nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptized or els hee forgatt his duty in not Teaching baptisme off infants vppon so just an occasion But Christ receaving infants praying for them blessing them doth neyther baptize them nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them neyther did forgett his duty in not teaching baptisme of infants occasioned Ergo Christs pleasure was and is that infants should not be baptized 5. They that are not actualy possessed of the promises or covenant are not actually to be invested with baptisme Infants are not actually possessed with the covenant Seing they performe not the condition viz confession of their sinnes their Fayth actually Ergo infants are not to be invested with baptisme This shal suffice for answer of your third argument Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 7.14 Iff the children of beleeving parents be holy then are they with in the covenant off Abraham and so consequently have ryght to the seale thereoff But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second Touching the former proposition I take it that none wil affirme holines in any that are not of the covenant for in that respect Israel was called a holy nation Exo. 19.6.1 Pet. 2.9 al others vncleane Act. 11.3 10.15 that were without Iff infants be within the covenant then can not the seal be denyed to such seing the Lo. hath joyned the promise seale together Gen. 17.10 which no man may or ought to Seperate Mat. 19.6 What can be objected against the assumption I see not seing the Apostle plainly affirmes but now are your children holy Vnlesse it may be said as of some I have heard that as the vnbeleeving wyfe is sanctified to the husband so are the children viz to the vse of their Father but this to affirme is a great abusing of the Scripture For the Apostle in that place answering an objection that the Faithful is defiled by the society of the vnfaithful proveth that the faithful husbād may with good conscience vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wife by an argument from the effects namely bicause their children which are borne of them are accounted holy or within the promise God having said to al the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed As for that other straunge exposition that the Children of a beleeving Father are no otherwise sanctified then the vnbeleeving wife is vnto her husband viz to their Fathers vse only that cannot stand with the meaning purpose of the Apost For so much may be said of an vnbeleeving servāt that he is for the vse of his master to do him service if children be no more holy then so then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father neither is the objection removed by this answer If it bee further pressed that the vnbeleving wife is said to be holy as wel as the children yet is she not within the covenant I answer that she indeed is not holy as be her children for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant therfor she is said to be sanctified in her husband the Apostle respecting their mariage which though it was contracted before either party beleeved yet stands firme not dissolved when either of them is called to the Faith so that the beleeving husband may lawfully vse her as his wife if she be content to dwel with him 1. Cor. 7.12 Now the children cannot be sanctified or Seperate to such vse to their Father as the wise is to her husband And therfor are the children called holy bicause they are the seed of a beleeving Father Iohn Smyth Your sourth argument is from 1. Cor. 7.14 thus If the Children of beleeving parents be holy then are they within the covenāt of Abraham so consequently have right to the seale therof But the first is true 1. Cor. 7.14 Ergo the second I answer First denying your majors consequent Seing that al the nation of the Iewes were holy yet not within the covenant of Abraham I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ that they were not al within that covenant is plaine Rom. 9.6 al they are not Israel which are of Israel vs. 7. neyther are they al Children bicause they are the seed of Abraham vs. 12. God revealed that the Elder should serve the yonger Act. 7.51 yee have alwayes resisted the holy ghost as your foreFathers have done so do you if it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secreat election not of mans knowledg I answer the vs. 12. is plaine of that which was revealed vnto the Church yet Esaw was holy circumcized when he was borne being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ for proof of this point that the whole Church of the Iewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it I vse these reasons 1. First The condition or obedience of the matter or members of the New Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members off the old Testament Faith repentance is the condition obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament Marc. 1.15 Ergo Faith repentance is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament The reason of the major is evident seing that as the ministery worship government of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the ministery worship government of the new Testament is so the constitution viz the matter Forme of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the constitution that is the matter forme of the new Testament is Seing therfor that the ministery worship government of the old Testament was carnal the constitutiō must also be carnal Therfor the matter forme must be carnal Therfor Faith repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament but only a carnal holines viz The circumcision of the foreskinne whereby the carnal forme that is the carnal covenant or commaundement was induced vpon them wherto they were tyed in obedience Heb. 7.16 Gal. 5.3 2. Secondly The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self True is nature reason The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. The constitution or the matter forme of the church of the new Testament is the truth c. Heb. 10.1 9.19.23 Ergo The constitution viz the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament that is the members covenant is not the truth that is the members are not truly holy but ceremonialy holy the covenant is not the everlasting covenant but the typical carnal covenant or commaundement
justification seing they cannot have actuall Fayth Therfor you cannot declare that they are actually vnder the covenant by actuall Faith holines so if they bee not actually vnder it but vnder the offer of it onely that is it which wee affirme which wil help you nothing to baptisme of infants Secondly I desire that you would prove vnto me by Scripture that in this place 1. Cor. 7.14 Holines signifieth true sanctification or to be actually vnder the covevenant having it really invested vppon them You endevour to declare it out of the text For you say Paul answereth an objection viz that the faithful are defiled with the Society of the vnfaithful proveth that the Faithful husband may vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wise with a good conscience by an argument drawne from the effects namely bicause their Children are holy vnder the covenant God having said to the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Wel let vs see the force of your reason your fourth argument was this If infants be holy then are they vnder the covenant Infants are holy Ergo infants are vnder the covenant Your proof that infants are holy is this If infants be vnder the covenant then infants are holy Infants are vnder the covenant Ergo infants are holy I ask you Sir in good sooth is this circular reasoning sound you say infants are Holy bicause they are vnder the covenant you say they are vnder the covenant bicause they are holy Let al men judg whither you have proved infants Holy or not Thirdly I answer that Holy doth not so signify as you expound neither is the argument taken from the effects but from the greater to the lesse after this manner If your children in your owne judgment be holy you do not put them away when you are converted to the faith but vse thē stil as your Children to al those vses wherto children are apointed the relation natural of Father sonne remayning though you beleve then much more the relation of mā wife remayneth you may vse your wives they being of a neerer natural bond then your children But the first is true by your owne confession by the light of nature Ergo the second is true by the light of nature much more And whereas you say that by this exposition an vnbeleving servant is in as good an estate as holy as children in respect of the covenant I confesse it to be so you that plead for pedobaptisme say so likewise seing that you wil have servants vnder the covenant by their Mrs. Faith but I would know whither the Apostle speaketh only of infants or of al Children generally if generally of al Children then all the Children of the Faithful are holy yea even those that are vnbeleevers then would I know how vnbeleeving children can be holy if not as the vnbeleving wife is holy that is to the vse of their parents in the relative dutyes of children parents If the Apostle speaketh only of infants then he speaketh not so generally as God speake to Abraham saying I wil be thy God the God of thy seed for in that speech you say al the seed is comprehended whither of yeeres or vnder yeeres yea servants pupils children by adoption c. So that expound it as you wil it cannot be vnderstood of holines in respect of the covenant as you pretend but you wil say they are to bee esteemed Holy vnder the covenant til they manifest the contrary I say that they must manifest that they are Holy before they can bee esteemed Holy that you cannot prove that assertion from the Scripture the people of the Iewes Abrahams carnall Children were Holy when they declared the contrary by their sinnes Exo. 19.6 compared with Exod. 32.9 33.3.5 so are the children of the Faithful holy though they be vnbeleevers as the wife is holy though an vnbeleever Finally you say God hath said to all the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed I deny it vtterly God said that only to Abtaham Genes 17.7 whither you expound it literally or Spiritually I avouch confidently against you al men that the meaning of it is not that God made his covenant with the faythfull man or the Faythful woman their infants begotten of their Bodyes but that literally the meaning is I will be God vnto thee Abraham thy seed according to the Flesh to give them the Land of Canaan so it is expounded Genes 17.8 Or Spiritually the meaning is I wil give vnto Abraham the Father of the Faithful al that are his Spiritual seed everlasting life which is the true Land of Canaan The latter which is the truth being signified by the former which is the type shew mee in all the Scriptures that God said to every Faithful man woman for you must prove it spoken of women aswel as men that he will be God vnto them their seed For I would fayne know why the covenant should passe vnto the infants of the Faithful it wil be said bicause of the Fathers Faith this is false doctryne For the Prophet teacheth that every man shal live by his owne faith that one mans faith cānot conveigh the covenāt of justificatiō to another neither can one mans sin cut of another from the covenant as this doctrine importeth but the soule that sinneth it shal dye Neither wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlasting covenant For berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance but a covenant that doth continue his proper tyme For gnolam signifieth any hidden tyme or any set tyme of any length as 50. yeeres the tyme of the jubile But let it be graunted that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ which yet I do not see proved what then shal it follow that bicause it was with Abraham the Faithfull whither Iewes or Gentils beleeving actually as Abraham the Father did Therfor it is made with the Faithful men who is the child of Abraham with his children begotten of his body which have not Abrahams actuall Faith so are not the children of Abraham I deny it vtterly For the Apostle saith the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz Christ or the actual beleevers For Christ dwelleth in the harts of men by Faith onely Gal. 3.16 Eph. 3.17 But if it bee made with the Faithful who beleeve actualy which is one seed whither Iew or Gentil the infants of the Faithful carnally begotten of their body which is another seed for they are not begotten of the immortall seed of regeneration then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many that is directly contrary the Apostles wordes Gall 3.16 Therefore the one seed is persons
