his seed indefinitely as we also doo beleeve that God will â— our God and the God of our seed because he hath so promised and therefore doo we in assurance hereof cause our Infants to be baptised according to the * coÌ„mandement of Christ if any of them coÌ„ming to yeres do manifest Mat 28. by their vnbeleef that they are reprobate then are we to take notice that they ‡ were not of vs but till then we are to account them as children Io 2. 19. of the Covenant as well as we do those that being hypocrites do outwardly Act. 8. 13. professe the fayth so are baptised as SymoÌ„ Magus Secondly you say The spirituall covenant was offerred to all Abrahams seed vnder the carnall c. How Gods covenant was geven to Abraham and his seed not barely offerred I have shewed before so also have I answered to your carnal covenant and confesse that the Lord vnder types figures did teach and shadow forth vnto Israell diverse particulars of the Messiah as of his †sacrificing Heb. 8. 5. 9. 8. 9. â—c 10. â— c. Col. â— 17. Heb. â— 9. â— chap. â— Cor. 10. 1. 6. death resurrection Preisthood and such like and of good things to come to his Church vnder the Gopell and of the Kingdome of heaven but that there was a carnal covenant or Testament made with Abraham over besides the covenant of grace sealed vnto him and his carnal seed by circumcision all your learning can never prove it You coÌ„clude That as it was offred to AbrahaÌ„s seed so to ours This I hope theÌ„ if it be proved that the spirituall covenant was not onely offerred but geveÌ„ to AbrahaÌ„s carnall seed I meane the Israelites that the same covenaÌ„t is giveÌ„ to our childreÌ„ vnlesse the grace of God be lessened vnder the gospel to prove the former viz that the spiritual covenaÌ„t was giveÌ„ to the Israelites besydes that which hath bene formerly observed I will add some sew reasons moe to confirme the same 1. Deu 29. 10-15 Moses speaking vnto all Israel sayth ye stand â—y every one of you before the Lord your God your heads of your tribes your â— and your officers all the men of Israell your children your wives c. that â—houldest passe into the covenaunt of the Lord thy God and into his othe â— he maketh with thee this day c. neither make I this covenaunt with you â— but with him that standeth here with vs this day as with him that is not here â— vs this day c. Which covenaunt is the †Deut. 2 13. confâ— with Gen 17. 1. 2. 7 19. 2â— 3. same that was made to â—raham and renued both on Gods behalfe and the peoples Now that â—venant that God confirmed to Abraham with an othe is the covenant â— grace as Luke 1. 72. 75. conferd with Gen. 22. 16. Heb. 6. 13. 14. And his covenaunt that was made to Abraham is the very same that Israâ—l renued with the Lord for themselves and their posterity Deut. 19. 13. â—4 15. which was not barely offred but confirmed vnto Abraham his â—ed by the Lords oth Yea in verse 10. 12. it is sayd ye stand this day to passe â—râ— the covenant of the Lord and into his oth which he maketh with thee this day for â— establish thee this day a people unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as â—e hath sayd vnto thee and hath sworne vnto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Iaâ—ob And this to be their God they to be his people their posteritie was no carnall covenaunt but the very ‡ 2 Cor. 6. 16. same that is made with vs vnder the Gospel 2. That the Lord made with Israel his spirituall covenaunt may also be proved Deut. 10. 16. where Moses exhorts them to circumcise the foreskinne of their hart and by all these exhortations of the Prophets to repentance Ier. 3. 14. 4. 1. 4. 7. 3. Hosea 10. 12. and 14. 1-7 Ioel 2. 12. 13. Amos 5. 4. 6. Zepha 2. 1. 2. which are the conditions of that spirituall covenant that the Lord requires on our part therein the promises of pardon annexed therevnto which is the other part of the covenant on Gods behalfe Now the covenaunt of the law admits of no repentance nor promiseth any pardon onely the covenaunt of grace admits thereof If therefore they had not had the spirituall covenaunt given vnto them wherevpon could the Prophets have grounded their exhortations or with such reasons have perswaded them to repentaunce This was the ground of Peters exhortation of the Iewes to amendement of life as before is observed out of Act. 2. 38. 39. And by the Lords requyring of repentance at the hands of the Is 〈…〉 it is most cleere that God required then the same thing that now 〈◊〉 †gospel is required of vs Ergo they were interessed in the same cove 〈…〉 Mar. 1. â— 15. that we have And therfore not onely the outward observation of ce 〈…〉 nies was required of the Iewes by their covenant but also the obs 〈…〉 of the conditions of the covenant of grace as to walke before God anâ— be vpright Gen 17. 1. to beleeve and repent And it is a notable err 〈…〉 hold the contrarie 3. Israel were held to be the people of God and the Lord to be their God and so God did ‡ account of them Now I would know if they could â—r 23. 2. â—ay 5. 7. â—icah 2. 8. â— Hos 11. â— Deut. â— 8. Gen. â— 8. Ehe 2. â— â— Cor. 6. â— 17. Aâ— c. 18. 4. be sayd to be his people and not to be within his covenant of grace doth God accept of any by a carnal covenant to be his people and not in Christ do not both Iewes GeÌ„tiles become Gods people through Christ and all that are not within his covenant are sayd to be * far of and without God But the offring onely of the Gospel or covenant makes not a people to be Gods people for the Gospel may be preached to them that are without but then are they sayd to be Gods people when they imbrace his covenant and not before and such as do receive it are commanded †to separate themselves from the prophane which wil not have the Lord to be their God which separation argues a difference between a people to whome the promises are offred and such as have received them for that Gospell that converted some in a false Church was offerred to moe yet is it received onely of the faithfull in which respect they are sayd to be the people and Church of God This resteth then for you to shew that God intituleth any to be his people which have not eyther themselves or â—om 9. 4. â— 2. 39. â—eut 29. their forefathers received the covenant of grace And as Israel was called the people of God because the ‡ covenant belonged
sayd to be coinheritors with them and of the â—ame body see also Ephes 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the Iewes were called the * Mat. 8 12. children of the kingdome and of of the “ Act. 3. 25. covenant and unto whom the †Act. â— 32. promise was made And now it being proved that this spirituall covenant apperteyned to the Israelites and the conditions therof required at their hands I hope you will grant as much to the faythfull and their seed under the Gospel or els shew vs where and when the hand of Gods grace was shortened but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be lesse bountiful now then he was to the Iewes and therefore as the chidren of Abraham Isaac and Iacob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circumcision so are the children now that descends from beleeving parents * 1 Cor. 7. 14. holy and have right to the covenant “ Mat. 19 14. and kingdome of God and consequently to baptisme the seal thereof But you say Infants wanting actuall faith cannot truely be sayd the children of Abraham I answer that actuall faith is required of such of Abrahams children as Here noâ— that actuaâ— faith in alâ— this treatisâ— is put for tâ— actual usâ— faith are grown to yeares And therfore you must proove that infants wanting actuall faith cannot be the children of Abraham and then must you prove that they are not Christs for if they be Christs they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29. But are that they are in secret to the Lord whatsoever they are Christ hath sayd playnely “ Mar. â— 14. that of such is the Kingdome of God And the promise is * Act. 2. 3. made to the beleevers and their seede And you leave them in secrete to the Lord thus shutting your eies against the cleare light of the truth The Scriptures following viz Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9. compared with GeÌ„ 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most playnly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham you leave vnanswered Next folow your reasons against poedobaptistrie the first wherof is this As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with the children of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first beleeved actually and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision Ergo the childreÌ„ of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive the baptisme of water This Argument which you alledge against Paedobaptistrie the very 〈◊〉 serves to confirm it for thus we reason for it observing your termes As it was with Abraham the father of the faythful so must it be with thâ— children of Abraham But Abraham first beleeved and being sealed with the spirit of promise afterward received the signe of circumcision he and his children Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeveâ— and be sealed with the spirit of promise and then receive baptisme of water they and their children Here let the reader consider yf you by this your owne Argument have not yeelded the cause for this is that which we stand for viz that As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his children the beleeving Gentiles Now Abraham beleeved that God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the †seale thereof he himself and all his males yea Isaac of eight dayes old â—om 4. 3 â— Gen. 17. â— 14. â— 27. â— 21. 4. Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeeve and then receive the seale thereof which is Baptisme themselves and their children But if your meaning be this that as Abraham beleeved first after was circumcised so every one of Abrahams seed must first actually beleeve and then be baptised then I must intreat you to shew me when and where this difference was put between the seed of AbrahaÌ„ which descended from him by the course of nature his seed that are of the Gentiles that the former being infants might notwithstaÌ„ding first receive the seal before they did actually beleeve And that the other viz the infants of the Gentiles must first beleeve and after receive the signe surely before the comming of Christ the Lord put no such difference but that such of the Gentiles as did turne to the faith “ their infants were circumcised as well as â—xod 12. the infants of the Iewes After Christs comming the Apostle witnesseth that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the Iewes for he sayth Ephe. 3. 6 * the Gentiles are coinheritors also meaning with the Iewes and of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel And therefore the Apostle did not doubt to “ baptise the households with the beleeving parents Act. 16. â— 33. Act. 10. â— I wil answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not God hath purifyed the Gentiles and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham therfore yt is an iniury offered to pollute that is to reject from the coveâ—ant our children whom the Lord hath received Your second â—s this As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admitâ—d into the Church of the old testament so in the new testament the spirituall children â—ust be spiritually circumcised and then be admitted by baptisme into the Church â—f the new testament But the first was signified by the type Ergo the second is â—rified in the truth First If this Argument should hold proportion then it would folow that as circumcision was a seale of the covenant so should baptisme be a â—eale likewise for it is brought in here to answer circumcision as the dore into the Church But you deny * Charaâ— pag. 9 Baptisme to be a seale of the covenant 2. I answere that the carnall children of the Israelites were not admitted to be members of the Church of the old testament by circumcision for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day “ Gen. 17 the covenant apperteyned unto them and therfore were they circumcised for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong Also to the Majors consequent I answer that they which enter into the Lords covenant be they beleevers or their Infants we are to hold them †1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk â— 15. Ier. 1. â— spiritually circumcised and therefore to be partakers of baptisme Concerning your assumption as * Mat. 3. 8. Act. â— 12. 37. repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoyned to the Church of the new Testament so was it of “ Gen. 17 â—
