A iustification of separation from the Church of England Against Mr Richard Bernard his invective, intituled; The separatists schisme. By Iohn Robinson.

The third Argument is, that as the children, or infants of the ten* 1.1 tribes in Ieroboās Apostacy were called the children of God, by circumcisiō the visible seale of Gods covenant, so may the litle ones in the Romish Church be called Christs, for that they have received true baptism. And so that Rome hath a true constitution by true baptism in the children, who are Christs there∣by, as the children of the Israelites were the Lords by circumcision, til by edu∣cation they be made Antichristian, and by that offered vp to Antichrist, as the Israelitish children became Molechs, by their fathers offering them to him.* 1.2

You do here Mr B. in the first place alter the state of the questi∣on in both the termes. The question is, whether the Church of

Rome be the true vsible Church of Christ, or no. You for the Ro∣mish Church, put the l••tle ones in the Romish Church: and in stead of their being the visible Church, you tel vs, they may be called Christs. Whereas 1. those litle ones, or infants, are not the Church, but the least part of it: and secondly, they are not necessarily eyther the true visible Church, or of it, because they are Christs, (•••• so they were) in a respect: for God hath his in † 1.3 Babylon, whic•• are visible Citizens, of that visible City of fornication, (though the Lords, in respect of election, and the beginnings of personal sanctification) whom he therefore calls out of the cōm〈…〉〈…〉▪ of it, & the abo•••• ••a∣tions therein, vnder a severe penalty. Secondly, wh•••• you say, 〈…〉〈…〉 the children in the Romish Church have a t••ue 〈…〉〈…〉 by 〈…〉〈…〉 are Christs, till by education they be made Ant〈…〉〈…〉, ••••d by it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vp to Antichrist, you seem to make the Church of Rome to be, or to comprehend in it, two distinct, yea two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 visible Churches: a Christian Church of infants, before they be capable of education: and an Antichristian Church of those that are of rip•• yeares. And yet further where you say, that i•• (for so your words are) hath a t••••e constitu••s •••• by true baptism in their children, there it seems, you will have the parents to have one constitutiō, that is to be one Church, with their children, and that true, by their true baptism: and to the parents, which by their education, are Antichristian: must by the baptism of their children be made christian: and yet the children, by their parents, when they are capable of their education, be made antichristian & offred vp to Antichrist. The scriptures every where teach, that parents by their fayth, bring their children into the * 1.4 covenant of the Church, and entitle them to the promises: but that children by their circumcision, or baptism, should constitute their parents in the Church, read •• not, but in this m••ns scripture. Yo•• most manifest it is every where, that wicked parents by their 〈…〉〈…〉∣lity, or other sinns, depriving themselves of the Lords presence, and covenant, have enwrapped their children ••••th 〈…〉〈…〉 and visibly: “ 1.5 secret things ever reserved vnto God. So † 1.6 C〈…〉〈…〉 the presence of the Lord caried his posterity with him: so ••i•• Ismaell, and I••sa•• theirs, the Ismaelites, and Edo••••es. And ••••th Lord dis••laym * 1.7 the mother for a harlot, not reputing her his wife, he accounts the children

no better then bastards, on whom he wil have no pity. And if the chil∣dren of the Iewes be not † 1.8 broken of with their parents, for their vnbe∣lief, they are successively within the covenant, and of the true Church every one of them to this day. Neyther doth this at all crosse that which els where you obiect out of the Prophet, that * 1.9 the soul that sinneth shall dy, & that the sonne shal not bear the iniquity of the father, &c. For first the Prophet there speaks of such a sonne as forsakes his fathers evil, & practiseth the contrary: Otherwise the Lord threat∣neth, that he “ 1.10 wil visit the sinns of the fathers vpon the children: yet not so; as the children are without fault, for infants new-born by A∣dams transgression, and their natural, and original corruption, are † 1.11 children of wrath, and lyable to all Gods curses; but the Lord takes occasion by the sinns of the parents to execute his iustice vpon the children, in whose punishments he also punisheth the pa∣rents themselves after a sort.

The next thing I observe in this argument is, that you affirm the children of the Apostate Israelites to be the children of God by circumcision, and infants now to be Christs by baptism, which you say also consti∣tutes the Church: against which Popish, and anabaptistical, errour, I do iustly except. Popish I call it, for that the papists imagine that by baptism their children are made Christian soules, and in signe of that, they have the font ever standing at the Church dore: so do the Anabaptists make baptism the form of the Church, which you call the constitution, as indeed the form of a thing constituteth it, and giveth being vnto it. Wherof if I my self were perswaded, I could not defend the baptism received eyther in Rome, or England, but I must withall iustify both the one, & the other for the true Church of Christ. But against this vnsound opinion both theirs, and yours, I will lay down certayn arguments playnly proving the contrary.

And first, it is the covenant of God, which makes the Church as you your selfe both affirm, & prove, pag. 277. of your 2▪ book, of* 1.12 which covenant you also graunt in this place baptism to be the visible seal, as was also * 1.13 circumcision in those tymes; and therefore it is not the covenant it selfe, but is after it in the order both of nature, and tyme.