that which is appointed to perdition to perdition let it goe I wil never vse meanes to support it Finally although I have professed my readines publiquely privately to forsake my errors vppon their discovery as I have already practised for the which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never professed my readines to bee perverted from the truth which you cal heresy therfore if you did vndertake to write vppon this ground you might wel have spared your paynes saved your self from so greevous a sinne as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth by blessing your labours in opugning at this breefly shal suffice for your preface general Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. That infants are not to bee Baptised Answere Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of Infants next after him Pelagius the heretike against whom Augustine others of the auncient Fathers have opposed condemned for heresy that according to the Scriptures which by Gods grace we shal together with them also fâ—rther manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vndertake then answere the reasons to the contrary Gen. 17.20 God made his covenant to Abraham to his seed from whence I reason thus 2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to bee sealed to him to al his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therefor that is commaunded to be fealed to vs c to our seede yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrahams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17.10.11.12 The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2.39 sayth the promise is made to you to your children to al that are a farre of as many as the Lord our God shal cal In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant promisse that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive were baptised into And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17.4 also Gal. 3.13.4 Christ is said to redemne vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ies Chr. that wee might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8.9 Now then if wee bee partakers of the same covenant for otherwise Abrahams covenant should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.7 seing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a tyme Rom. 11 15.17.20 it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs to our infants els is it not the same that by the commaundement of God For the abolishing of circumcision the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospel doth not abrogate or disanulle the commaundement of sealing the covenant to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seal thereof to them to their seede as that did to Abraham to his seede The outward ceremonie onely changed Iohn Smyth Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point affirming that baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius whom Augustine others refuted condemned for heresy that by Scripture I say that one heretique condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answere I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Ciprian Origen Nazianzen Ambrose many others were almost as grosse heretiques if he be an heretique that holdeth an heresy as Auxentius Pelagius you your selves account theÌ„ all Antichristians therfor the auncient practise of pedobaptistry in auncient antichristian Churches is no more to be respected then the auncient practise of the Prelacy read prayer in the fame but these are but Florishes let vs heare your arguments from the Scripture proving 1. That infants are to be baptised Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10 is framed thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him to al his seed yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel do receave is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfor it is commaunded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea eveÌ„ to our infaÌ„ts for so was it to Abrahams To this argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments for a covenant testament is al one in the originals though the English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham his carnal seed of that covenant was circumcision a seale another covenant made with AbrahaÌ„ his Spiritual seed of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seale for the carnall covenant had a carnal seale vppon the carnal seed the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seale vppon the Spiritual seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnal seale could not seale vp the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed for to say so is to leap over the hedg to make a disproportion betwixt the type the truth These things being thus distinguished let theÌ„ bee remembred applyed orderly the argument wil appeare of no value for the major is thus to be vnderstood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with AbrahaÌ„ his carnal seed was to be sealed vp to his infants with a carnal seale viz circumcision if it be not so vnderstood it is false Now the minor if it be assumed out of the major as it must be els it is a Sophisme is very false flatly contradictory to the Scripture for we vnder the gospel do not receave that carnal covenant which was made to Abraham his carnal seed whereof circumcision was the carnal seale but that carnal covenant seale together with the subject of that seale viz a male of 8. dayes old is taken away by Christs crosse in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant the Spiritual seale viz the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seale the Spiritual infant viz a new borne babe in Christ in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed signified by that carnal infant That al these particulars are so I prove vnto you plainly by these places of Scripture 1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham Gal.
4.24 For Agar that is the old Testament Sara that is the new Testament were both maryed to AbrahaÌ„ Abraham had them both 2. There are two seedes Ismaell of Abraham Hagar who typed the carnall seed borne after the Flesh Isaac of Abraham Sara who typed the Spiritual seed borne by promise vers 23. There are two seales Circumcision a seale of the carnal covenant vppon the carnal children Gen. 17.11 the Holy Spirit of promise a seale of the Spirituall covenant vppon the Spiritual seed 2. Cor. 1.22 Eph. 1.13 as circumcision was a seale from God to the carnal seed of the promise from the carnall seed to God in obedience So the Spirit of promise is a seale from God to the Spiritual seed of the promise from the Spiritual seed to the Lord in obedience Eph. 1.13 Ioh. 3.33 these things are evident but now you I am perswaded of mere ignorance mistaking the covenant doe make circumcision a seale of the everlasting Spiritual covenant which is an error therevppon you build all your false building of pedobaptistry which is as a howse built vppon the sand by the foolish builders Now for your places of Scripture I expound them in order Gen. 17.10.11.12 this place proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenant made with the carnall seed not a seale of the Spirituall covenant made with the Faithful For the Spirit is the seale thereof who is therfor called the Spirit of promise the seale Eph. 1.13 if the place of the Rom. 4.11 be objected to prove that circumcision sealed the righteousnes of Faith to Abraham I answer that is not the scope of the place but this viz that circumcision had one specialty in Abraham differing from al other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the Father of al the Faithful as coÌ„cerning the matter of their justificatioÌ„ namely that as he was justifyed by his actual Faith so should all the beleevers bee justifyed by their actuall Fayth whither they beleeved in their vncircumcision or in their circumcision Act. 2.39 the promise is offered to the impenitent Iewes to their posterity to the Gentils a far of it was exhibited only to so many as yeelded obedience to the Fayth whereas in rehearsing the Apostles speech you say the promise is made I say therein you ad to the text For if you intend that the promise of the Spirit was exhibited to al the Iewes their infants to the Gentils beleeving their infants that this place afordeth it I say the place doth not intend any such thing but only an offer of the Spiritual covenant to the carnal Iewes their children according to the Flesh also the Gentils but a true conferring or exhibiting of it to so many as should be effectually called by the offer of it in the preaching of the Gospel Further whereas you seem to assume that seing the covenant was made to Abraham his infants it is therfor made to vs our infants I deny that ever the covenant Spiritual was made that is conferred to al Abrahams infants according to the Flesh neyther therfor is it made that is conferred to al our infants this you should prove but it is vndone I confesse the promise was offered to all Abrahams carnall seed vnder that carnal covenant of the Old Testament so it is offered now to all our carnal children by the preaching of the gospel in the new Testament but as the Spiritual covenant was only exhibited to the Faithful the true seed of Abraham so is it now only exhibited to the Faithful which are the only true seed of Abraham who is the Father of vs al wee al his children justified by actual Faith as he was in respect whereof infants wanting actual Fayth cannot bee truely said the Children of Abraham but are that they are in secreat to the Lord whatsoever they are Thus much for the Scriptures by you alledged in your first argument From that which I have answered I reason against pedobaptistry thus 1. As it was with Abraham the Father of the Faithful so must it be with the Children of Abraham Rom. 4.11 But Abraham the Father of the Faithful first beleeved actually being sealed with the Spirit of promise afterward receaved the signe of circumcision Ergo The Children of Abraham the beleeving Gentils must first beleeve actually be sealed with the Spirit of promise then receave the baptisme of water 2. As in the Old Testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised so admitted into that Church of the Old Testament So in the New Testament the spiritual children must be Spiritually circumcised that is in hart then be admitted by baptisme into the Church of the New Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 3. As in the Old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents then were carnally circumcised receaved into the carnal covenant So in the new Testament Spiritual infaÌ„ts new borne babes in Christ must be Spiritually begotten borne by the immortal seed of regeneration by the Spiritual parents then being Spiritually circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be receaved into the New Testame But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 4. If the carnal infants in the Old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the New Testament must not be baptized bicause that as circumcision is abolished which was the signe or seale so the infant is abolished which is the subject of that signe or seale a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the Spirit the word But the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the New Testament to be baptised 5. As in the Old Testament when the male appeared the 8. day ther was a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne when the party was receaved into the covenant actually So in the new Testament when the Lord Ies Ch. typed by the male appeareth when ther is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of the hart the party so qualified shal be by baptisme receaved into the new Testament actually But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in truth And this shal suffice for answer to your first argument Mr. Rich. Clifton Col. 2.11.12 If circumcision belonged to Faithful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to al beleevers to their feede being infants But the first is â—â—ue Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The consequent wil â—â—llow seing baptisme cometh in place of circumcision seaâ—ling vp vnto vs â—â— ouâ— seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham to his seede Coll.