circumcision by which the Iewish children were received into the covenant that must type out baptisme by which say you the partie so qualified should be received into the new Testament actually or els shew a reason why this ceremonie of baptisme is added to the truth as you expound it and nothing added to the type to shadowe out baptisme this is not proportioable that there must be a ceremonie added to the truth in receving in of members into the Church now since the coÌ„ming of Christ and not any to the type in receiving in of members into the Church before his coming Lastly if you wil keep proportion you must compare together circumcision and baptisme both which do lead to the circumcision of the hart are the seales of one and the same covenant the one appointed for the old Church before Christ the other for the Church under the Gospel then wil your Argument fall out against your self And thus I have shewed both the weaknes of your answer of your reasons grounded therevpon Argument II. Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumcision belonged to faithful Abraham and his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to all beleevers and to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the second The consequent wil follow seing baptisme coÌ„meth in place of circumcision sealing up unto us and to our seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham and to his seed Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelites for of them onely were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males and females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coÌ„ming of Iesus Christ should be more restreyned then it was under the law who came to ratify and confirm it wholly as the Apostle sayth 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea and Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham and his infants and if Christ should give it unto us onely and not to our infants this were to lessen and infringe the covenant and not to confirm all but to take away part of that which God before had given Mr Smyth I answer that this argument is built vpon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant and seale and seed and there is manifest violence coÌ„mitted upon the scripture by perverting and wresting it to false consequents first therfore I deny the consequence and I give reasons of my denyall c. The former Argument is proved to stand upon a true ground and so â—all it be manifested that there is no mistaking eyther of the covenant seale or seed in this reason nor yet any violence offred to this scripture by wresting it to false consequences as you affirme The consequence you deny but desprove it not to your reasons I wil answer particularly which in number are three Your first reason because that circumcision did not appertaine to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant but of the externall temporary covenant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moses c. I have already proved the contrary both out of Gen 17. 7. 9. where it is added as a signe vnto that everlasting covenant and also out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith Furthermore circumcision did signify the †Deut. â— 16. Ier. â— Act. 7. 5â— inward circumcision of the hart which was not required of them in respect of the promise of CanaaÌ„ the same being required vnder the Gospel nor yet of the law for it admitts of no repentance but as a condition of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and his seede in Christ also the proselites Ismael were circumcised that had no promise of Canaan nor right to one foot of inheritance in it for * Ios 14. â— 16. 17. 18 19. 21. c Canaan was devided by lot to the 12. Tribes and in every tribe to the several families and therefore their circumcision did eyther seale vnto them the spirituall covenant or none at all as before is observed Againe if by the male circumcised Christ was typed as you have affirmed before in your fift reason in your answere to my former Argument then circumcision was a signe of the spiritual covenant For Christ is that which was promised And if the infant circumcised was a type of him it must nedes followe that circumcision was asigne of that covenant whereof the child circumcised was the subject but the infant in becomming a type of Christ became in this respect a subiect of the spiritual covenant and therfore his circumcision a seale thereof for the type and truth must have relation to the same thing or covenant Lastly Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises unto the fathers Rom. 15. 8. Also I deny that circumcision was first given as a seale of obedience to the law of Moses seing the law was not given when circumcision was ordeyned but * Gal. 3. 1â— 430. yeares after the thing to be sealed is to go before the seale or els it is preposterous and the seale without fruit Neyther was it given to be a seale of a carnall promise in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace God togither with it promised unto him and his seed the Land of Canaan but he never appointed circumcision to be the seale thereof els when Israel possessed that land circumcision should have ceassed as all Sacraments shall do when the promises whereof they be seales shal be fully accomplished and circumcision should have bene of no force to them that had no right to Canaan which yet were circumcised Your second reason because the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the new Testament c. I answer they do thus occupy the place of Abraham that as he did so Act. 2. 39 do * they receive the covenant to them and their children who through the free promise of God received by the faith of the parents have entrance into the covenant together with them and in this regard parents are so may be called “ fathers of their children being the meanes whereby they Act. 2. 39 come to this prerogative And this is not to supply that particular of Abrahams fatherhood which was extraordinarie Your third reason is because the infants of the faithful doe not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh c. First how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham I have shewed here deny that the children of Abraham according to the flesh onely as you mean were types of the infants of the faithfull seing the children of the Proselytes were the children of
differeÌ„ce externally betweene the times of Christ promised to come and his manifestation in the flesh and accomplishment of his promise And as * we have 30. â— 8. 11 â—4 RoÌ„ 10. â— 7. 8. â—er 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 â— 1 Cor. 10 â— 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. â—â—k 1. 74. the spirituall covenant and spirit so had the faithfull vnder the law and therefore it is false to say that they had the carnall covenant and wee the spirituall typed by the carnall for although vnder the Law the Lord did traine vp his people vnder many ceremonies which were types of things to come yet did he never ordeyne any carnall covenant with a seale therof as you devise But let vs see your proofes for all these particulars First that there are two Testaments made with Abraham you alledge Gal. 4 24. saying Agar that is the old Testament and Sara that is the new both married to Abraham 2. There are two seeds Ismael of Abraham and Hagar who typed the carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah who typed the spirituall seed ver 23. 3. There are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall covenant vpon the carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seale of the spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. c. First for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnall covenant that nothing fits your purpose for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles who vrged the works of the law for iustification and taught the people that vnlesse they wer circumcised Christ could not profit them whom after he had confuted with divers reasons he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 â—â—egorie of Abraham and his two wives shadowing out there 〈◊〉 â—at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in â—atter of iustification the law ingendring bondage requiring strict â—dience without which is no salvation but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2â— 26. â—egall bondage and requireth to †RoÌ„ 10. 6â— 11. Rom. â— 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation â—o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law doth shew them â— foolish they are which by the gospel are set * Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of â—w and legall ceremonies do frustrate that freedome by subiecting â—mselves againe to the law which could never make them †Act. 13. 39. righteous â—d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman whereas all â—hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law â—eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman Now this being â—he purpose or scope of the Apostle this allegorie setting downe the diâ—â—rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament vnder the gospel or new testament concerning iustification and salvation doth â—either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham or yet that the Iewes were so vnder the lawe that also they were â—ot free by faith in Christ for if we consider the times wherein the law was given 430 yeres after the promise it will appeare that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham or yet that it did * Gal. 3 1â— disannull the covenaÌ„t to dispossesse his seed of that estate which they obtayned by that promise made vnto him And it is to be noted that aswell vnder the â—ew testament as vnder the old all they are in bondage with Hagars sonns that seek by the workes of the law to be iustified 2. I answer more particularly to your proofes whereof the two former are drawen from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first because the Apostle calls Hagar Sarah the two testaments vers 24. and both â—â—re married to Abraham therefore to Abraham were made two testaments True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments the one of the old the other of the new But the Apostle applyes them to set out thereby the different estate of them that be vnder grace from such as be vnder the lawe of works Now to Abraham was not the lawe given whereof Hagar is made a type and therefore could not have that coâ—nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision for sure I am moe covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of but 〈…〉 Heb. 8. â—3 new the one abrogated by Christ his comming the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments it may be s 〈…〉 playnely out of the text it self for speaking of the lawe he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth vnto bondage making 〈…〉 tion purposely of Sinai because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountaine whereof Hagar was a shadow ver 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace sayth but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above is free c. ver 26. 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same be sayd to be two in respect of the tymes and diverse administration thereof and then your carnall covenant cannot stand Certaynly the Lord made one eternal vnchangable covenant to his Church instructing and dispensing his benefites otherwise in the time of the Law then now he doth under the Gospel And in this respect the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament may well speak in regard of the dispensation therof as of two And so understand by the old Testament that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses the Prophets to the Fathers promising eternal life openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law threatning of the curse if they did not perform it together with that intollerable burden of legal rites yoke of Moses politie and covertly under condition of repentance fayth in the Messiah to come prefigured under types shadowes ceremonies that by this meanes the Iewes as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ And by the new Testament understaÌ„d the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ his Apostles manifestly without shadowes and legal rites promising righteousnes life to al both Iewes Gentils that shal beleeve in Christ already come And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenaÌ„t seing both these TestameÌ„ts are spiritual though some carnal things wer commaunded in the old testament Yet those makes it no more a carnall covenant then water in Baptisme bread wine in the Lords supper the receiving of them which al are carnal things do make the new Testament carnall they being given to signifie vnto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnall things vnder
vnto them and they had †passed into that received the seale thereof wherehy they testifyed themselves and were acknowledged to be Gods people and sheep of his pasture so are we become the people and Church of God not because â— Rom. 11. â—6 the gospel is preached vnto vs but because we have received the promise of God and entred covenant with him for our selves and also for our children for if the ‡ first fruicts be holy so is the whole lumpe and if the roote be holy so are the branches 4. The Apostle sayth that the branches vz. the Iewes were * Rom. 11. â—7 20. broken of froÌ„ the roote and fatnes of the olive through vnbeleefe meaning by the roote Abraham â—saac and Iacob their forefathers who for themselves and their seed 〈◊〉 received the covenant Now it must necessarily follow vpon the Apo 〈…〉 wordes that they were before of the olive or els could they not be 〈…〉 d to be broken of And this breaking of was not a ceasing to be their 〈…〉 turall seede for so continew they stil but they were broken of from the 〈…〉 enant of grace made to Abraham and his seed as it is apparant by this 〈◊〉 they were broken of through vnbeleef which hath relation to that coâ—enant and not to the covenant of works Yea and they are sayd to be * Rom. â— 19. 20. broken of from that wherevnto we are graffed by faith and into which they may also be †vers 23. graffed in agayne if they continew not in vnbelief Now we are graffed into no other covenant but that of grace And as for the Iewes they cannot againe be graffed into such a carnal covenant as you imagine seing by your owne doctrine it is disannulled And if they be to be graffed into an other covenant and not the same that they were in before how can it be called a graffing in agayne for this phrase importeth a covenant whereof they had bene formerly partakers But it wil be objected that they which are once in Christ and holy can not be broken of and therefore such of the Iewes as fell away cannot be sayd to be holy and of the spiritual covenant I Answer first it is trew that they that are graffed in Christ and personally holy “ Joh. 10. â— 27. 28. cannot be broken of secondly the Apostle speaking of holynes and saying if the root be holy so are the branches meaneth not of any personal holynes but of that right of the covenant whereby they became Gods people which he calleth holynes that descends from AbrahaÌ„ to all his seed as the sap or fatnes of the olive doth from the root ascend to all the branches And this holynes or right to the spiritual covenant had all the Iewes in regard whereof they were separate from all other nations and called a holy nation And in this respect are the children of those parents whereof the one of them beleeveth called holy 1. Cor 7. 14. not that personall holines descendeth from the parent to the childe for that cannot passe from one to an other but because through the fayth of the father beleeving that the promise of salvation is made to him and his seed the children have now tytle and right to the same covenant by the free and large promise of the grace of God and so many as are elected are saved though dying in theire infancy by the same covenant 5. The Apostle affirmeth Act. 15. 11. that both the fathers under the law as well as we that are under the gospel are under the same j 〈…〉 ing and sanctifying grace of Christ saying wee beleeve through the grace oâ— Lord Jesus Christ to be saved as they meaning their fathers vers 10. where 〈…〉 on I conclude that their fathers being under the same grace were undâ— the same covenant with us although this grace was not so fully revealed and fulfilled as it is now * to us for there is no partitipation of the graâ— Jo. 7. 39. of justification and regeneration but in this spiritual covenant therefore to them was given this spirituall covenaunt and they did receive it as well as we though amongst them some particular persons did by their personal vnbeleif cut themselves of from the grace of God as now some do with us which neyther then nor now can make the covenant given to our Exod. 20. Ps 89. 