Secondly, the Lord had his Church before eyther circumcision

or baptism were appoynted, which is also one, and the same in es∣sence from the beginning to the end of the world; which it could∣not be, if eyther circumcision, or baptism, were parts constitutive, or essentiall of it.

Thirdly, † 1.14 the Lord made his covenant (and so admitted them in∣to the Church) w••••h Abraham, and his seed, to be his and their God, in their ages and generations: so that he children of Abraham, and of the Iewes, were not without the Lord covenant, and him to be their God, til the tyme of their circumcision, which was the eighth day; but were born, yea begot in the covenant, and an holy seed: and therfore the manchilde, not circumcised the eight day, is sayd to have broken the Lords covenant, wherof circumcision was asigne. To* 1.15 this also add, that the Lord did admit into 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with himself (ac∣cepting them to be his people) all, and every one of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Israelites in the* 1.16 wildernes, where notwithstanding all of them in comparison, were vncircumcised. Ios. 5. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Fourthly if baptism were the constitution of the Church, as Mr B. speaks, then were all heretiques, and schismatiques bapti∣sed with water, into the name of the Father, Son, and H. Ghost, true christians, and their assemblyes, true Churches of Christ: so had the •• S••••ce••••tes been a true Church by circumcision, and so* 1.17 of the Is••••••elites or Agarians, which have retayned circumcision to this day: the same may be sayd of the E••••••ites, and Edomites, which were notwithstanding as far from being true Churches, as Mr B. is from the truth of God, in writing, a•• he doth.

A fourth consideration is to be had of an affirmation by you peremptorily and absolutely made, (as though it were without all contradiction, or limitation) in the third argument: and that is, that the baptism in the Romish Church is true baptism. Touching which I do commend vnto the godly reader this distinction. Baptism is to be considred of vs in a twofold respect: first nakedly, and •••• the essential causes; the matter, water; and the form, the washing with water into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the H. Ghost, and in this respect, I confesse true baptism both in England and Rome. Secondly, it is to be considered of vs, 〈…〉〈…〉, as they speak, & clothed with such appurtenances, as wherewith the

Lord hath appoynted it to be administred: as for example, a law∣full person by whom, a right subiect vpon which, a true communi∣on wherein, it is to be ministred, & dispensed; in which regards, neyther I can approve it, nor Mr B. manifest it to be true, eyther in Rome, or England. When † 1.18 the house of the Lord at Ierusalem was destroyed by the C••aldees, and the vessels therof, together with the people, cary∣ed into Babylon, they remayned still, both in nature, and right, the vessels of the Lords house: though in respect of their vse, or ra∣ther abuse▪ they became * 1.19 Belshazzars, qua••fing bowles. So is it in the destruction of the spirituall house of the Lord, the Church, by the spirituall Babylonians, and in the vsurpation, and abuse of the holy vessels, and in special of this holy vessel of baptism.

Yet is there in this poynt a further consideration to be had of vs, vnto which both the scriptures, and our own experience do lead vs: namely that, as the Lord hath his people in Babylon, his, I mean, both in respect of election, and of personal sanctification: so hath he for their sakes there preserved (notwithstanding all the apostacy, and confusion, which is found in it) sundry his holy truthes, and ordinances, amongst which baptism is one. But as this his people, being commingled with the Babylonians in one visible communion, cannot be called the true visible Church of God; so neyther can these ordinances, in the administration of them, be called the true visible ordinances of Christ, and of his Church: but as the Lords “ 1.20 people are commaunded to goe out of her, and to † 1.21 separate themselves, and so to build the Lords house a new in Ierusalem, or rather themselves, into a new * 1.22 spiritual house for him to dwel in; so are they to bring with them out of Babylon these ordinances, and in particular this ordinance of baptism, and to enioy the same (being sanctifyed) in the right vse, and order. All which was livelily shadowed out in the materiall temple, and ordi∣nances as appeareth Ezra 1. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. and 5. 13. 14. 15. And this also may serv for answer to that you bring in your second rea∣son for the iustification of Rome in respect of the truthes of doctrine, and ordinances there.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mr B.
• * 1.2

  Answ.
• † 1.3

  Rev. 18. 4▪
• * 1.4

  ••en. 1••. ••. Act. 1. 39.
• “ 1.5

  Deut. ••9. 29.
• † 1.6

  Gen. 4. 16 ••••d ••. 2.
• * 1.7

  Hos. 2. 2. 5.
• † 1.8

  Rom. 11▪ 17.
• * 1.9

  Ezek. 19 20.
• “ 1.10

  Ex. 20. 5
• † 1.11

  Ephe. 2. 3 Ps. 51. 5.
• * 1.12

  pag. 132.
• * 1.13

  Rom. 4. 11.
• † 1.14

  Gen. 17 7
• * 1.15

  v. 11. 14.
• * 1.16

  Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. 13. &c.
• * 1.17

  * Gen. 34. 24.
• † 1.18

  2 King. 25. 9. 15. Ier. 52. 13. 18.
• * 1.19

  Dan. 5. 2. 3.
• “ 1.20

  Rev. 18. 4.
• † 1.21

  2 Cor. 6. 17.
• * 1.22

  1 Pet. 2. 5. 2 Cor. 6 16.