more larg then circumcision but these things are almost nothing to the purpose Therfor I say more pertinently That the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is now as larg as ever it was For that was never made with Abraham al his carnal children but only with Abraham the Faythful so it continueth in the same tenor stil it is enlarged now since Christs comming only in respect of the cleerer more vniversal publication oâ— it for then the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ was shadowed out darkly in types now since Christ it is preached plainly then it was only to the Iewes now to al nations Mat. 28.19 besides I affirme that circumcision was never a seale of that covenant that God made with Abraham in respect of Christ for the Holy Spirit of promise is the seale of it but circumcision only was a seale of the external covenant the seale of the Spirit is as large as the seale of the Flesh For all the carnal Israelites were carnally sealed al the true beleevers are sealed by the Sâ—â—riâ—al the males were carnally sealed al that have the male Christ formed in them whither men or weomen are sealed by the Spirit For in Christ ther is neyther male nor female Gal. 3.28 al the carnal seed were carnally sealed whither yong or old so all the Spiritual seed are Spiritually sealed whither new borne babes in Christ or perfect men that are come to the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ so the covenant is not lessened taking things in their due proportion not perverting them whereas you say in Christ all the promises of God are yea amen 2. Cor. 1.20 therby insinuating that in the new Testament the covenant must be as large as in the old I confesse it to be as larg but this place is strayned to the proving thereof For the meaning of it is that vnto the Faythful all the Lords promises are verefied but his promise was never that al their carnal seed should have baptisme as a seale of life salvation but that al the beleevers should have the Spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seale From that which I have answered to your second argument I reason thus 1. If al the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it then they never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant But al the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actual possession of it Seing that Abrahams children according to his actual Fayth were only vnder it Rom. 4.11 Ergo al the carnal infants of Abraham never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant therfor not to baptisme 2. If baptisme doth not succeede circumcision then baptisme doth not pertaine to carnal infants though circumcision perteyned to carnal infants But baptisme doth not succeede circumcision bicause the seale of the Spirit is correspondent to the typical seale of the Flesh baptisme with water is only the manifestation of the seale Ergo baptisme doth not aperteyne to the carnal infants 3. If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham all his carnal infants then by your proportion baptisme doth not seale vp the everlasting covenant to the Faithful their carnal infants But circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham all his carnal infants Ergo by your proportion baptisme doth not seale vp the everlasting covenant to the Faithful their carnal infants 4. If beleeving parents do not stand in Abrahams rome to conveigh the covenaÌ„t to their infants then though they be baptized themselves yet their children shal not But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rome to conveigh the covenant to their infants For no man is the Father of the Faythfull as Abraham was he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnal infants Ergo though beleeving parents be baptized themselves yet ther infants shall not be baptized 5. If infants of the Faythful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham but only occupy the place of the carnal children then though the true children of Abraham 1. the actual beleevers be baptized yet the infants shal not which cannot actually beleeve But the infants of the Faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham seing the children of Abraham do the Workes of Abraham Ioh. 8.34 which infants cannot doe Ergo though actual beleevers be baptized yet infants shal not And thus much may suffice for answer of this second argument which you see is as weake as the first being built vppon the same sand Mr. Rich. Clifton Marc. 10.13.14 Mat. 19.13.14 3. They that are of the Kingdome of God have right title to all the Holy things therto belonging may perticipate of so many of them as they are capable to receave But the infants of beleeving parents are of the Kingdome of God Therfor the infants of beleeving parents have right title to al the holy things therto belonging may participate of so many of them c. And consequently of baptisme seing they are capable of that The major proposition I thinke wil not be denyed it is written 1. Cor. 3.21.22 Al things are yours c. Rom. 9.4 The assumption is Mat. 19 13-17 For of such is the Kingdome of God meaning that this Kingdome stood not only of such as being of yeeres that beleeved but also of their infants And this he declareth not only in this saing but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their comming vnto him by commaunding to suffer them to come by putting his hands vppon them blessing them Mat. 19.13.14.15 For would Christ have blessed them that were not of his Kingdome or do not the blessings apperteyne only to the children of the Kingdom even to the seed of Abraham Gal. 3.8.18 If it be objected that children are not capable of baptisme I answere they are as capable thereof as the infants of Israel were of circumcision being both pertakers of the same promises with them in al respects as capable of the outward seales of the covenant as they were And therefore the infants of beleevers are to bee baptized Iohn Smyth Your third argument followeth from Marc. 10.13.14 Mat. 19.13.14 They that are of the Kingdome of God have right title to al the holy things theâ—to belonging may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receave But the infants of beleeving parents are of the Kingdom of God Ergo the infants of beleeving parents have right title to al the holy things therto belonging may participate of so many of them c. consequeÌ„tly of baptisme seing they are capable of it The major you say is written 1. Cor 3.21.22 Rom. 9.4 The assumption is
the cause of title to the seale but the particular expresse commaundement or wil of God so the insufficiency of your consequent appeareth which importeth that to bee vnder the covenant is reason sufficient to prove a partie to be intitled to the seale or signe of the covenant this excellent truth herby is manifested that if it should be granted that infants were actualy vnder the covenant yet it could not follow thervppon that therfor they should have the signe of seale of the covenaÌ„t which you say is baptisme except it could be proved by expresse commaundement otherwise for this argument you see proveth it not Hence therfor apeareth the weaknes of your argument viz that if infants were holy so vnder the covenant yet it doth not follow that therefor they shall have the signe or seale of the covenant which you say but we deny is baptisme But I passe vnto your assumption which you say is evideÌ„t 1. cor 7.14 but now are your children holy you affirme that infants of one of the parents Faithful are holy I except many things here first I desire that you expound vnto me what this holines is which the Ap. here mentioneth happily you wil say it is to be vnder the covenant then I demaund what it is to be vnder the covenant prehaps you wil say though this be to runne in a circle it is to be justified by imputation of Chr. righteosnes TheÌ„ I demaund which of these three viz. to be holy to be vnder the covenaÌ„t to have Ch. righteousnes imputed is first in nature happily you wil say First they are vnder the covenant Secondly they are justified by the imputed righteousnes of Chr. Thirdly they are sanctified or holy Then I proceed demaund when do infants come vnder the covenant when they are conceaved or when they are borne or when the pareÌ„ts are converted being already borne It wil be answered That these infants that are begotten of Faithful parents come vnder the covenant in their conception these infants that are already borne come vnder the covenant when their parents are regenerate hereby then it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children from the parents by generation by filial relation herevnto add that if it be true that some say that children vnder the government of the faithful also are vnder the covenant that the covenant is conveighed also by pupilship or adoption if bondslaves or servants being infants be vnder the covenant bicause of their beleving Mrs. then servitude is also a meanes or instrument of conveigning the covenant from Mr. to Servants this being propounded then as the truth you hold that plead for Pedebaptisme then you maintayne that â—â—g generation filial relation pupilship adoptioÌ„ servitude are meanes to bring infants vnder the covenant then they are meanes to bring infants vnder justification vnder sanctification So that it followeth that we must account al the infants of beleeving parents that are childreÌ„ by nature by adoption al infants of beleeving Mrs. that are borne in slavery or servitude to be justified Sanctified bicause the covenant is communicated vnto them by the foresaid relation Then I proceed demaund why may not all the infants borne vnder one King if his subjects bee all his Servants Vassals as they say bee by that relation brought vnder the covenant so be accounted justified sanctified For relation of a King a subject borne so is as neer as the relation of a Mr Servant or an adopted Child And then I demaund seing the relation of a maÌ„ a wife is neerer a great deale then any relation of adoption or set vitude why the wife shal not be vnder the covenant for the relation of mariage happily it will bee said the wife being of yeeres cannot bee admitted bicause of her vnbeleefeâ— I say that infants of parents Mrs. cannot bee admitted bicause of their want of Faith being vnder yeeres but it wil bee said that the covenant with Abraham was with him his seed only I say that it was made by your confession with him and his adopted infants with him his pupils being infants with him his Servants being infants therfor not only with him his seed seing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant those that are further of why shall not those that are neerer as his wife but you wil say bicause infants do not refuse the covenaÌ„t they may be admitted