28 â— Gen. 3. 15 â— 4. 4. 26. â— 6. 5. â—eb 11. 4. c. Heb. 11. â— â— Heb. 11. â— 14. 15. â— forefathers to be †void to their posteritie 6. The spiritual covenant that was given to Abraham and his seed was before given to “ Adam and the fathers to the time of Abraham they received it by faith for there is but one covenant of salvation both before after Christ one maner of receiving it which is by faith Abraham to whom was promised the land of Canaan did notwithstanding look for a * citie having a foundation whose builder and maker is God And of these fathers before Abraham his time doth the Apostle witnesse that they all died in faith ‘ * saw the promises that is the things promised a farr off though they received them not as then fulfilled and beleeved and received thankefully and confessed that they were stangers and pilgrimes on the earth for they that say such things declare plainly that thoy seek a country that is an heavenly And in the first epistle to the Corinthes chap. 10. 1. c. the Apostle speaking of the fathers which were of Abrahams seed sayth I would not have you ignorant that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptized unto Moses did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spirituall drink for they drunk of the spiritual rock that followed the rock was Christ By which scriptures it appeares that the spiritual covenant was given unto them that they received it by faith Heb. 11. â— Mat. 17. â— 2 Cor. â— 19. Rev. 1 â— 8. 3. Heb. 13. 15 â— 1 Tim. 2. â— Heb. 13. â— Eph. 2. â— 7. If the fathers under the law had not bene within the covenant of grace all their worship offered unto God could not have been acceptable seing out of Christ * God is not pleased with any person or with any worship therfore is he sayd to be the Lamb slayn from the begining of the world the onely “ Mediator between God and man by whom we have accesse unto the Father and †through whom all our sacrifices and worship are pleasing unto God Lastly it must needs be that the Iewes had the covenant of grace seing the Apostle sayth †‘ that the GeÌ„tiles shal be coinheritors meaning with the Iewes â— of the same body and partakrrs of the promises in Christ by the Gospel for if the â—wes had not formerly bene a body inheritors of the promises in Christ â—ow could the Gentiles be
relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal then any relation of adoption or servitude why the wife shal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage happely it wil be sayd that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted because of her unbeleef and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of fayth It is true that neyther the wife nor servants if they refuse can be admitted because of their unbeleef but the case is not alike of men and women growen to years as of infants borne in the church the former eyther consent or refuse actually infants do not refuse and therefore being the seed of the saythful are to be admitted to Baptisme But it wil be sayd that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed onely I say it was made by your confession with him and his adopted infants c. We say as the scripture teacheth us that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed the faythful their children Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby the whole family of the faythful if they refused nor as before is proved And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant and those that are further off why shal not these that are nearer as his wife I have answered before her unbeleef hinders her to be one flesh makes them not one in the covenant which is by grace not by mariage But you wil say because infants do not refuse the covenant they may be admitted to baptisme c. but wives refusing may not I further insist that as infants do not resist so they do not consent and that al the children servants and wives that do not resist may be admitted though they cannot make declaration of their fayth c. c. We do not make the infants not refusing the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant but the Lords dispensation and coÌ„mandement in children there can be neither actual coÌ„sent or resisting the one of which Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3 1. â—am 2. 18. â—2 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares who also are to †live by their own fayth also * confession is of such required so is it not of infants Then I say there is no reason why fayth and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification c. more then of an other except God be an accepter of persons To this I have answered before and again do answer that there is one and the same way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers they receiving the covenant after the same maÌ„ner that he did beleeving that God is their God and the God of their seed Also fayth and repentance is required not onely of such as are of yeares and to enter into the Lords covenant but of al that are in the covenant they being the condition thereof on our part to be performed continually and therefore we must know that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise and not any act of theirs fayth receiveth grace but causeth it not and repentance is the fruit thereof required of every one as they are of understanding And further the covenant is onely with Abraham and his seed not with adopted children c. and therefore fayth and repentance must necessarily be had and so â—y cannot be baptised til they shew their fayth c. I have proved already that God in saying I wil establish my covenant beâ—en me and thee and thy seed included Abrahams family or els shew unto â—e wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision if they â—ere not with him in the covenant Agayn fayth and repentance is required of the elder sort not of infants Ergo c. As for partaking of the covenant actually how children are thereof capable I have proved oft ynough and therefore it needs no further answer And whereas it may be justly objected against you that if infants be denyed to be within the covenant they cannot be saved you labour to remove this exception saying we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be â—verted but leave the secret of them to the Lord Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or against your opinions is the condition of infants such a secret that God hath not manifested his wil concerning them Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants when he was to circumcise them Gen. 17. 12. And doth not †Mar. 10. 14. Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them manifest unto us how we ought to account of the infants of beleevers The prophet Malachy sayth * Mal. 2. 1. did not he make one seeking a seed of God Act. 2. 39. the promise is to children as Peter there witnesseth and Ier. 31 1. God promiseth to be the God of al the families of Israel and children are a part of the familie 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy Now if God had given you eyes these scriptures †Gen. 17 c. Deuâ— 29. 10. 15. might teach you that the state of the childreÌ„ of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend Moses shewed the state of children under the old T. you say “ Caracter pag. 6. 3. the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of al affaires c. as the old How is it then that the state of children is now more secrete then formerly it was Thus you might see your speeches contradictory if your right eye were not blynded Secondly I desire you to prove unto me by scripture that in this place 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes signifieth true sanctification c. And I desire you to prove unto me that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified you keep not to the state of the questioÌ„ that place is to be understood of the general holines pertayning to the â— every meÌ„ber thereof in respect of the covenant your demand is of Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded and is to be understood of the general face of that church which was called holy because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people in Exod. 32. 9. 33. 3. the Lord cals them a stifnecked people in regard of personal sinnes which he found to be in some of them not in all the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part whereof they repenting the Lord forgave them The personal sinns of some meÌ„bers do not disposses the face of the church of holynes â—he labouring to reforme such faulty members Concerning the holynes of children of the unbeleeving wife before is shewed Finally you say God hath sayd to al the faythful I wil be thy God and the God
beleevers may and ought to be baptised though they can not by teaching be made disciples 2. to that you answere to my first particular thus I reply That of Abraham his circumcision of the Church of the old Testament I haue spoken before this now I wil adde further that AbrahaÌ„ was an * Iosh 2â— 3. idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church As for his faith it was not onely a president or example to others but was also necessarie for him self as the scripture teacheth he beleeved the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes And being thus iustifyed he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousnes of faith by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemne covenant of the Lord to become his peculiar people and to haue him to be their God which at that time the Lord made with him so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood And where you say that Circumcision was not a seal of Abrahams iustification c. you give the holy Ghost the lye which testifieth the contrary Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason that he was sealed by the spirit long before it is nothing to the purpose for the spirit was no external seal as circumcision was The spirit sealeth inwardly and is proper onely to the elect yea to all Gods people in Babilon and so is no visible signe of of Gods promises given to the Church visible whereof our dispute is And here remember by the way that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit and so was under the new Testament as also others had Esa 63. 11. Psa 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4 39. that being the pledge and earnest of the sowles of al the faythfull in al ages of the love of God in Christ But Abrahams iustification in uncircumcision was a type of the iustification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised And Abrahams circumcision after his iustification sealed him up to be the father of all the beleevers circumcised That Abrahams justification was an example to al that should be justified both of the Iewes and Gentiles I graunt viz. that as he was justified by fayth so should al others that beleeve be likewise justified But as concerning Abrahams circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father Rom. 4. 11 â— 13. of al beleevers circumcised the Apostle sayth thus * Abraham received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of fayth which he had when he was uncircumcised c. that he should be the father of al that beleeve not being circumcised c. and the father of circumcision c. In which words I observe 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousnes of fayth yea of Abrahams 2 that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised beleeving And the father of al the circumcised his posteritie the Israelites and so was father of both sorts of people and of the parents and children 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised he meaneth Mat. 15. â— Act. 25. Rom. â— 4 5. of his spiritual fatherhood in regard of the “ covenant 4. He is called the father of circumcision not onely of beleevers circumcised as you say but of their infants also seeing they were circumcised and in this you deceive your hearers by perswading them that Abraham was the father onely of beleevers circumcised not of their seed whereas Paul sayth he was father of the circumcision And so circumcision had a triple vse one general two special â— Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a patterne of al the beleevers in uncircumcision c. 2. Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a paterne to al beleevers in circumcision c. The general use of Abrahams circumâ—…cumcision was common with him to Ismael and al the persons of his familie and al the carnal Israelites viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. You labour by your new devised distinctions to obscure the truth and to shut out of the covenant of grace the infants of the faythful otherwise â—e affirme that both beleeving Iewes and Gentiles are justified and †Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20. live by their fayth and that the one and the other have but * Rom-4 3. 24. 2 one way of justification as they have but one Christ and one covenant of salvation And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham so was it given to have the same use to al that were circumcised viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by “ Rom. 3. 2â— his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Concerning that general use of circumcision as you terme it to be common with Abraham and to Ismael and to al the persons of his familie c. is true but the use viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. you must prove for God had not then given the law or old Testament It was the covenant in Christ that was sealed by circumcision and not the law or covenant of works And whereas it was the Apostles purpose to shew that †Rom. 4â— c. Abraham was not justified by works he hath not proved it but confirmed it by this your distinction of circumcision if Abraham received it to seal him up to the old Testament to the observation of the law Now for the place of Rom. 4. 11. which I am assured you wil ground your assertion upon I say it is both falsly translated expounded for tes en acrâ—bustia is usually translated which Abraham had when he was uncircumcised and this I say is a false translation for this is the true translation viz. which is or was or shal be in the uncircumcision meaning that circumcision upon Abraham c. was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcision that beleeve and the end of his circumcision is the fatherhood of the faythful Here you pick a quarrel against the translation before it was alleadged and so it pleaseth you to set downe an other with your own exposition to this scripture Rom. 4. 11. and by your glosse corrupts the text You 〈◊〉 4. 11. fault the Translator for saying which he had c. and you put in which is or was or shal be The text is which in the uncircumcision the verbe being omitted Now I ask you what warrant you havâ— more for your addition then the Translator had for his the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain that the Translator saw his
