſie, did rememberRom. 11. …-5.Rom 11 this his promiſe, and called thence ſuch as he had choſen to witnes his truth, and gave them to ſeparate from their falſe wayes, and to returne to Ieruſalem. Alſo the Lord having graffed the Gentiles in, and † made them partakers of the roote and fatnes of the Olive tree, vouchſafethRom. 11. 7.Rom 11:7 his grace to them and their poſteritie. But their apoſtaſie, he hateth, as he did that of the Iſraelites. And yet notwithſtanding he hath his peopleRom. 11. 8.Rom 11:8 in Babylon, whom he calleth out to confeſſe his name: for the covenant is given to the beleeving Gentiles, as it was formerly to the Iſraelites and is no more extinguiſhed in the apoſtaſie of Antichriſt, then in the apoſtaſie of Iſrael.

And as for the meaning of Rom. 11. 28. I take to be this, that wheras…. 11. 28 queſtion might be made of the ſaving of the Iewes, they being now enemies, &c. Paul granteth that they are enemies in one reſpect, to wit, of the Goſpel, which now they received not, yet that in an other reſpect, they are beloved of God, to wit, for his election and promiſe made to the fathers, ſo as through the grace of his covenant, by which he had choſen that people to himſelf; Iſrael ſhalbe called and ingraffed agayne, and ſaved from their ſinnes, &c. But that promiſe was to their fathers and their ſeed, and this ingraffing agayne of the Iewes ſhalbe into that eſtate, from which now p. 219they are fallen, and which before time their fathers were partakers off.

As concerning baptiſme, I do not read that it is called the doore of* Ro… 3-4. 3. 27.Rom 3 the Church, the ſcripture hath theſe phraſes. Baptiſed into Chriſt, baptiſed into his death, and ſuch like. Notwithſtanding in ſome ſenſe it may be called the doore, becauſe it ſealed vntounto vsus Chriſt, who is the doore, and for that it is the firſt-ordinance, that eyther ſuch as came to the Church, or that are borne in the Church are made partakers of.

Whereas you intimate that a man being inviſibly elect and having Title to the Re.covenant may therevpon, 1. viſibly enter into the falſe Church by falſe baptiſm, and then vponupon his repentance come to the true Church and enter thereinto not by baptiſm, but that the dore of Antichriſt ſhall open him the way into the Church of Christ Anſ.&c.

I anſwere, 1. do not your ſelfe intimate thus much concerning ſuch as being of yeares, and makes themſelves profeſſion; are baptiſed into Antichriſts Apoſtacy? 2. My ſpech was of ſuch of Gods people as are borne† Carra… pag. 52. in Babylon, (which your ſelfe calles * members of a falſe Church) 3. Baptiſm that is retayned in the Apoſtate Church of Antichriſt, is not falſe in that ſenſe as you ſo call it, but is the ordinance of Chriſt there poluted, as formerly I have ſhewed. 4. Gods people comming out of Babylon do no more enter into the true Church without baptiſme, then thoſe his people that ſeparated from the apoſtaſie of Iſrael came to Ieruſalem without circumciſion, otherwiſe I do not intimate or ſpeak.

Whereas I ſay you intimate ſo much, you teach contrary to Chriſt, who ſayth we Re.muſt go in by the dore, &c. and that we muſt first be taught and made diſciples, and then be baptiſed, &c.

The doore is **Joh. 10. …John 10Chriſt, by whome if any man enter in he ſhalbe ſaved.An. And to be baptiſed firſt & after inſtructed, is not cōtrary to Chriſts cōmandemēt. The words of Chriſt you wreſt frō the true meaning therof to thruſt infants out of the covenant and from baptiſme, and ſo your ſelf is guilty of teaching contrary to Chriſt, as formerly I have proved: and you might aſwel deny Baptiſme to women by that Scripture, Mat. 28. 19. as to infants: for Chriſt ſayth, Baptiſe them, vſing the maſculine gender, and not the feminine.

p. 220Secondly, I ſay that no man is under the covenant or under baptiſme for the parents ſake and that is not the meaning of the Apoſtle, Rom. 11. 28. but his meaning is, that the elect of the Iſraelites are beloved for the promiſe of God made to Abraham, Iſaac and Jaoob in reſpect of Chrict.

This place of Rom. 11. 28. I have before expounded, Pag. 218. And that any is beloved for their parents ſake, (otherwiſe then in reſpect of gods free promiſe made vntounto them and their ſeed,) I meane not. Yet if we conſider the Lords diſpenſation of his covenant, according to his grace of choſing a people to himſelf, (of 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 ſhalbe 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 merciemercy giving it vntounto their parents, includeth their ſeed with them, as before I hauehave 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…. 9. 6. Mat. 20. … 16. & 25 - 11. …k. 13. 24. …. Mat. … chap. 1. 2. 19. Act. 3. 25Matt 20:16Matt 20:25Matt 1:2Matt 1:19Acts 3:25 to vsus 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 vsus are to be reputed members, becauſe viſibly they appeare to vsus 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 merciemercy ſake, but the ſpiritual line, &c.

I anſwer, God for his merciemercy ſake loveth the line of the faithful, becauſe of his promiſe (as I hauehave ſayd) to choſe out therof, (evē 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 lōg as they continue in the Church, to vsus is holy & ſpirituall, though in Gods electiō none be holy to him, but thoſe that he hath choſen: which two things you confounding, make all this doctrine obſcure unto your hearers.

p. 221But 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 vsus, conſidered according to their outward ſtanding: but this I ſay, thatAnſ. 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.Exod 20ſhew 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 vntounto themſelves; but when ſuch as be convertedAnſ. 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, vponupon 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 apoſtaſieAnſ. yt argueth that they deſcended from beleevers. Apoſtaſie muſt be from the faith once publikly defended: And where there is a publik face p. 222of 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 infid…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 apoſtateEze. 18. …. - 17. … Chro. 30. … 11.Ezek 18 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 …his ſcripture for. But you in a kind of bitternes and deteſtation of our forefathers, do here againe utterly deny that ever they beleeved.

p. 223How 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. 2.2 Thess 2once 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 stāding 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 R…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 Separati… to weigh ſeriouſly, even …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 toAnſ. 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.

p. 224Whereas 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 ha…, being ſtrongly deluded by Sathan, who ſtil doth incourage you in this new walking, that you are perſwaded it is th… undoubtedst truth that ever was revealed vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vponupon 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 vsus 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:

p. 225If 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 vsus 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 vntounto 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 vponupon 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 inſtructiō or cōfirmatiō in the Lords truth, you ought not, nor ſhall not diſwade me frō 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 …: But if you remēber, 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 vponupon the word, your revolting would hauehave ſent me back againe to my former eſtate.

For your proclayming of vsus 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.

End of the text · Richard Clifton, The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism (1610)