to baptisme though adopted childreÌ„ though pupils though Servants but wives refusing the covenant may not I further insist that as infants do not resist so they do not consent that al the Children Servants Wives that do not resist may bee admitted though they cannot make declaration of their Fayth repentance if you say not so bicause that in them that are of yeers Faith repentance is required but of infants no such thing is required I answer first shew that by Scripture then I say ther is no reason why Faith repentance should bee required of one to make him capable of the covenant of justification Sanctification more then of another except you wil say that God is accepter of persons further the covenant is only with Abraham his seed not with his adopted Children not with his pupils not with his Servants therfor in theÌ„ Faith and repentance must necessarily be had so they cannot bee baptized til they shew their Faith repentance which is contrary to your doctryne besides you cannot shew in al the Scriptures that persons may be said to be partakers of the covenant actually except actually they fulfil the condition of the covenant if you say that infants being vnder the covenant justified sanctified therfor they have Fayth the graces of God in them I say that is contrary to the Scriptures which say that Faith commeth by hearing that the word is the immortal seed of regeneration wherby new borne babes vnder the gospel are regenerate if it be said that infants have a kind of Faith wrought in them invisibly after an hiddeÌ„ manner I say what God worketh invisibly secreatly we dispute not nor regard but what he worketh visibly to our knowledg by the meanes appointed for the communion of the Church For ther is but one Faith which is the common Faith of the members of the Church which is visibly seen by speaking confession according as it written I beleeved therfor I speake Tit. 1.4 if it be objected that then wee doe condemne al infants dying before they be converted I say No wee pronounce nothing of infants but leave the secreat of them to the Lord who hath reserved secreat things to himself Hence then I conclude that seing you cannot declare what this holines is which infants have seing they cannot have actuall holynes Seing you cannot declare that they have Faith or
at my 〈◊〉 at the whose Earth that wee should not see so evident a truth all this tyme. The second particular you bring in answer to my reason is a distinction of the respects of the seed of the Faithful For you say as they are borne of their parents they are carnal sinful Psal 51.5 as they are vnder the covenant they are Spiritual Gen. 17.7 are called Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 so are not the carnal seed so they may be baptized aswel as the Iewes infants were circumcised though some of them prove wicked afterward as Ismael Esaw c. I answer First your distinction is withoâ—â— warrant of Scripture I deny that infants of the Faithful are to be considered in these two respects whereas you bring two places Gen. 17.7 1. Cor. 7.14 to prove the latter part of the distinction I have answered these two places already shewing your false exposition of them that the infants of Abraham were not in their byrth vnder the actual possession of the everlasting covenant made in respect of Chr. but only vnder the offer of it that the infants al the childreÌ„ of the faithful are holy only as the wife that is an vnbeleever is holy so this exception of yours is frivolous The third particular you bring in answer to my reason is that it is not simply a profaning of the covenant to administer the seale of it to them to whom it belongeth not as to Simon Magus Act. 8.13 but it is then profaned when it is administred to them that are wicked c I answer the Sacrament of baptisme is profaned when it is administred vppon a wrong subject whatsoever it bee as to give the Lords Supper to an infant of two yeer old So to baptise an infant is a profanation For as profession confession of Fayth shall intitle any man to all the ordinances of the Chur. first to baptisme So absence of confession of Faith shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the Church in communion although I will not say that Children are damned yet I dare say that they are borne dead in trespasses sinnes that they doe not nor cannot shew any sparke of grace to mee therfor although I dare not say this or that infant is not vnder the election of God yet I dare say that never an infant in the Earth is actually seased of the New Testament which is onely atteyned by confession of sinne Faith For so saith Christ the tyme is fulfilled the Kingdome of God is at hand repent beleeve the gospel Marc. 1.15 except a man bee borne againe hee cannot see the Kingdome of God Iohn 3.3 Christ dwelleth in our harts by Fayth Eph. 3.17 as I cannot deny but that many infants are elected yet I cannot say which infants shal beleeve confesse their sinnes Fayth so I know not vppon which to administer baptisme I must be assured that they do beleve before I can baptise them for whatsoever is not of Faith is sinne to know nothing to the contrary but that they do beleâ—ve is not sufficient warrant for baptisme yea I doe know certainly that â—eing Faith coÌ„meth by hearing therfor they do not beleve to me yea though they could heer did beleeve that is nothing to mee except they can shew mee their Faith by their confession I say therfor that al infants are carnal to me Rom. 9.8 For the Apost vâ— 5 saith plainly that to be borne of Abrah acording to the Flesh is not to be borne according to promise or to be as you say Spiritual for your distinction before was that every infant of Abrah so of the faithful was borne Spiritual as wel as carnal but heer the Apostle saith directly contrary to your assertion that they are not all Children of the promise covenant bicause they are the Children that lineally descend of Abrah you say peremptorily that al that lineally descend of Abrah the Faithful man are children of the promise covenant so to be baptized I desire you with al your knowledg reconcile these contradictions whereas you say the Children of the Flesh are so opposed that they can never bee the Children of the promise that therfor the Children of the Faithful cannot bee so called carnal I answer that al the children of the Iewes Church were borne according to the Flesh Gal. 4 23-25 so were carnal so are the Children of the faithful yet as many of the Iewes were afterward regenerate children of the promise though al at the first children of the Flesh so many of the infants of the Faithful may prove Children of the promise by Faith though at the first al are the children of the Flesh that is carnal but I confesse indeed that Esaw can never be Iacob one so carnal can never be Spiritual whereas you say that carnal corruption doth not hinder infants from baptisme no more then men of yeeres that make confession of their Faith I answer yes For men of yeeres confessing their sinnes their Faith declare the mortification of sinne regeneration by the Spirit infants being borne in sinne cannot nor doe not declare their regeneration at al to vs so with them wee have nothing to doe whereas you say natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men beleeving let it bee so yet you cannot defend that without the opinion of vniversal redemption then I say that if the infants of the Faithful being delivered from their natural corruption may therfore bee baptized then al infants shal be baptized who are pertakers of the same benefit eveÌ„ the infants of Turkes if you say no Seing the infants of the Faithful are only redeemed vnder the covenant then you condemne al the infants that dye who are not borne of Faithful parents yet you cannot prove that the infants of the Faithfull are vnder the actual possession of the covenant which is only by Faith so the scruple stil remaineth vnlosed The fourth particular you bring in answer to my reason is that Abrah circumcised Ismael Isaac circumcised Esaw yet they knew that the Lord would establish his covenant with neither of them much more may infants bee baptized to whom the covenant belongeth Act. 2.39 I answer that the external seale of that external covenant was particularly injoyned by God to every male the knowledg of the reprobation of Esaw Ismael did not hinder that carnal seale nor disanul the precedent expresse commaundement of circumcising every male of 8 dayes old but now seing wee have no expresse commaundement for baptising infants but an expresse commaundement many examples to the contrary that only persons made Disciples by teaching confessing their Faith their sinnes are to be baptized considering that infants borne of Faithful parents are the children
2.11.12 that in as large ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelits for of them only were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coming of Ie. Chr. should be more restrayned â—hen it was vnder the law who came to ratify confirme that wholly as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham his infants if Christ should give it vnto vs onely not to our infants this were to lessen infringe the covenant not to conâ—â—â—â— all but to take away part of that which God before had given Iohn Smyth Your second argument followeth from Coll. 2.11.12 which is framed thus If circumcision belonged to Faythful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also aperteyne to all beleevers to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The reason of the consequent is double 1. for that baptisme cometh in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed Col. 2.11.12 2. For that the covenant must be as largely sealed vp to vs as to theÌ„ therfor to our females as wel as males infants as wel as persons of yeeres For the covenant in Christ is not lessened but of as larg extent now as then 2. Cor. 1.20 Seing in Christ all the promises of God are yea amen I answer that this argument is built vppon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant seale seed their is manifest violence committed vppon the Scripture by perverting wresting it to false consequents first therfor I deny the consequence I give reasons of my deniall 1. Bicause circumcision did not aperteyne to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant of life Salvation but of the external temporary covenant of the land of Canaan of obedience to the Law of Moses therfor though circumcision aperteyned to Abraham his carnal infants as a seale of the external covenant yet it doth not follow that baptisme belongs to the Faythful their carnal infants as a seale of the Spiritual covenant of the New Testament made in respect of Christ 2. Secondly bicause the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the