thereof and purpose of the holy Ghost who intendeth to discover the hypocrisie of vaine professors and to shew who are true sonnes of God viz. such as by a godly conversation declare their fayth to be unfeighned I denye that infants are carnal because they shew not their fayth by their works Those whom the scripture so calleth are they that â—om 8. â— 8. †walk after the flesh and do the deeds thereof which Infants nether do nor can do wanting actual power of doing good or evil The former scripture that you alleadge to prove infants carnal is Rom. 7. 14. The Apostle sayth of himself I am carnall and so you conclude â—â—m 7. 14. thence that al that naturally discended of Abraham and so of the faithfull are carnal and so to be reputed of us and consâ—quently without the covenant Paul when he thus sayd of himself I am carnal was regenerate And if you cal children carnal in that sense it hinders not but they may be spiritual seed as he was The Apostle cals himself carnal in respect of his natural corruption and carnal infirmities wherewith he was compassed neither was he wholly carnal but in part †Rom. 7. spiritual And here is to be noted that carnal is opposed to spirituall in one and the same person and is found to be in al that professe fayth and are regenerate yet doth it not debarre them eyther of the covenant or of baptisme A like Answer may be given concerning 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians 1 Cor. 3â— are called carnal because of their infirmities and carnal works as enrying strife c. vers 3. c. Infants cannot in this sense be called carnal therefore this scripture also is unfitly applyed unto them And here it is to be noted that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptised are called carnal whereby we may see how impertinently this scripture is alleadged You say also that you cal children carnal as in opposition to the spiritual seed that one seed of Abraham Gal. 3. 16. I have sayd that carnal as the Apostle opposeth yt to spirituall is our corrupt nature that * lusteth against the spirit and is found in the faythfull Gal. 5. 17 Rom. 7. 2 Now to oppose the infants of beleevers to spiritual seed is no opposition for such infants in regard of the covenant are spiritual though by nature they are carnal Concerning Rom. 9 8. see page 63. The Apostle proving God to be Rom. 9 8 faythful sheweth withal that though the promise was made indefinitely to al the Israelites yet al that were carnally begotten of Israel were not true Israelites save onely such as were the children of the promise verse 7. 9. but he intendeth not to oppose all the seed of Abraham naturally begotten to the childreÌ„ of the promise for then should Isaac be opposed against himself for he was both the natural seed of Abraham and a child of the promise but this he teacheth that although many be reputed the sonns of God in regard of the promise which is made indefinitely to all the seed of Abraham and to al that are called to be members of the visible church yet al of those in the account of God are not children of the promise seing many hypocrites are found to be in the outward visibilitie of the Church to whom the Lord shall say * Luk. 13. 25. 27. I know you not whence ye are c. Touching Gal. 4. 23. it hath been handled before pag. 14. Thus I will here answere to your obiection out of it viz. that Paul doth not intend Gal. 3. 2â— to make an opposition betwene the natural seed of Abraham and the heires of promise but opposeth against the false doctrine of such as vrgeth circumcision and the workes of the law to be necessary to iustification and after divers reasons against this error he illustrateth his purpose by an allegorie which shadoweth forth two sorts of children borne of two Testaments as Ismael Isaac were of two mothers the one sort that should seek after righteousnes by the law but they were no better theÌ„ Ismael no heires of the promise but in bondage vnder the law The other should seeke after righteousnes by Christ and these are of the covenant of grace as Isaak was of the freewoman which are heires and free indeed and this appeares to be the Apostles meaning by that which followes in the Allegory as also by vers 21. And so it is to be noted that to be borne after the flesh typed out by Ismael is to be without the covenant under the bondage of the law which was given in Sinai signifying that all such as seek for iustification by the law are as they that take up their habitation in the wildernes and never enter into the land of promise â—eb 7. 16. The next Scripture is Heb. 7. 16. where the commandement is called carnall so children borne of theire parents say you naturally are carnal c. see this place expounded pag. 68. by carnal commaundement the Apostle means that law that coÌ„maunded the ordinatioÌ„ of the Preists under the old testament which stood in fraile and transitorie things as in Aarons consecration c. Also this commaundement or ordination of the Leviticall Preists may be called carnal compared with the ordination of Christ â—sa 61. 1. 〈◊〉 45. 7. which was without all * external ceremonies and not simply for in other respects it may be counted spiritual as all Gods ordinances are whether under the old or new testament and so this scripture rightly vnderstood maketh nothing to your purpose And towching childreÌ„ you should observe that as it is true that naturally children are carnall so is it true also that the children of the faithful borne under the covenaunt are by grace spirituall Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually sease upon any infant of the Iewes in deed and in truth and the place Act. 2. 39. doth not prove that it did for the place is to be understood of the offer of Christ and the new testament to all the carnal Iewes and their children c. and therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed For this point for the exposition of this scriptur see p. 19. where also is answer to that which is here obiected for by this scripture it is playn that the promise apperteyned to the Iewes their infants into which they their childâ—eÌ„ had entred when God made his covenaÌ„t with Abra his seed for theÌ„ were they in his loynes And upoÌ„ this grouÌ„d the Apostle exhorts theÌ„ to be baptised not saying the promise is now offred but thus the promise is to you that is made or given to you and your children as the Apostle explayneth the same Gal. 3 16. 17. 18. Act. 26. 6. And to as many
his wife and as a wife in one respect so an heire in an other as here the Apostle calls that church And surely she could not be called an heire if she had not title to an inheritance and this then must be by covenant Besides the church of Israel was able and did covenant with the Lord You labour to chayn up the Lords grace and to bynde him that he cannot promise good to the children of the faythful or save them in Christ except they do actually by voyce and words of their own speaking stipulate or coÌ„tract with the Lord the contrarie †Deu. 2â— 10. 15. Aâ— 2. 39. is witnessed by the holy Ghost 3. The Lord did never appoint that baptisme should seal up his new Tectament Rep. to infants Of this I have spoken before throughout the first treatise Ans And for your selves you hold that baptism sealeth up the covenant neither to yong nor old and therefore you might wel have spared this particular As for that which followes or that infants should by his baptisme be admitted in to the body of Antichrist c. I grant not into the body of Antichrist for Antichrist hath no right to any of the ordinances of God but the questioÌ„ is not what he hath right unto but whether the Lords ordinance is to be rejected together with the pollution thereof The Lord did not appoint that Belshaâ—her his princes wyves and concubines should drink in the vessels of the Temple or them to be caried into BabyloÌ„ but * Dan. 5. 2 3. 4. they being there prophaned yet were “ Ezr. 1. 8. 11 caried out thence served for the use of the Temple And so do we hold of baptisme of the scriptures rejecting the corruptions that did cleave unto them in Poperie and applying them with their right use to our selves But the end of Christs baptisme is to manifest visibly that the partie confessing his Rep. sinne is sealed by the spirit unto the day of redemption that he hath visibly put on Christ that he is mortified crucified risen againe c. Rom. 6. 1. 6. Col. 2. 12. Gal. 3. 27. These ends of baptisme I deny not but we must not deprive infants of this grace neither exclude that Ansâ— special end of baptisme to wit the sealing up unto us the pomise of God which is the thing you can not away with I know the true beleevers ar sealed with the spirit a seal invisible so were the godly under the old Test al that are the Lords are in Christ have his spirit dwelling in them els could they not be his And it is true also that the promise of the spirit hinders not the outward meanes which God hath sanctified for the begetting and increasing of our fayth for he worketh together with them Seeing therefore the matter forme and end of baptisme in the false church is from man even from Antichrist therefore the Lord is not the Author of this baptisme but the baptisme is Antichrists wholly And although he useth the words In nomine patris filij spiritus sancti Amen as the Papists do in sprinkling holy water in baptising of their belles as coniurers do in their charmes yet this can not make true baptisme c. How untrue that is which you speak of Baptisme in Poperie as being â—â—s from Antichrist and not from Iesus Christ for the matter c. I have shewed before The Papists when they baptise children do intend to administer baptisme and do baptise them into the name of Christ and not into the name of the Pope And though they do in the use of this holy ordinance adde a number of superstitious ceremonies and observations withal yet keep they the forme * set downe by Christ without devising a new And Mat. 2â— therefore it is not true to say that baptisme is Antichrists wholly The abusing of the name of God by papists or conjurers in their baptising of bells and conjurations c. is their sinne which we leave unto them selves the ordinance of God we retayn which we know their abuse cannot annihilate And though you except these words In nomine patris c. have been prophaned by the Papists As much may be sayd of the scriptures And if prophanation be a cause sufficient to reject baptisme then by lyke reason may the scriptures be cast away And this also you are in a reasonable forewardnes for no translated scriptures must come in your worship yet for some uses you are contented to receive the scriptures though they have been prophaned but baptisme for no use at all because say you it is essentially corrupted in matter and forme and use yet not another matter forme and use your self hath confessed †That if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing â—haracter â—g 53. their sinnes and fayth into the Trinitie it should not have been repeated So that all this florish that you make about the essential corruption in matter forme and use stands in this that you hold that infants are not capable of baptisme which is proved already against you Againe these corruptions in or about the matter and forme of baptisme are accidental and not the changing of the matter forme and end as before is shewed Furthermore whereas I sayd that the Israelites in their Apostasie were a false church you answer If so you understand a false church Repâ— viz. meetings or companies of men assembled together in a wrong place to a wrong worship to a wrong Priesthood I yeeld Israel to be a false church but I deny that to be the true definition of a false church c. By a false church I understand a church apostate neither do I describe Answ a false or an apostate Church as in the first place you set downe but such a church I hold to be in apostasie that hath †2 The. â— 1 Tim. 4. fallen from the fayth and waye of Christ * Hos 2. broken covenant with God and “ 2 Chr. 12. 11. forsaken him †2 Chro. 9. 1 Kin. 28. 33. 14. 9. that erects a new fellowship amongst themselves of their own invention and worship God by the hands of false Ministers with false worship c. This was the state of Israel which came to be without the “ 2 Chr. 1â— 3. true God c. and therefore she was a church in apostasie and not the true * Hos 2. â— wiâ—e of the Lord. That false is contrarie to true I graunt but in that sense I never intended to cal Israel a false church as having nothing that belonged to the true church in it no more is Antichrists such a one Yet the having of some of Gods holy things in them in a corrupt manner cannot make them true churches ches Here you indeavour to prove Israel a false church c. A true church is discerned in the true causes essential and so a false church by