New Testament bicause Abraham is the Father of all the Faythfull but no man though never so Holy hath that perrogative to bee the Father of the Faythfull Therefore Abraham receaveth the Faythfull into his bosome Luk. â—6 23 3. Thirdly bicause the infants of the faithful do not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham the Father of the Faithful but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the Fleshe therfor the disproportion being in al these particulars the consequence of the argument is weake insufficient But if you wil make true consequents you must reason froÌ„ the type to the truth proportionably not from the type to the type as this argument importeth neyther must you confound the covenants seales as you do but must make al things distinct proportionable the one to the other as thus Abraham the Father of the carnal infants Abraham the Father of the Faithful Carnal Abraham his carnal seed carnally circumcised So Faithful Abraham his Faithful Children Spiritually circumcised The carnal infants of the old Testament carnally circumcised The Spiritual infaÌ„ts of the new Testament that is men regenerate baptized Thus you se the disproportion of your argument the true proportion that you ought to have made if your argument had been good But let vs see the reasons of your consequence the Scriptures you do produce for the confirmation of them you say that baptisme cometh in the â—ome of circuÌ„cision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed I vtterly deny it I prove the contrary vnto you Seing that the circumcisioÌ„ of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh RoÌ„ 2.29 circumcision made without hands cometh in the place of circumcision made with hands Col. 2.11 compared with Eph. 2.11 circumcision the seale of the flesh hath the H. Spirit of promise which is the Spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Eph. 1.13.14 which seale of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance as circuÌ„cision of the flesh was an earnest of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the carnal Israelites I desire to be enformed in al the Scriptures where baptisme is called a seale for I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new Testament though I cannot deny that the baptisme of the holy ghost is the seale I say therfor that the seale of the Spirit must go befor the baptisme of water as al the ordinances of the new Testament are Spiritual yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament Spiritual yet visible thervppon men being visibly sealed with the Spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10.47 may challendg the baptisme with water as Peter there teacheth this visible seale of the new Testament is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confessioÌ„ baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale You see therfor that baptisme is not the seale of the new Testament that circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnal seed now the place of Col. 2.11.12 which you produce to prove that baptisme cometh in the rome of circumcision is not so to be construed but the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Chr. circumcisioÌ„ baptisme which is mortifying burying of sinne resurection from sinne the Apost doth not intend to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth for circumcision but hee teacheth the vertue of Ch. circumcision baptisme in the Faithful so that seing circumcision was a seale of the promises of the old Testament to the carnal seed that the Spirit is the seale of the promises of the new Testament to the faithful seed of AbrahaÌ„ therfor neither doth baptisme of water succeed circumcision neither doth baptisme with water seale vp any promises to the Faithfull but onely doth visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of viz of the Spirit of promise Againe in your second reason you would infinuate a restraynt in the new Testament 1. baptisme be not due to infants seing circumcision was due to infants in the Old Testament I answer many wayes 1. Seing that baptisme doth not succeede circumcision this alegation is nothing to the purpose 2. Seing baptisme is both to male female it is larger then circumcision which was only vppon the male 3. seing that baptisme is both to Iew Gentil therfor
actually beleeving actually justified by the righteousnes of Fayth as Abraham the Father of al the Faithful was Roman 4.11 whence this Argument may bee framed Abraham is the Father of al them that actually beleeve Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo Abraham is not the Father of infants so infants are not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe Abrahams covenant was only to Abrahams one seed that is only to the beleevers Infants are not actuall beleevers Ergo Abrahams covenant is not to infants so infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Againe They that are the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Infants cannot do the workes of Abraham Ergo infants are not the children of Abraham so not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe I reason thus They that are not vnder the everlasting covenant made with Abraham shal not be baptized Infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Ergo infants are not to be baptized These many other such Arguments may be colected out of the answer to this fourth Argument of yours but these shal suffice Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 10.1.2 If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea as well as their parents what letteth the infants of beleeving parents vnder the gospel to bee likewise partakers of baptisma aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmes 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therefore good warrant must bee shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes Children had And if the former Baptisme of the Iewes was a Type of our Baptisme then must there bee an agreement betweene the Type the thing Typed which is not if our Children bee not baptized as well as theirs The depriving of our Children of the Sacrament is to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people of the New Testament that being denyed to their children which God gave to his people to their infants vnder the Law is to deny them in regard of their seed the like assurance comfort which the Israelites had of theirs And so to make our estate worse more vncomfortable then theirs was yet the Prophets prophecyed of the grace that should come to vs did inquire seach after the same 1 Pet. 1.10 Glad tydings were preached to Abraham his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3.8 And this before Christ came in the Flesh therefore much more he being come is joyful trydings brought vnto vs our infants so are we to beleve that the grace of God is not lessened either towards vs or our children but inlarged by his comming Iohn Smyth Your 5. argument is taken from 1. Cor. 10.1.2 framed thus If the infāts of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea aswel as their parents what letteth the infants of beleving parents vnder the gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes children had that baptisme being a type of our baptisme To this argument I make answer by framing the like argument If their infants did eate the same Spiritual meate drink which the parents did eate then why may not our infants being able to eate drinck eate drinck the Lords Supper The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from the priviledg those sacramēts were types of our Sacraments Againe I answer more properly thus That ther shal be a proportion betwixt the Type the truth that baptisme of the cloud sea our baptisme viz that as yong old carnal Israelites were baptized in the cloud sea so yong old Spiritual true Israelites shal be baptized by the baptisme of repētance as the carnal parents with their carnal children were baptized in type So Spiritual parents with their Spiritual children that is such as are regenerate by the word Spirit shall bee baptized with the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes which is baptisme in truth Further I say That our infants shal have a priviledg fair greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that typical baptisme For they by it were only baptized into Moses the Law That by it they might learne Moses in Moses the truth in Chr. as it were vnder a vele but our infants vnder the gospel shal have the dayly institution education of Faithful parents which is infinitely superior to that darke pedagogical baptisme al the baptismes ordinances of the old Testament Seing that with open face they may in the preaching of the gospel see Christ Iesus not vnder the vele of Moses Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud sea was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete that is the baptisme of the cloud did Type out our baptisme in the 3. parts therof viz. 1. The baptisme of the Spirit 2. The declaration of Faith repentance the antecedent of baptisme with water 3. The outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulars all these to bee conferred vppon infants proportionable to those infants that is New borne babes in Christ And whereas you further alledg that if your infants bee not baptized the Lords bounty is shortned to vs our infants our confort is diminished in respect of our infants which they had in respect of theirs the gospel is not preached to our infants as it was to theirs I answer that Gods bounty our confort in respect of our infants the preaching of the glad tydings of the gospel is as large ample every way to our infants as to theirs For Gods bounty of the actual exhibiting and fealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnall infants was never extant in the Old Testament Neither were the parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it vppon their infants circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached now to infants but what could the preaching of Christ profit infants either then in types or now in truth Neyther doe I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infant any thing at that instant but afterward hee was to learne that which the Schoolemr circumcision vppon his Flesh taught him viz the circumcision of the hart if you say that so infants baptized are to be instructed I answer that in the New Testament by baptisme wee manifest what wee have namely the inward baptisme whereas in the Old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have viz The inward circumcision of the hart mortification of the sinnefull Flesh. Mr. Rich. Clifton Mat. 28.19 If