the want of those true causes essential Repl. the true essential causes of the church of the old Testament was the posteritie of Abraham or proselyte circumcised the want of those things onely made a false church c. If this be the true definition of the church under the old Testament Ans then what would let that the Ismaelites and Edomites being circumcised were not true churches they were of the posteritie of Abraham as all do know That Israel was an Apostate church is before proved and by you confessed As to your essential causes of this church your carnal covenant which is the ground of your definitioÌ„ you may receive answer before pag. 12. c. And this more 1. That the Israelites and proselytes were a true church so long as they walked in the wayes of God but apostating the Lord did cal them an harlot Hos 2 2. 2. If these be the essential causes of that church as you have set down then the want thereof makes them not a false church as you say but no Church Lastly you bring us in a double respect or consideration of members of the church Repl. of Antichrist c. I answere divers things 1. I do not deny but that men may be considered two wayes visibly as members of Antichrist body invisibly as pertayning to the Lords election and that is the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but I deny that hence it followeth that when they came from their invisible being in Christ to a visible being in the true visible Church they shal enter in any waye but by the dore which is baptism First you graunt a duble consideration may be had of members of Antichrists Church but not altogether in the same sence as I did propound it The members of an apostate Ch. though in respect of their outward standing they have no right to the holy things of God yet as touching the election of God divers of them may belong vnto him whom he knoweth for his people and calleth them out of Babylon when and as it pleaseth him even as that speach doth shew vnto vs which sayth come out of her my people c. Rev. 18. 4. God for his promise sake made to Abraham Isaac and Iacob did extend his love to their seed and posteritie to save so many of them as he had * elected And when Israel fel into apostasie did remember Rom. 11. â—-5 this his promise and called thence such as he had chosen to witnes his truth and gave them to separate from their false wayes and to returne to Ierusalem Also the Lord having graffed the Gentiles in and †made them partakers of the roote and fatnes of the Olive tree vouchsafeth Rom. 11. 7. his grace to them and their posteritie But their apostasie he hateth as he did that of the Israelites And yet notwithstanding he hath his people Rom. 11. 8. in Babylon whom he calleth out to confesse his name for the covenant is given to the beleeving Gentiles as it was formerly to the Israelites and is no more extinguished in the apostasie of Antichrist then in the apostasie of Israel And as for the meaning of Rom. 11. 28. I take to be this that wheras 〈◊〉 11. 28 question might be made of the saving of the Iewes they being now enemies c. Paul granteth that they are enemies in one respect to wit of the Gospel which now they received not yet that in an other respect they are beloved of God to wit for his election and promise made to the fathers so as through the grace of his covenant by which he had chosen that people to himself Israel shal be called and ingraffed agayne and saved from their sinnes c. But that promise was to their fathers and their seed and this ingraffing agayne of the Iewes shal be into that estate from which now they are fallen and which before time their fathers were partakers off As concerning baptisme I do not read that it is called the doore of * Roâ— 3-4 3. 27. the Church the scripture hath these phrases Baptised into Christ baptised into his death and such like Notwithstanding in some sense it may be called the doore because it sealed vnto vs Christ who is the doore and for that it is the first-ordinance that eyther such as came to the Church or that are borne in the Church are made partakers of Whereas you intimate that a man being invisibly elect and having Title to the Re. covenant may therevpon 1. visibly enter into the false Church by false baptism and then vpon his repentance come to the true Church and enter thereinto not by baptism but that the dore of Antichrist shall open him the way into the Church of Christ Ans c. I answere 1. do not your selfe intimate thus much concerning such as being of yeares and makes themselves profession are baptised into Antichrists Apostacy 2. My spech was of such of Gods people as are borne †Carraâ— pag. 52. in Babylon which your selfe calles * members of a false Church 3. Baptism that is retayned in the Apostate Church of Antichrist is not false in that sense as you so call it but is the ordinance of Christ there poluted as formerly I have shewed 4. Gods people comming out of Babylon do no more enter into the true Church without baptisme then those his people that separated from the apostasie of Israel came to Ierusalem without circumcision otherwise I do not intimate or speak Whereas I say you intimate so much you teach contrary to Christ who sayth we Re. must go in by the dore c. and that we must first be taught and made disciples and then be baptised c. The doore is * Joh. 10. â— Christ by whome if any man enter in he shal be saved An. And to be baptised first after instructed is not coÌ„trary to Christs coÌ„mandemeÌ„t The words of Christ you wrest froÌ„ the true meaning therof to thrust infants out of the covenant and from baptisme and so your self is guilty of teaching contrary to Christ as formerly I have proved and you might aswel deny Baptisme to women by that Scripture Mat. 28. 19. as to infants for Christ sayth Baptise them vsing the masculine gender and not the feminine Secondly I say that no man is under the covenant or under baptisme for the parents sake and that is not the meaning of the Apostle Rom. 11. 28. but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise of God made to Abraham Isaac and Jaoob in respect of Chrict This place of Rom. 11. 28. I have before expounded Pag. 218. And that any is beloved for their parents sake otherwise then in respect of gods free promise made vnto them and their seed I meane not Yet if we consider the Lords dispensation of his covenant according to his grace of chosing a people to himself of
THE PLEA FOR INFANTS AND ELDER PEOPLE concerning their Baptisme OR A PROCESSE OF THE PASSAGES between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton Wherein first is proved That the baptising of Infants of beleevers is an ordinance of God Secondly That the rebaptising of such as have been formerly baptised in the Apostate Churches of Christians is utterly unlawful Also The reasons and objections to the contrarie answered Divided into two principal heads I. Of the first Position concerning the baptising of infants II. Of the second Position concerning the rebaptising of Elder people Mat. 7. 15. 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves you shal know them by their fruits 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But there were false Prophets also among the people even as there shall be false Teachers among you which privily shal bring in daÌ„nable Heresies even denying the Lord that hath bought them bring upon themselves swift damnation And many shal follow their damnable wayes by whom the way of truth shal be evil spoken of Printed at Amsterdam by Gyles Thorp Anno 1610. To all them which are called and sanctified of God the Father and returned to Iesus Christ LEt it not seem strange deare brethren neyther cause any to distast the right wayes of the Lord because from amongst vs some have departed from the fayth and are turned after errors For the holy Ghost hath foretold vs that even from amongst our selves there should meÌ„ arise speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after theÌ„ Act. 20. 30. And with such the primitiue Apostolike Churches were greatly molested and that whylest the Apostles were living Iohn doth also witnesse that in his tyme there were many Antichrists they went sayth he out from us 1. Ioh. 2. 18. 19. meaning even out of the bosome of the Church And our Saviour sayth many false Prophets shall arise and deceive many Mat. 24. 11. And Peter saith many shall follow their damnable wayes 2 Pet. 2. 2. All which may teach vs not to be offended when the like doth befall to the Churches in our times Seing it is incident to Gods people not onely to be persecuted by enemies without but also greived with false brethren that under pretence of more sinceritie of religion will seek to destroy the faith being the very instruments of Satan whom he subborneth to deceive the unstable and to corrupt their minds from the simplicitie that is in Christ 2. Cor. 11. 3. These things being considered it behoveth us to mind the exhortations and warnings given by the Apostles of Christ that is to stand fast and keep the instructions which we have been taught 2 Thes 2. 15. And not to beleeve every spirit but to trie the spirits whether they be of God or no for many false Prophets are gone into the world 1 Ioh. 4. 1. And the rather it stands vs the more upon to take heed to our selves and be admonished by the word of the Lord because as the Divil on the one hand prevayleth in these our times by worldly arguments of profite pleasure and the likeâ— to keep many back from walking in the right wayes of God So on the other hand under glorious shewes of pretended holynes hath he deceaved many and drawne them into damnable heresies labouring to poyson the fountaines of wholsome doctrine reveiled in these last dayes vnto his Church And wherâ—â— God in mercie hath preached vnto vs the Gospel that formerly he had â—eached to Abraham our father and by the Apostles vnto both Iewes â—d Gentiles that a long time hath bene greatly obscured through the â—oggy mists of popish doctrines now seeketh to spoile the church of Christ â—ereof altogether by that detestable heresie of Anabaptisme which as â— hath overspread many places to the great annoyance of the people of God So as a leprosie hath it at this present infected some of our owne â—ntryemen who are not onely taynted therewith but have revolted froÌ„â—e faith and taken vpon them the profession thereof and published their â—reticall opinions in our owne language For there is lately set forth 〈…〉 rtayne Treatise of theirs intituled The Character of the Beast â—c A title as it is most blasphemous being understood of the baptising â—f infants so is the book it self ful of many dangerous errours wherwith â—he simple may easily be deceaved And seing the same book is sent over â—to our own country and is spread abroad into the hands of many I have thought good also to give warning to all that loves the Lord Iesus and â—e carefull of their own salvation to take heed therof And for this â—nd have published this Treatise following contayning a Processe of the Passages between Mr. Smyth the author of that book and me wherin â—l whose eies it shal please God to open may see the notable sleights of Saâ—han by this his instrument who first sought to disgrace the holy Scriptures translated and to cast them out of Gods worship and now in his Charcter to distroy the covenant of grace which of old was given to Abraham including the children with the parents and to bring in a new Gospel that excludes the children of the faythfull both froÌ„ the covenant and baptism the seale therof I had no purpose of publishing these my writings had not the occasion bene offered by Mr. Smyth in printing our former private Passages but so having done I could 〈…〉 no lesse then to publish these my labours also vnles I should have bene iniurious to the truth Seing I had received the copie of Mr Smythes book in written hand which he purposely sent vnto me as a reply to my former answer to his two Anabaptistical Positions whereunto I had almost finished this my second answer before his book was printed Otherwise if I had not bene so far interessed therein I should haue bene glad if this work had been taken in hand by others more sufficient then my self But thus God having disposed to imploy me in this part of his service at this present I shall desire the godly Reader to accept this my small endeavours proceeding from an hart earnestly striving to mainteyne that faith which was once given unto the Sainsts and to supply my weaknes with his better labours as there shal be cause And withall to take notice that I have here set downe the whol Passages touching this controversie between Mr Smyth and me First his Positions with the Reasons annexed 2. My answer therevnto written in private vnto him which without my knowledge he published together with his reply committing that against me therein which he condemneth in Mr Barnard against himself Parallels in the epistle to the Reader Thirdly the Summe of his Reply And lastly my Answer therevnto So that the Reader may see how these thinges have from the beginning passed between vs. The Lord give vs to discerne the truth from falsehood to look to our selves that we loose not the things which we have done but
that we may receive a ful reward And now unto him that is able to keep vs that we fall not to present vs faultlesse before the presence of his glorie with ioye To God onely our Saviour be glorie and Maiestie Dominion and power both now and ever Amen Richard Clifton AN ANSWER TO Mr SMYTHES Epistle to the Reader which he hath directed To every one that loveth the truth in sincerity BY these wordes it seemeth Mr Smyth would intimate that his care is to mainteyne the truth and that in sinceritie he loveth the same whereas in deed he hath destroyed the faith is become an enemy to the covenant of grace a perverter of the right wayes â—f the Lord and withall so confident in defence of his heresies that he â—â—es to challendge a combate with all the Separation belike to feare men â—ith great words and to boast with Rabsake as if his forces were invinâ—ble But what they are it wil appeare in this discourse following In the Epistle it self first Mr Smyth seemeth to excuse their mutabilitie in ReligioÌ„ saying It may be thought most strange that a man should oft times change â—s religion and it cannot be accounted a commendable qualitie in any man to make â—ny alterations c. this must needs be true and we confesse it if one condition be 〈…〉 itted that the Religion which a man changeth be the truth for otherwise to change 〈…〉 lse religion is commendable c. But Mr Smyth and his company have changed a true Religion for a â—alse and therefore that can be no commendable qualitie in them And â—uch inconstant persons as himself saith cannot escape the deserved imputation â—folly or weaknes of iudgement therein Thus out of his owne mouth proâ—ouncing senteÌ„ce against himself For that alteratioÌ„ of him his coÌ„pany â—s not froÌ„ falshood to truth but the leaving of the truth which formerly â—hey professed a taking up of error after error first calling into question whether the scriptures being translated into other tongues were not the writings of men Differenc pag. 10. Then casting the reading of them out of the worship of God affirming that there is no better warrant to bring translations of Scripture into the Church and to read them as parts and helps of worship then to bring in expositions paraphrasts and sermons vpon the Scripture seing all these are equally humane in respect of the worke equally divine in respect of the matter they handle Differ pag. 10. And for the same cause separated themselves from other Churches that did read and vse the same in their publike meetings After this they dissolved their Church which before vvas conioyned in the fellowship of the Gospel profession of the true fayth Mr. Smyth being Pastor thereof gave over his office as did also the Deacons and devised to enter a new communion by renouncing their former baptisme and taking upon them an other of mans invention bringing in an other Gospel besides that which was preached to Abraham Gen. 12 3 17. 