al the howshold of Lydia the Gaylor were baptized that therfor infants were baptized you shal 〈◊〉 what exceptions I take First I say though infants are a part of the family when the family hath infants in it yet it doth not follow that whersoever ther is mention made of a Family that therefore that Family had infants in it except therefore it bee proved that the fâ—mily of Lydâ— the family of the Gaylor had infants in it this allegatioÌ„ is nothing Secondly by this reason you might prove that Lydias Husband the Gaylors wife their children of 40 yeeres old their Servants of 60. yeeres old were baptized For al these are parts of a Family yet I supose you wil not say they were al of them baptized except you can prove that Lydia had a Husband or the Gaylor had a wife or children of 40. servants of 60. yeeres old your argumeÌ„t therfor is weak presupposing the thing that is in question Thirdly if it were yeelded that ther were infants in Lydias Family in the Gaylors doth it therfor follow that they were baptized nothing lesse that I will declare thus 1. You say that to the baptising of the Gaylors wife children of yeeres of discretion ther was necessarily required Faith repentance or els they were not baptized So say I that bicause infants cannot beleeve repent though they were in the Family yet shal they not be baptized For ther is one conditioÌ„ required for al persons to be baptized 2. I say that although it be said that al that perteyned to the Gaylor were baptized yet it is also said vs 32. That the word was preached to all that were in his howse vs 34. That al his howsehold beleeved how came their faith but by the word preached vs 32. Seing therfor that al that were baptized in the Gaylors how 's beleeved by the preaching of the word infants that could not beleeve by the preaching of the word were not baptized if he had any besides it was a mervailous distempered tyme at midnight to wake children to bring them before the Apostles for baptisme 3. I say That for Lydias Family it is not said that all her howsehold was baptized or if it had been so said yet it followeth not that every particular person off her Family was baptized For Mat. 3 5.6 it is said that al Iudea went out to Iohn were baptized of him confessing their sinnes yet hence it cannot bee concluded that all every one that went out were baptized or that all every one went out to bee baptized no more can it bee proved that bicause it is said that Lydias Family was baptized that therefore all every particular person was baptized but as Mat. 3.6 only they that confessed ther sinnes as Act. 16 32-34 onley they that beleeved by the word preached were baptized so was it with them of Lydias Family that were baptized For the Apostles I doubt not kept one order required the same conditions in al that they baptized So that by that which hath been said the vanity of this argument is manifested it is proved plainly that none were baptised in the Gaylors Family but only they that beleved after the word preached so infants specially are exempted if he had any in his family which yet is not manifested Hence therfor I reason thus against baptising infants 1. The Apostles practise is our instruction But the Apostles in baptising howseholds first preached the word to al that were in the Family Act. 16.32 then the beleeving were baptized vs 34.33 Ergo They only that by the preaching of the word were converted beleeved were baptized Againe I reason thus 2. That which the Apostles practised in one Family they practised in all Familyes that they baptized But in the Gaylors Family according to Christs commission Mat. 28.19 They first made them Disciples by preaching the VVord Act. 16 32-34 Ergo So they practised in al Familyes therfor in the Family of Lydia of Crispus Act. 18.8 of the Ruler Iohn 4.43 so no infants were baptized And this shal suffice for answer to your arguments Mr. Rich. Mr. Herevnto I wil adjoyne some testimonyes of the Fathers not to prove that children ought to be baptized which is to be done is by the Scriptures already proved but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches Augustine as I find alledged writing to Ierome Epist 28. chap. 5. Saith Cyprian not making any new decree but firmely observing the Fayth of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as sone as one was borne he might Lawfully bee baptized See Cyprian Epist to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists Lib. 4. Chap. 23. 24. saith that the baptisme of infants was not deryved from the authority of man neither of counsels but from the tradition or doctryne of the Apostles Civil vppon Lev Chap. 8. approveth the baptisme off infants condemneth the iteration of baptisme Origine vppon the Roman sayth that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum 3. saith That baptisme agreeth to every age to every condition of life to all men if thou hast an infant that is Sanctifyed from his infancy yea from the finger ends it is consecrated After hee faith Some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne what shal wee baptize those he Answeres yea verily Amb Lib. 2. de Abrah Chap. 11. Speaking of baptisme faith nether Old man nor prosolite nor infant is to be excepted bicause every age js guilty of sinne therefore stands nede of the Sacrament These many others of the Fathers doe beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the Lawfullnes of the baptising of insents Iohn Smyth And heer for a conclusion you produce the Fathers I say that the producing of Fathers who al of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies shal avayle you nothing in your cause you that deny the testimony of Fathers contrary to the scriptures how can you with any color of equity produce Fathers against vs in a case coÌ„trary to the Scripture is it not to set darknes against light doe not you know that al the Fathers even every one of them brought his stone to the building of the Temple of Antichrist but I know your drift in the producing of Fathers viz First to set a gloze vppon your Antichristian heresy of baptising infants Secondly to draw the world into dislike of the L. truth but if a maÌ„ should produce testimonyes of Fathers against your Seperation against you in the case of Presacy Preisthood Deaconry â—ead prayer other parts of your cause what would you answer would not you say that they were testimonyes of men living in corupt tymes contrary to the Scriptures c. Even so say I to you but you say that you do not bring testimony of
the Fathers to prove any thing wel then you confesse they prove nothing remember that let al men take notice that you produce testimonyes that you say prove nothing but why do you produce testimonyes of the Fathers Forsooth to shew the practise of auncient Churches but al those Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession what doth antiquity Antichristian or vniversality antichristian help you against the truth Therfor I say The truth needeth not the testimony of Antichrist old vniversal antichristian errors shal not prevayle against the truth I have shewed you that from the beginning it was not thus go baptisme of infants is a Novelty but let vs shew you some footsteps of the bringing in of baptising infants that out of the Fathers Henricus Pantaleon Chronolog fol. 16. saith Victor Apher in the yeer 193. ordeyned that at Easter baptisme should be indifferently administred to al hence then it followeth that before his tyme only such as were Catechised in the Faith were baptized For he would not decree that heathen should be baptized Eusebius Eccles Histor Lib. 7 Chap. 8. saith that Novatus rejected the Holy baptisme overthrew the Fayth confession which was accustomed before baptisme whereby it appeareth that Fayth confession were required before baptisme and therefore the rudiments thereof still remayne that in baptising of infants a confession of sinne and Fayth is required of the suretyes or parents The same Euseb Lib. 10. Chap. 15. reporteth the story of Athanasius baptising children in sport which baptisme was approved though done in sport by Alexander Bb of Alexandria after that he by examination had found that the children had questioned answered according to the manner of the Catechumeni in baptisme wherby it appeareth that then only persons by confession of their Faith sins were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria Hosius Petricoviensi confess de fide chap. 27. saith that these two are Aposticall traditioÌ„s which the Scripture teacheth not viz that ther are persons one God that Dionisius Origen doe testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostical tradition Now you know that their Aposticall traditions were antichristian inventions Polydor. Virg. Lib. 4. Chap. 4 de inventoribus reruÌ„ saith thus It was in vse with the auncients that persons of yeeres sere in a manner should be baptized clad with whyte garments Lactantius Candidus egreditâ—â— nitidis exercitus vndis Atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo And this was performed at Easter whitsontide except in necessity in the meane tyme til the Feasts of Easter whitsontyde came they were catechised this testimony is of good instruction Ludovicus Vives writing vppon the first book of August de Civitate dei chap. 27. saith that in auncient tymes no man was baptized but persons of yeeres who could vnderstand what the mystical water signified required baptisme ofter then once therfor now the infant to be baptized is demaunded three tymes if hee wil be baptized for whome the suertyes answer yea Erasmus Rotrodamus in his annotations vppon the fifth of the Roman saith that in Paulls tyme it was not receaved that infants should bee Baptized Thus have I thought good to shew you testimonyes of men so by setting maÌ„ against man to lead you vs al from mâ—n to the holy Scriptures which is the rock wherevppon we may safely build which as you have heard flatly forbiddeth the baptising of infants who cannot bee made Disciples by teaching Mat 28.19 Iohn 4.1 Mr. Rich. Clifton Now let vs come to considet of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first of them is this 2. Bicause there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any infants that were Baptized by Iohn or Christs Disciples onely they that did confesse theire sinnes confesse theire Faith were baptized Marc. 1.4.5 Act. 8.37 Answere First this reason being brought into forme wil be wray the weakenes of it For suppose that should be graunted that there were nether a special commaundement or example in the practise of Iohn or Châ—â— Disciples for the baptising of infants yet may it notwithstanding be lawful to baptize them namely if by some consequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22.31.32 wher reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by an argument necessarily drawen from Exo. 3â—6 where no such thing was expressely mentioned And thus he taught vsually refuted his adversaries as the History of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his Epist to the Romanes Gal. prove justification by Faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in al the old Testament in plaine termes affirming so much but by conclusions of necessary consequence from the Scriptures to this purpose might divers other instances be aledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the Old New Testament though we cannot shew any playne precept or example yet may we vppon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason him selfe cannot deny that both he we must beleve diverse things which wee gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that wee shall not find in expresse words As that there bee three persons in onâ— Godhead that the sonne is Homousios that is of the same substance with the Father Now such expresse words cannot bee shewed in the Scripture many such like 2. Secondly also if this argument be sufficient to barre children from the Sacrament of baptisme then is it as sufficient to kepe back women from the Lords Supper for there is no speciall precept nor yet example that VVomen should pertake of the Lords Supper but the Lawfullnes there of is onely proved by consequence bicause they are within the covenant are pertakers of the Sacrament of baptisme thus the weakenes of this reason being manifested I will thirdly answere vnto it 3. Thirdly that ther is both precept by Christ example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the Lawfullnes of baptising of infants Commaundement I say Mat. 28.19 Goe teach al natioÌ„s baptising them where is no exception of the children of faithful parents therfor ther being a Law once given that the covenant should be sealed to the infants aswel as to the beleeving parents the same Law of sealiug the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be chaÌ„ged except the Law maker do repeale it or have set downe some ground for the repeale therof which must be shewed or els this commaundement doth bâ—nd vs our infants to receave this seale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptized Lydia her howshold Act. 16.15
the Keper al that belonged vnto him vs 33. both which seming to be great Families it is not likely that they were without children though the Evang mention them not But the exception is that only such as did confesse their sinnes confesse their Faith were baptized I desire that to be proved that only such no others were to be baptized CoÌ„cerning Iohn indeed he was sent to cal the people to repeÌ„tance so to prepare the way of the L. Mat. 3.3 so many as did repent confesse their sinnes he baptized but did Iohn refuse their children if they brought them to him but it wil be said ther is no mentioÌ„ made that he did baptise theÌ„ no more say I is ther that they were offered vnto him Ther is no mention that the Disciples of Chr. were baptized yet it were to bold a part no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptized Not al things that Iohn did not yet that Chr. did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20.30 but the sume therof therfor to gather an argument froÌ„ hence bicause ther is no mention that children were baptized by Iohn therfor they ought not to be baptized is a larger conclusion then the premisse wil beare so the reason taken from the baptising of the Evnuch Philip baptized no childreÌ„ when he baptized the Evnuch is of no waight to prove that therfor childreÌ„ ought not to be baptized Was not the Evnuch a straÌ„ger far from his country now in jorney homeward therfor not likely that he should have children with him specially in such a tedious jorney not knowing of this accident Iohn Smvth. Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants In answer to the first argument you say that if it bee brought into forme it will bewray the weakenes of it Wel I will bring it into forme then let vs streng then it where it is weake as thus That which hath neither precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neither precept nor example Ergo baptisme of infants is not to be done Againe another part of my Argument may bee brought into forme thus That which hath precept example must be practized Baptising of persons confessing ther sinnes their Faith is commaunded was practised by Christ Iohn the Apostles Ergo those persons are the persons to be baptized My Argument therefore consisting of an affirmative which includeth a negative is as I take it a forcible Argument Let vs see your answer â—ceptions First you say that a consequence necessarily drawne from the Scripture is sufficient to prove the baptising of infants though ther were no special commaundement or example as Christ proveth the resurrection Mat. 22.31.32 out of Exod. 3.6 by necessary consequent as Paul in the Epistles to the Rom. Gal. proveth justification by Faith only without workes by necessary consequents wee beleeve many things that are not expressed in words as 3. persons in one Godhead that Christ is coessential or consubstantial to the Father this is your answer or exception wher to I reply thus Although a necessary consequence in al cases shal prevayle yet I say the Lord cannot leave 〈◊〉 in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainly Faythfully with vs For seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old the Gospel being with open face the Law being hid vnder the vele seing Christ is as Faithful yea much more faithful then al men therfor is called Amen the Faythful true witnesse so hath as faithfully prescribed al the ordinances of the new Testament as Moses did the ordinances of the old Testament seing Moses hath set downe distinctly most plainly the persons with their qualifications to bee circumcised the circumstance of the tyme when circumcision was to be administred either Christ hath as plainly fully set downe these particulars in the new Testament or els the new Testament is not so plaine as the old Christ is not as Faythful aâ— Moses For it had been easily said goe teach make Disciples baptise them if they have any infants baptise them without teaching them or thus baptise me of yeeres when they confesse their sinnes their faith but baptise al the infants of the faithful though they cannot confesse at al their sins saith or it had beeÌ„ easily said Iohn baptized them that confesse their sinnes ther yong children also but to say that Christ Iohn the Apostles leaveth direction for this maine mater only by darke obscure far fetcht probable conjectures consequents from the old Testament which was only typical is abolished in respect of the Types that 〈◊〉 hath not left evident vndeniable ground for it distinctly expresly in al the foresaid particulars is to say that Christ is not so plaine Faithful in his office propheâ—â—cal as Moses was who hath taught al these particulars so distinctly as nothing is more plaine therfor though I must needes yeeld that necessary consequents are true yet I deny that in this case the Lord hath left vs to consequents it is against his truth his Faythfulnes the evidence of the new Testament so to do More over seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp pâ—eached obscurely in the old Testament the types therof it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrectioÌ„ Paul out of the old TestameÌ„t prove justification by faith without work for the Iewes would not beleeve any thing contrary to the law or without warrant of the law the Gentils namely the Galatians especially being seduced by them of the circumcision Act. 15.1 must needes have their mouths stept by the law ther were no Scriptures but the old Testament the ordinances of the new Testament could not be so plainly drawne out of the old Testament without consequents but new the new Testament being written al the ordinances therof plainly taught by Christ his Apostles why shal wee bee sent to obscurityes conjectural consequents seing that wee may with open face look into the glory of Christ as it were into a glasse therein see al the beauty of the new Ierusalem as cleer as Christal Revel 21.11 2. Cor. 3.18 whereas you would fetch arguments from the old Testament to prove the baptisme of infants we having the cleer light of the new Testament you therin set vs to Schoole to the rudiments of the world put aside the light of the sunne at noone set vp a candle as the Papists do in their funerals for although it be meet that we attend vnto the Prophets as vnto a light shining in a dark place yet seing the day star is come the sunne of righteousnes is risen vppon vs let vs walk in this cleer light vse the
belongs not the covenant but to â—ne it to them which plainly appeare to vs to bee without Therfore if no man dare take vpon him to say this or that infant is carnall without the covenant of grace it shal be no profanation of the SacrameÌ„t if it be administred vnto such seing we ought to hold the seed of the faithful holy 1. cor 7.14 If it be objected as some have done to me that al the seed of the faithful are carnal so to beheld vntil they beleeve make confession of their faith I answer first if they take carnal as it is opposed to the children of promise in Rom. 9.8 I vterly deny it for the children of the Flesh can never be the children of promise Rom. 9.8.13 These two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle as that the one can never be the other Secondly if by carnal they meane nothing els but that natural corruption wherein we are borne That hinders infants no more from baptisme then it doth those that can give an account of their faith seing natural corruption remaineth stil in the purest professor Rom. 7.23 if it be replyed that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that beleeve no more say I is it to infants els Christ dyed not for them neither could they be saved dying whilst they be yong Lastly if Abrah knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac Genes 17 19. yet circumcised Ismael vs 24. Isaac knowing that God had chosen his yonger sonne Gen. 25.23 with 27.33 yet circuÌ„cised Esau aswel as Iacob in so doing neither of them profaned the Sacrament much lesse is baptisme profaned when it is administred to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise Act. 2.39 And thus having shewed the weaknes of these 3. reasons against the baptising of infants let vs come to the second position which is this Iohn Smyth In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argum which Argum of myne may be framed into this forme The carnal seed is not to bee baptized For the covenant perteyneth not to them Infants are the carnal seed Rom. 9.8 Ergo infants are