7. c. Gal. 3 8. And now againe many of this new communion have separated themselves from the rest holding the error about the incarnation â—f this new â—aptised coÌ„â—union â—ere are reâ—ayning as â—is reported â—t above â— persons â—l the rest â—e runne in â— further â—rors of Christ An other sort are excommunicate namely M. Smyth divers with him for holding as it is reported by some that were of them that their new washed companie is no true church and that there cannot be in a church the administratioÌ„ of baptisme other ordinances of Christ without Officers contrarie to his former judgment practise writings yet resteth not but is inquiring after a new way of walking as the same persons affirme breeding more errors as is strongly suspected and by his manuscripts partly appeares Whereby it is manifest that these men can not cleare themselves of instabilitie changeablenes in Religion but are guilty of that inconstancie that is worthy reproof and damnable Further he sayth For a man of a Turke to become a Jew of a Iew a Papist of a Papist a Protestant are al commendable changes c. so that not to change religion is evil simplie therefore that we should fal from Puritanisme to Brownisme and from Brownisme to true christian baptisme is not simply evil in it self except it be proved that we have fallen from the true religion c. Here Mr. Smyth would make the world beleeve as it is the manner of al heretikes that their alterations were goings forward to further truthes and therefore commendable But if their true Christian baptisme whereof they boast prove a notable heresie as it is indeed in this Treatise is proved then his comparison holds not but rather their estate is like to those in 1 Tim. 1 19. that put away fayth a good conscience and as concerning fayth have made shipwrack And that bring in damnable heresies 2 Pet. 2. 1. c. denying the covenant of grace and the lawful use of the scriptures c. to bring upon themselves swift damnation if God give them not speedy repentance Next M. Smyth setts down the questions controverted and hereafter answered affirming that this controversie is between them and the Separation whereas he might as well have sayd betweene them and all christian churches that have been or are at this day for it is not we alone that â—ndemne these their heresies but both the ancient and moderne Churâ—es and vvriters in all ages as vvith one consent have opposed against â—em But where he pretends the publishing of this controversy to be for the â—ay of God the manifesting of the truth to our owne nation and the destruction of â—man of sinne he geveth vs to mynd how Satan hath bewitched his soule â— beleeve that such can be the effects of his heritical opinions It is the â—ollicy of the Divil to propound glorious ends to such as he seduceth as â— Evah and others teacheth his Ministers to do the like that by fayre â—attring speeches and shewes of good they might more easily deceave the â—mple And therfore seing we are forwarned that there shal be false Teachers â—mongst vs which privily shal bring in damnable heresies it behoveth vs â—o mynd the counsel of the Apostles to try the spirits 1. Ioh. 4. 1. And not â—o be caryed about with every wynd of doctrine Ephe. 4. 14. Now happely sayth Mr. Smyth some man wil wish that the controversy had 〈◊〉 with the Rabbies of the Separation and not with Mr Clyfton whome they ca 〈…〉 iate to be a weake man vnable to deale in so great a controversy wel let the Reader take notice that though it be Mr Clyftons pen yet it is not onely Mr Clyftons 〈…〉 se defâ—nce but his allegatioÌ„s Reasons are the best plea of the greatest Rabbies theÌ„â—elves And if they can say better they may now speake for by publishing answere to
30. Act. 16 25. Psal 95. 92 1. 66. 2. 89. 1. Lastly each one as he is able contributeth to the Treasurie whereby the Officers poor of the church are maynteyned according to these scriptures 1 Tim. 5 17. 18. 1 Cor. 9 7-14 Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 16. Luk. 2â— 1. 2 3. 4. Mat. 26 9. 10. 11. Act. 2 42. 45 46. 4 34. 35. 37. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. â— Cor. 8 4 1â— And this is that worship and service we publikely practise which Mr. S. calleth false worship how truly let the Reader now judge Fourthly coÌ„cerning the GovermeÌ„t of our church which also this adversarie taxeth first the Governours that we have are such as Christ hath appointed in his Church viz. Pastors Teachers Elders and such as M. S. †Principles pag. 18. Questions Answers pag. 8. affirmeth the Eldership to consist of the two former both teaching and ruling the Elders imployed in the governmeÌ„t onely elected of the church for the overseing governing guiding of the same by the rules of Christ whose offices and authoritie of Ruling are warranted by these scriptures 1 Tim. â— 5. 17. Rom. 12. 6. 7. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 5. with Rev. 2. 2. 14. 15. Act. 20. 28. Heb. 13 8. 24. Agayn as touching the Censures we proceed therin after Chriâ—â—s 〈…〉 private faults vsing private admonitions and for publike open reb 〈…〉 cording to these Scriptures Mat. 18. 15. 17. 1. Tim. 5. 20. 2. Cor. 2. 6. And when the offenders continue obstinate in their sinns after due admonition and conviction by the word of God the Church being gathered together the Pastor or Teacher or one of the Elders in the name by the power of our Lord Iesus Christ pronounceth the sentence of excoÌ„munication agaynst them all the brethren consenting according to these Scriptures Mat. 18. 17. 19. 1. Cor. 5. 3. 4. c. 1. Tim. 1. 20. And if the excomunicate do repent he is with the Churches consent received agayne into the coÌ„munion therof by some of the Governors according to these Scriptures 2. Cor. 2. â—7 11. Mat. 18. 18. 20. What Mr. Smyth can fault in this or in any other of our practises he may at his leasure discover the same if he be not already satisfied Now besides these false imputations it pleaseth Mr. Smyth to vtter agaynst this Church many vncharitable and reprochfull speeches wishing also As the Tirant wished concerning the people of Rome that all theire heades were joyned into one c. To passe by his tart and bitter speeches unbeseeming a professor of the Gospell concerning his wish I do certifie him thus much that if it were granted that the Separation had but one head his woodden sword of mans doctrine wil never be able to smyte it of Wel may he cary the Tyrants mynd but for his wish I trust he shall fynd a like effect therof as the Tyrant did of his who contrary to his expectation found the people of Rome not to have one head but many hands to smyte of his head So this wisher shall fynd that the Separation hath many hands to convince his abominable errors And whereas he desyreth the Separation that they wil not in craftines withdrawe from the combate as hetherto they have done in the matter of the Trâ—nslation Worship and Presbyterie c. He himselfe now knoweth that he hath answere to all these things and if any delay hath bene herein it was not any withdrawing through craftines as he falsely chargeth vs but we saw him so mutable and inconstant and his latter writings to overthrow his former that his owne workes would be a sufficient confutation thereof And now that there was so great occasion of answere and that he so insulted vpon the differring therof he hath his answere geven him For 〈…〉 his speeches of charging and challendging vs to the defence of â—rors I hope he wil stay his penne henceforth from such vanitie seing â—â—â—e not ashamed or yet neglect to vndertake the defence of that truth â— professe and to manifest that he is a defender of errors and not we as â—e scanderously reporteth of vs. Furthermore Mr Smyth requires of the Separation and of all men not â— impute vnto them The denying of the old Testament the Lords day the â—â—â—â—stracy and humanity of Christ Why this request should be made I know â—ot vnles they would beare the world in hand that they are not taynted â—ith these errors which other anabaptists doo hold Concerning the â—st of them Mr. Sm. affirmeth that the Lord made with his people vnder â—e old Testament a carnal covenant denying that everlasting covenant in Christ to be geven vnto them or circumcision to be the seale thereof He â—so denyeth the seede of the faythfull to be within the covenant of grace â—yther before or since Christs comming contrary to Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. â—9 And therefore I cannot see but that the denying both of the old and â—ew Testament in this respect may justly be imputed unto him as in this â—reatise following it will appeare For their denying of the Lords day as yet we have litle to say notwithâ—anding it is reported that some of their company makes question therof But concerning the Magistracy Mr. Smyth bewrayeth his vnsoundnes â— these words But of Magistrates converted to the faith and admitted into the Church by baptism there may questions be made which to answere we cannot if we â—â—â—ld when such things fall out the Lord we doubt not will direct vs into the truth concerrning that matter Here let the Reader observe how they plead ignorance in the matter of the Christian Magistrate if so they thought of his Authoritie that he being of the Church was to beare the sword and them of the Church to obey him as having civill power over them and whome he might commaund in defence of Religion of his country to take vp armes then needed not he thus to speake For by his words they geve vs to conjecture that they think more may be yeelded to an heathen Ruler then to a Christian Magistrate If they be cleare in this pointe they may so explane their myndes Also in this pleading ignorance of the Magistracy they seeme to tax the new Testament not to be so playne as Mr Smyth affirmeth where he sayth All the ordinances of the new Testament are plainely taught by C 〈…〉 his disciples Character pag. 34. Now if all things be taught in the new Testament why then can he not answere those many questions that may be made about the Christian Magistrate or why looks he for new direction wel this I perceave that eyther he must deny the authority of the Christian Magistrate or be driven to confesse that the writings of the Apostles are not playne enough to discribe his office and Authoritie without the Scriptures of the old Testament from which if it be lawfull to reason concerning this matter of the Magistracy
another contrarie to the scripture for the truth sake That Augustine was an heretick and condemned Auxentius for the truth contrary to the Scripture resteth for you to prove if you can I have already proved that the denying of Baptisme to Infants is an error you have not in all this your writing confuted the same as wil appeare in the answer And here let it be observed that you acknowledge AuxeÌ„tius Pelagius to be hereticks so these your errors to have bene first broched by men iustly condemned for heresie for you say one heretick condemned another Further concerning the fathers by me alleadged in the 6. page of my writing to shew the practise of Churches in baptising of Infants you passe them over with this answer saying I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Cyprian Origine Nazianzene Ambrose and many others were as grosse hereticks if he be an heretick that holdeth an heresie as Auxentius and Pelagius c. That these Fathers and others had their errors we do not deny but that they were hereticks and such as did obstinately defend their errors being convinced therof by the word of God is more I think then you can prove we do not say that the holding of every error makes an heretick but when he that holds an error and persisteth obstinately therin after admonition â— say that such a one is to be rejected Tit. 3. 10. And though you could â—ove those fathers as grosse heretiks as Auxentius Pelagius as I know â—u can not in that sense as the Scripture taketh this word Hâ—reticke yet â—is opinion of those Catabaptists is not therby iustifed for as an heretique â—ay hold some points hereticall so may he some truthes And you are to â—ove that those fathers did vnjustly condemn Auxentius and Pelagius â—r the denying of the baptisme of Infants or els you Answer not to the â—urpose As for our acknowledging of the Auncient fathers to be Antichristian â—t is more theâ— you have froÌ„ me or can shew that I have so affirmed in deed â—n there tymes the churches were in declyning and through ignorance and careles taking heede to the word Sathan beganne to prepare way for Antichrist but that we account them simply Antichristian as fallen into that deepe Apostacy we doe not they had some Ceremonies and other observances that we approve not of yet reteyned they many of gods ordinances wherof Paedobaptistry is one And where as yov say it is no more to be respected 〈◊〉 the Ancient Churches then the Prelacy and read prayer in the same we have learned by the word to put difference betwene the things of God reteyned in Churches declyning and the inventions of men though you cast out both together account vs AntichristiaÌ„ for the same next you proceed to examine my Arguments from the scripture alledged to prove that Infants are to be baptised 1. OF THE FIRST POSITION concerning the Baptising of infants Rich Clifton Argument I. Gen. 17. 10. God made his covenant to Abraham and to his seed from whence I reason thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him and to all 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. Therfore that is commanded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrhams 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 and to your children and to all that are a farre off as many as the Lord our God shall call In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive and were baptised into And therfore is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is sayd to redeme vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8. 9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant for otherwise ABRAHAMS covenaunt should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a tyme Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs and to our infants els it is not the same that by the coÌ„mandement of God For the abolishing of circuÌ„cisioÌ„ the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospell doth not abrogate or disannul the commaundement of sealing the covenaunt 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 beloÌ„gs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seale thereof to them to their seede as it did to Abraham to his seed The outward ceremony onely changed Mr Smyth To this Argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two coveâ—nts or testaments for a covenant testament is all one in the originals though â—he English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham and his carâ—al seed and of that covenaÌ„t was circuÌ„cisioÌ„ a seale another covenaÌ„t made with AbrahaÌ„ and his Spirituall seed and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seale for â—he carnall covenant had a carnal seale vpon the carnall seed the Spirituall covenant had a Spirituall seale vpon the Spirituall seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnall seale could not seale vp the Spirituall covenant to the Spirituall seed for to say so is to leap over the hedge and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth c. Rich Clifton Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham a carnall a spirituall the one with Abraham and his carnall seed the other with him and his spirituall seed I answer first that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation which is That God would be his God and the God of his seed Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was * Gen. 17. 10. 11. Râ— 4. 11. sealed with circumcision and it is the same covenant that is established by the †2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12. bloud of Christ vnto all the faithfull seed sealed vnder the Gospell * Mat. 19. by baptisme in stead of circumcision Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed the scripture knoweth none In this covenant is promised through Iesus Christ remission of sinnes iustification life everlasting with all saving graces to all that †Heb. 8. â— Ier. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11. beleeve And that this is so the
the lawe ordeyned to like vse vnto the Iewes 〈…〉 m this placeis that there are two seeds Ismaell of Abra 〈…〉 carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah 〈…〉 seed 〈…〉 this type th 〈…〉 that Hagar Ismael did shadow 〈…〉 lawe with her children 〈…〉 bondage and Sarah â— Ierusalem and her children which 〈◊〉 and sonnes by promise â—nding hereby not onely Abrahams 〈◊〉 seed 〈…〉 e vnder bondage 〈◊〉 through the observation of the law looked for 〈…〉 tion But all o 〈…〉 s whatsoever that by pretending to observe the law â—â—pe thereby to be instified as by applying this doctrine to the Galathians â—ppeareth But you say Hagar and Ismael typed the carnall seed after the flesh â— All that the Apostle sayth is this that he that was borne of the servant 〈…〉 e after the 〈◊〉 meaning thereby that he was not bornâ— by promise 〈◊〉 mother that was free as Isaac was and so did typâ—â—â—t as afore 〈◊〉 the state and condition of them that seek iustification by the works of 〈…〉 what you affirme more then this you must prove 3. You say there are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall 〈…〉 〈◊〉 carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a 〈◊〉 spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed Ephe. 1. 13. First I deny that circumcision is the seale of any other covenant ◠〈◊〉 â— Gal. â— Gen. â— of that †one covenaunt made with Abraham 〈…〉 of Christ w 〈…〉 was confirmed vnto * him and to his seed therby a 〈…〉 spirit calleth circumcision a ‡ Gal. 4. seale of the righteousnes of faith And lastly because Isaac that was borne by * Gal. 4. promise was circumcised who was partaker of the covenaunt of grace and of the righteousnes which is by faith therefore circumcision was a signe and seale thereof But you will obiect that Isaac was of Abrahams carnall seed and in that respect received circumcision as a seale of the carnall covenant which he also had It is true that Isaac was borne to Abraham after the coÌ„mon course of nature and therefore had he thereby this prerogative to be circumcised which no other children had but Abrahams vntil they or their Parents were by faith partakers of the same covenaunt made with AbrahaÌ„ but it is not true that he received this signe of circumcision as the seale of a carnall covenaunt or of the promise of Canaan onely or that it was a seale vpon the carnal children of Abrahams onely seing 〈…〉 Exod. 12. the beleeving Gentiles as before was observed 〈…〉 and Ismael also was circumcised that had no righ 〈…〉 And â— all such as beleeve have received the gospel are sealed 〈…〉 rit of promise is true but as the spirit doth not onely 〈…〉 promise of God in the hatteâ— of 〈◊〉 but externally â—â— the 〈◊〉 cheth the same Heb. 8. 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. 15. so doth he both inwardly â— outwardly seale the sâ—me promise to them vnto whom it belongs Tâ— * spirit and circ 〈…〉 on are seales of the same covenaunt of grace righteousnes â— Gor. 1. â— 21. 22. â—he 1. 13. â—erd with â—om 4. 11. of faith And thus may you see that your distinction of two seales of two severall covenants a carnal and a spiritual is but a devise of your owne invention which wil fall to the ground when Poedobaptistry shall stand firm against 〈◊〉 strongest reasons though you hold it to have a sandy foundatiâ—◠〈…〉 next place you answer to the scriptures by me alleadged to prove 〈◊〉 of my argument and first to that of Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. you say 〈◊〉 proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenaunt made with 〈…〉 all seed and not a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with the faithful for 〈…〉 it is the seale thereof 〈◊〉 answered you before that circumcision was a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham and have proved the same by those places of Rom. 4. 11. and Gen. 17. 7-12 although you labour to infringe the the testimony of the Apostle saying that it is not the scope of the place but this viz. that circumcision had one specialitie in Abraham differring from all other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the father of all the faithful as concerning the matter of their iustification c. The words of the Apostle are so playne as you cannot shift them off for Paul proving that Abraham was iustified by faith and that faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnes when he was vncircumcised sayth after he received the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Ram. 4. 9. 10. 11. Doth not the Apostle plainely affirme that circumcision was a seale of the righteousnes of faith which â—â— Cor. 1. 30. Act. 13. 39. 2 Cor. 5. 21. righteousnes what is it else but the matter of Gods spirituall covenaunt made to Abraham for Christ the substance of this covenaunt is this righteousnes by which Abraham and all the faithfull ‡ are iustified And you confesse that by circumcision Abraham was sealed vp to be the father of the faithful 〈…〉 ning the matter of their iustification Now if it did seale to Abraham the â—uall covenaunt then is circumcision a seale of the covenannt of salvaâ— and not of a carnall covenaunt as you affirme And if circumcisiâ— a 〈◊〉 Abraham of this heavenly promise then is it so to all his 〈…〉 God put no difference in commaunding him and his seed to â—cumcised as to say to Abraham that this sacrament should seale vnâ—â—im the covenaunt of grace and to his seed a carnall covenaunt but â—d thus to Abraham †Gen. 17. 9. 10. thou also shalt keep my co 〈…〉 thou and thy seed afâ— thee in their generations But say you he was sealed vp toâ—â— the father of the faithâ—l that as he was iustified by faith so should they be and th◠〈…〉 ltie had circumcision in Abraham differing from all other That Abraham had this prerogative above others to be â—â—e father of the faithful is not denyed but to affirme that circumcision â—â—s not a seale of the spirituall covenant is false and you answer not the Apostle but shift it off with saying this specialtie had circumcision in Abrahan differing froÌ„â—ther which is no conscionable dealing seing you cannot but 〈◊〉 that Paul having affirmed that Abrahams faith was imputed to him 〈…〉 â—ousnes when he was vncircumcised doth prevent this obiection 〈…〉 Abraham was iustified being vncircumcised to what end was he then cir 〈…〉 cised to which the Apostle answers that his circumcision was not iâ— vayne but was given of God and by him received as a seale of the righâ—â—ousnes of his faith so setting downe the vse of circumcision not limitting the same as a specialty to Abrahams fatherhood but as the proper end or vse of the sacrament it self belonging to all others that were circumcised as well
Esra 6. â— Abraham and of them that were Gentiles and to be adioyned to the Church of the old Testament And therefore this manner of admitting members into the Church being morall vnder the law so continueth to be vnder the Gospell And the †“ Deut. 1â— 4. â— 6. Ier â— Deut. 30. 6. Circumcision of the hart was commanded and promised then to the Israelites and their seed as wel as now it is to us and not onely to them that adjoyned to the Church but continually to all the members of the same And therfore it is noâ— true that theirs was the type onely and ours the truth seeing the things signifyed by Circumcision were required of the circumcised as the thing signified by baptisme is also required of vs and a like enterance into the Church vnder both Testaments The third is this As in the old Testament carnal infants were carnally begâ—tten and borne by the mortall seed of generation by their carnal parents and then â—ere carnally circuÌ„cised received into the carnal covenant so in the new Testament spiritual Infants new borne babes in Christ must be spiritually begotten and 〈◊〉 the immortall seed of regeneration by spirituall parents and then being spirit 〈…〉 circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be received into the new Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second was verified in the truth This reason is a like to the former and hath answer already This I add further that circumcision though it was a cuttyng of the foreskinne of the flesh yet was it an holy action †sealing vnto the beleevers and theire RoÌ„ 4. 11. seed the righteousnes of faith 2 I deny that the seed of Abraham after the flesh was by circumcision received into a carnall covenant the covenant is spiritual vnto which Gen. 17. 7 â— Act. 7. 8. â— 4. 11. they were sealed * by circumcision as before I have proved for had they bene received into a carnall covenant then should the Church of the old Testament be also carnall for according to the nature of the covenant so must the Church be and GOD must be a carnall GOD and delited with carnall things contrary to Psal 50. 8. 13. Esay 1. 13. 14. But the Lord required of his people the Israelites more then outward or carnal service and that which stood in ceremonies types and shadowes Lev. 19. 2 even †holynes the circumcision of the hart * repentance “ Deut. 10. the service of the hart and soule And that the Lord did principally require â—6 Jer. 4. 4. â— Hos 14. 2 â—el 2. 12. â—3 Ps 4. 4 â— Deut. 10. â— 6. 4. 5. â—sa 1. 11 â— 58. 2 â—4 5. Ps â—0 8. 13. spirituall worship of them appears by his †rejection of their ceremoniall worship when it was offerred vp without the spirituall and by exhorting to the spiritual as Psal 50. 14. 15. to offer praise and to call vpon him and Psal 4. 5. to offer the sacrifice of righteousnes and in Hoseah 14. 2. to pray for pardon and to render vp the calves of their lips And consequently faith in Christ without * Heb. 11. 6 which all their worship was vnsavory to God the Psal discribeth the true members of the Church and dwellers in the Lords †Ps 15. 1. â—2 3. c. Ps 24. 3. 4. â— Tabernacle not by an outward observacion of legall ceremonies but of their spirituall obedience The Lord sayth “ Prov. 23 â— â— Esa 29. â—3 my sonn give me thy hart and reproveth †hipocrisie By all which testimonies it is manifest that the members of the old Church were received into a further covenant with the Lord then into a bare carnal covenant which hath carnal conditions onely as before is proved The fourth is this If the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the new Testament must not be baptised because that as circumcision is abolished which was the singe or seal so the infant is abolished which is the subiect of the signe or seal And a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the spirit and by the word But the carnal infaÌ„ts in the old TestameÌ„t were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the new Testament to be baptised The consequent of the major wil not follow the reason proves it not For although circumcision be abolished in that there was somewhat 〈◊〉 â—t was typical as the circumcising of the males onely whereby they were directed vnto Christ by whom our corrupt nature is clensed yet was â—t not abolished as it was a seale of the covenant but the outward ceremoâ—ie onely changed no more is the carnal infant of the beleeving parents abolished or made vncaple of the seal of Gods covenant for the children of Christians †Gal. 3. 29 are Abrahams seed I say not in respect of the flesh but by grace of the covenant comprehending the whole seed of the faithful and therefore have right as well to the signe of the covenant as had the carnall sede of Abraham Towching your proportionable infant as you term him it is to be obserâ—ed that in the old Church it was required of al that were to be adioyned thervnto that they should * Exod. 12 48. Ezr. 6 21. separate from the filthines of the heatheÌ„ to seek the Lord as now it is vnder the gospel And therefore it wil not follow that circumcision was a type onely of the time to come the fift is this As in the old Testament when the male appeared the eight day their was a paynful circumcising and mortifying of the foreskin when the party was received into the covenant actually so in the new testament when the Lord Iesus Christ typed by the male appointeth that when there is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous fore â—kin of the hart the party so qualifyed should be received into the new testament actually But the first was signifyed by the type Ergo the second is verified in the truth First the covenant to the infants of the Iewes was actually sealed by circuÌ„cisioÌ„ but this caÌ„not properly be said a receiving into the covenaÌ„t wherin they were before comprehended with their fathers but a confirming therof to the parties circumcised And this appeareth to be so by the Lords threatning to * Gen. 1â— 14. cut of from his people the vncircumcised male-child Can he be cut of that was not of his people or for the refusing circumcision to be be sayd to have broken the Lords covenant 2. Your simile holds not proportion for you say the party circumcised was by circumcision actually received into the covenant then by your reason if you will make it proportionable the parties that are to be received into the new Testament must be received therin by the mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of his hart or els you must shew some ceremony folowing