not to be baptized To this Argument you make Answer also in 4. particulars First you expound my meaning but I can expound myne owne words best therfor by the carnal seed I vnderstand al children borne by carnal generatioÌ„ whatsoever though they afterward do beleeve For they are carnal visibly to mee whosoever they bee that doe not shew their Fayth by their workes that doe not the workes of Abrah yea though they dye in their infancy are saved with the Lord For I must judg according to that which I see which is manifested I call them carnall as Paul calleth himself carnal Rom 7.14 the Corinthians carnal 1. Cor. 3.1.3 as in opposition to the Spiritual seed that one seed of Abrah vnto whome the promise was made Gal. 3.16 the Phrase is taken from Rom. 9.8 where the children of the Iewes are called the children of the Flesh Gal. â— 23 wher Ismael is said to bee borne after the Flesh Heb. 7.16 the commaundement is called carnal So children borne of their parents naturally are carnal such were al the Iewes infants who were after the manner of Ismael Gal. 4.23 Such are al our infants for our infants are in no better estate then the infants of the Iewes They were al borne according to the Flesh except Isaac who was in type burne after the Spirit Gal. 4.24.25.28 I say that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually fease vppon any infant of the Iewes in deed truth the place Act. 2.39 doth not prove that it did For that place is to be vnderstood of the offer of Christ the New Testament to all he carnal Iewes their children but of the real exhibiting â—t to al that are called only therefore I say that to baptise infants is to baptize the carnal seed for al infants are carnal being conceaved 〈◊〉 borne in since being the Children or wrath vntill the Lord work his work in them which when he doth I know not when I see it wrought in them by the fruites according as it is written sâ—ew mee thy Faith by thy workes then dare I pronounce them the Spirituall seed of Abrah for they that are of Faith are blessed with Faythfull Abraham Therefore I affirme that infants are not to bee esteemed actually vnder the possession of the new Testament which new Testament is visible in the visible ordinances the of why then they are damned you wil say God forbid doe you condemne al the men that are not of your Faith yet they are neerer condemnation in â—â—e judgment of the Scripture to you then infants for Chr. saith that he that beleveth 〈◊〉 speaking of them that heare the gospel do not beleve shal be condemâ—â—â— but the Scripture teacheth vs nothing concerning the final estate of infants except it bâ—â— the salâ—ation of them al This is my exposition Now according to your exposition I should intend that bicause it is not discerned which children are Spiritual seed which the carnal therefor both of them must be deprived of baptisme lest by giving baptisme which you falsely cal a seale I therin speak according to your opinion to al it should bee profaned by the carnall seed wel suppose that this were my meaning what then you except against this exposition two things one that the Spiritual seed should be injuried by denying baptisme to it for the carnal seeds sake 〈◊〉 I reply by giving baptisme to all indifferently wee should injury baptisme that is to bee administred only vppon them that confesse their Faith sinnes that are made Disciples by teaching another thing you except is that this reason should avayle against circumcision seing the mâ—â—es of 8. dayes could not be discerned to be the Spiritual seed I insist that it was not then needful that they should be discerned to be the Spiritual seed for that carnal seale of the carnal covenant it was enough for investing of them with that carnal typical seale that they were the carnal typical seed that they were male Israelites or Proselytes shew me in al the old Testament but especially in the institution of circumcision that the Lord required any thing of any person to be circumcised but to be a male but now in the new Testament we having the truths of those types it is plainly taught vnto vs first that Christ the male must bee in vs â— that theâ—r must bee circumcision of the hart mortification of the Flesh 3. wee must attayne to learne all that the Schoolm of the Old Testament could teach vs before wee can bee baptized for Iohn Chr. expresly require Faith repentance in them that are to be baptized I do infinitely wonder at you
baptisme is false â— the L. never appointed that the party should be baptized without his owne confession conseÌ„t to the contract that the L. maketh in baptisme therfor the Apo. Peter saith that in baptisme ther is the question of a good conscience into God Paull saith that when the body is washed with pure water the hart must be sprinckled from an evil conscience 1. Pet. 3.21 Heb. 10.22 therfor infants are baptized which cannot Stipulate or contract themselves vnto the L. therfor the L. doth not contract with them for Chr. the husband of the Church wil not contract in marriage with a bride or a spowse that is vnder age Gal. 4 1-4.3 the L. did never appoint that baptisme should seale vp his new Testament to infants or that infants should by his baptisme be admitted into the body of Antich into the Church ministery worship government of Antich or that his baptisme should set a character indelible vpon parties baptized or should give grace ex opere operato al which or most of which are done in Antich baptisme but the end of Chr. baptisme is to manifest visibly that the partie confessing his faith sinnes is sealed by the Spirit vnto the day of redemption that he hath visibly put on Chr. that he is mortified crucified dead buryed risen againe ascended with Chr. Rom. 6 1-6 Col. 2.12 Gal. 3.27 Col. 3 1-5 these are the true ends of baptisme instituted by Chr. Seing therfor the matter forme end of baptisme in the false Church is from man even from Antich the for the L. is not the author of this baptisme but the baptisme is antic wholy although he vseth the words In nomine Patris Filij Sp. Sancti amen as the papists do in sprinckling holy water in baptising their bels as conjurers do in their charmes yet this cannot make true baptisme but rather is a most notable profanatioÌ„ of the holy Scripture even as it is profaned in ther Sermons dayly worship performed by them I affirme therfor againe againe that the baptisme receaved in the false Church is none of the L. ordinance but antichr devise essentially corrupted in matter forme end or vse therfor wholly to be rejected with the oynting breathing crossing c. Heer you endevour to prove that Israel was a false Church bicause it Seperated from Iudah bicause they joyned together in a new Church communion vnder a false ministery worship became a harlot wherto I answer that so was Iudah a false Ch when they worshipped Idols vnder every greeÌ„ tree in the high places if you so vnderstand a false Church viz meetings or companyes of men assembled together in a wrong place to a wrong worship vnder a wrong Preisthood I yeeld Israel so to be a false Church but I deny that to be the true definition of a false Chu for a false Church is contrary to a true Church now a true Church is descerned in the true causes essential so a false Church is known by the want of those true causes essential the true essential causes of the Chu of the old Test was the posterity of Abrah or proselytes circumcised the want of these things only made a false Chur So long as the Israelites retained circumcision they were the true carnal constituted Church of the old Test Israel Iudah are called harlots not for that they were a false Church but for the worshipping of God in Idols as before the calves at Dan Bethel or the Idols in Iudah this is plaine enough in the History So that I coÌ„clude against you that Israel was no false Church in the constitutioÌ„ but had a true matter forme viz circuÌ„cised Israelites though vnder a false ministery worship government as I have already shewed in the former treatise Lastly you bring vs in a double respect or consideration of members of the Chur. of Antich 1. as they are members of those false Chu 2. as they are the children of beleeving progenitors who receaved the covenant for themselves their posterity in 〈◊〉 first respect they are not vnder the covenaÌ„t or seale therof in the second respect they are vnder both for the Fathers sake Rom. 11.28 so their repentance shal serve their turne when they come to the true Church without rebaptising I aÌ„swer divers things first I do not deny but that meÌ„ may be coÌ„sidered two waies visibly as members of Antich body invisibly as aperteyning to the L. election that is the meaning of the A p. Rom. 11.28 but I deny that hence it foloweth that when they come from their invisible being in Ch. to a visible being in the true visible Chu they shal enter in any way but by the dore which is baptisme For wheras you intimate that a man being invisibly elect beloved of God invisibly having thâ—se to the covenant holy things of God may therevppon first visibly enter into the false Chu by false baptisme then vppon his repentance come to the true Chu enter therinto not by baptisme but that the dore of Antich Chur. shal open him the way into Chr. Church long before he come into Chr. Church wheras I say you intimate vnto vs so much you do herby teach contrary to our Saviour Chr. who saith that we must goe in by the dore not climb vp by the window that wee must first bee taught made Disc theÌ„ baptized into Chr. but you in the Kingdom of Antic are first baptized falsely then made Disciples flat contrary to Christs commaundem Secondly I say that no man is vnder the covenant or vnder baptisme for the pareÌ„ts sake that is not the meaning of the Ap. Ro. 11.28 but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise God made to Abrah Isaac Iacob in respect of Chr not for that the children shal be pertakers of that covenant bicause of their parents faith or bicause of Gods covenant made with the parents ther carnal infants but bicause the L. elected them predestinated them in Chr. to life salvation invisibly therfor I do confidently deny you are never able to prove that the carnal infants are actually possessed of the everlasting covenant God made with Abrah for their parents sakes do you indeed think that God loveth any man for an other mans sake or do you think that God loveth not al men of his meer mercy or for Chr. sake neither is it the carnal line that is beloved of God for his mercy sake or for Chr sake but it is the Spiritual line of Abrah the faithful onely elect that are beloved for the â—â—hers that is for the covenant made with Abrah Isaac Iacob our Fathers in the faith so it is true that God loveth men in the false Chu of An. for Abrah Isaac Iacob that is for his