there teacheth This visible seale of the new testament is confession as in the â—d testament circumcision was their confession and baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale First you deny a principle of religion and that which formerly you held for in your book of Difference c. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptisme seales of the covenant these are your words The publishing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the seales is onely one concrete action c. for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seales otherwise breaking of bread and baptising are but putting of seales to a blank And thus unstable are you in your wayes 2. What if baptisme be not called a seale yet if it can be proved by scripture that it is a seale we ought so to receive it The sacraments given of God unto the Israelites were called seales as †Rom. 4. 15. 8. circumcision by the Apostle is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith And when God made with Abraham his covenant to be his God and the God of his seed he gave him * Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1â— circumcision a signe thereof which did confirme unto him and to his seed that which God did promise as before the Lord had done to Noah to whoÌ„ he gave the “ Gen. 9. 9-17 rayn-bowe as a signe of his promise that the world should be no more destroyed with water so the Passeover is called a signe Exod. 13. 9. Now if circumcision be a signe and seale of Gods covenant as the Apostle testifieth then it must needs be granted that baptisme succeeding circumcision is also a seale of the Lords covenant though the very word seale be not expressely set downe in the scripture And this the Apostle intimates Act. 2. 39. where he exhorteth the beleevers to be baptised every one in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes for the promise is to you and to your children The Lord commanding his “ Mat. 2. 19. Gospel to be preached to all nations commanded them also to be baptised confirming by this outward signe his covenant to all the beleeving Gentiles and their seed as he had done to Abraham and his seed the same covenant by circumcision * Paul †Cornelius “ Lydia and the Gaylor after they beleeved and had â—ct 9. 17 received the covenant were baptised which confirmed unto them the free * forgivenes of all their synnes by the death of Christ And this is plainly Act. 10. taught us by Peter 1. Epistle 3 21. where he sayth that baptisme now also saveth us Baptisme cannot be sayd to save as any cause thereof Act. 16. â— 31. â—â—k 3. 3. â—ct 2. 38. â—â— 6. 3. â—al 3. 16 â—om 7. 11 Mar. 16. but in this respect that it witnesseth and sealeth unto us from God our salvation that which circumcision did type out to come the same doth baptisme now signifie to be fulfilled in Christ the true †seed of Abraham And as by “ circumcisiion the righteousnes of faith was sealed so by Baptisme salvation is sealed as Christ sayth * he that beleeveth and is baptised shal be saved Againe Rom. 6. 3. Paul sayth all we that have been baptized into Iesus Christ have beene baptized into his death In which words the Apostle giveth vs to understand that by baptisme the benefits of the death of Christ are on the Lords behalf confirmed unto us And if this be not the signification of baptisme let it be shewed out of the word what els is minded by these phrases baptised into the death of Christ and buried with him by baptisme into his death Thus have I shewed that baptisme is a seal of the new Testament which you deny affirming a new kind of seale thereof viz Confession say the seale of the spirit must go before baptisme Which two in my understanding differ farre one from another for confeession is the act of man as the Apostle sayth * with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation proveth sometime to be Rom. 10. â— Act. 8. 13 hypocriticall as that of Symon Magus was But the baptisme of the holy Ghost is an action of God and is eyther an internall work of the spirit as Mat. 3. 11. or els external by some visible signes and extraordinary guifts Act. 1. 8. 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44. 47. This latter now ceasseth being then given of God for the further confirming of the Gospel in the Churches newly planted until the faith of Christ was fully established amongst the Gentiles and therefore is no ordinary seale of the new Testament given by Christ to be continued unto the end of the world though I confesse those extraordinary giftes of the spirit miracles works done by the Apostles and other of the servants of Christ have still their use in the Church to confirme the truth of God by them published And as for mens confession of the faith that can be no seale of the â—ew Testament because it is imperfect and oftentimes hypocriticall many falling away from the truth which formerly they professed as Demas Nicholas the Deacon and those mentioned in the first epistle of Iohn chap. 2. 19. Now that which must seale Gods covenant unto us for the confirmation of our faith must be certayne and perfect and that from God because it is he that promiseth salvation to all that beleeve therefore it is he that onely can give assurance of his owne covenant And as â—or our confession it is but an outward testification of the grace of God bestowed upon us it can no more be a seale of the new Testament then the profession of the Iewes was of the old And as you require of me â—here in all the scripture baptisme is called a seale so more justly may I demand of you where in all the new Testament that confession is called a seale Besides if confession be a seale of the new Testament then a man may be par taker of the scale that is not of the Church as they that confesse their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints 3. That the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water c. Vnderstanding it as you do of confession then I graunt that such as were never of the Church ar first to make coÌ„fessioÌ„ of their faith to testify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptised Act. 8. 37. 38. but neyther is such confession required of their infants neyther is it a seale of the new Testament as before I have proved Otherwise understanding the seale of the spirit as the Apostle doth Rom. 8 15. 16. Ephe. 1 13. 14. so goeth it before and together with Baptisme in all the elect of God whether infants or of yeares As for that sealing with the spirit of Cornelius company which you instance Act. 10. 47.
whereby you seeme to understand confession you cannot but know that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words was the extraordinary geving of the spirit wherewith he and the rest were indued and not onely that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true beleever as by the text is plainly to be seen which sayth that they of the circumcision were astonied as many as came with Peter because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost For they heard them speak with tongues And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them even as upon us at the beginning Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them viz there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre and it sat vpon each of them and they were filled with the holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinarie for he came not so upon all that were baptised Act. 8. 36 37. 16. 14. 15. 33 seing * the multitude was astonished â—ct 2. 6. â— 12. wondred all and marveyled Therefore that comming of the spirit upoÌ„ Cornelius and his company was extraordinary for Peter sayth The holy Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them baptisme for he seing them partakers of the spirit sayth can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we This visible seale seale of the new Testament say you is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confession That confession is not the seale of the new Testament I have already proved And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old TestameÌ„t thus farre may be granted that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance and so is baptisme now to us a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pagans but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our baptisme Act. 19. â— Rom. 10 10. King 18 â— Exo. 19. â— Psa 107. â— 21. 31. Esa 29. 13. â—e DaÌ„ ch 9 Exo. 12. â—8 Act. â— 27. c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God and his truth not onely by circumcisision but also †with words to his praise And I make no question but the Proselytes before they were “ circuÌ„cised made confession of their faith Baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale I pray you Sir of what seale is baptisme the manifestation Confession you say is the visible seale of the new testament Doth it manifest our confession it needs not for that is visible If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace it is true but thereby we are assured of Gods promise and so is the visible seale thereof Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to coÌ„firme the consequence of my Argument the first whereof is Collos 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme coÌ„meth in the rome of circumcision this you deny so to be construed and say That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision c. That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcisioÌ„ was the seale I wil further manifest prove both out of this place of the Collossians and also by other reasons First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Gospel proveth that the Church stands no need therof seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvatioÌ„ he answereth that neyther needed they to be circumcised because they were spiritually circumcised And whereas the Collossions might have objected that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof which if we want our state is not so good as their was yea sayth Paul that it is for in stead of outward circumcision you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children under the Gospel the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed this is the meaning of the Apostle and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Now I vvil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant First the sacraments of the nevv Testament have the same end scope in respect of the thing signified with the sacraments under the law For as Paul attributed the same vertue efficacy and effect of our baptisme the Lords supper * 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers so doth he ascribe to the beleevers under the gospel the efficacy of the †Cor. â— Pascall lambe “ Col. 2. 1â— 12. and circumcision therfore in respect of the thing signed there is no difference the same Christ was the Lambe * Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world Also the same instrument and meanes of application the same †Rom. 4 16. c. faith end and effect one and the same righteousnes of faith the same “ Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham the same spirituall circumcision of the hart both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel so that in all these things there is no difference which plainely argues that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments 2 This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and baptisme together in their special vses and ends There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptisme viz to * be signes of the covenant â—o 4. 11. â— c. Gal â—6 Mar. â— 16. conâ—d with â—om 4. 11 Deut. 10. â— 30. 6 â—it 3. 5. â—er 4. 4. â—l 2. 11. â—uk 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 â— 6. 4. 6. â—om 2. 29. â—hil 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 â— Exo. 12. â— Act. 8. â— 16. â— 33. â—at 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 â—2 1 Cor. â—2 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ both of the sacraments of †regeneration “ requiring repentance and mortification both signifying that we are corrupt and by the ¶ blood of Christ to be clensed by both of them such as were * without were received into the communion of the Church And by both of them Gods people were †discerned from
other prophane companies And neither of them might be iterated By which proportion and agrement we may see that the one followes the other Lastly as circumcision was given as a signe of the covenant when the Lord chose Abraham and his seed to be his people so baptisme was giveÌ„ together with the publishing of this covenant to the Gentiles when circumcision was to ceasse the partition wall removed and both Iewes and Gentiles were made alike partakers of the covenant and of baptisme the signe thereof Which argueth that the mind of the Lord was to give to his Church Baptisme to confirme unto it those things which before he had witnessed to Abraham by circumcision And thus I have proved Baptisme to succeed Circumcision and so answered your mistaking of that place of the Collos 2. 11. 12. Againe you say that I would insinuate a restraint in the new Testament if baptisme be not due to infants seing circumcision was due to infants in the old testament whereunto you answer many wayes saying 1. Seing Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision this allegation is nothing to the purpose 2. seing baptisme is both to male and female it is larger then circumcision which was onely vpon the male 3. Seing baptisme is both to Jew and Gentile therfore more large then circumcision but these things are almost nothing to the purpose but now I say more pertinently that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is now as large as ever it was for it was never made with AbrahaÌ„ and all his carnall children but onely with Abraham and the faithful and so that continueth in the same tenure stil and it is inlarged now since Christs comming onely in respect of the clearer and more vniversall publication of it c. Concerning the first particular of your answer I have already proved Baptisme to succeed circumcision then my allegation is to purpose you â—nnot deny To the second I answer that though baptisme be both to â—ale and female and circumcision onely to the male yet is not the sealâ—g of the covenant so large under the gospel as under the law if infants â—e excluded from it for though women were not circumcised yet were â—hey comprehended in the covenant with the males and their state was as â— they had been circumcised Gen. 34. 14. And though baptisme be â—o women yet denying it to children it makes a restraynt for to place â—omen in the stead of children is not an inlarging but a change To the third particular of your answer that baptisme is both of Iewe and â—entile and therefore more large I answer so was circumcision to Iewe and Gentile for all the Gentiles might have been circumcised if they had proâ—ssed the faith therefore it wil folow that you do restrayn the seale of Gods covenant by denying it to infants But these things you say are almost â—thing to the purpose therefore to your second answer that you say is more â—rtinent viz that God never made the spiritual covenant with Abraham and al â—is carnall seed but onely with Abraham and the faithful It is certaine that God made his covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. and to that seed of his to whom was promised and given the land of Canaan to that * Gen. 17 8. seed did God promise to be their God but to Abrahams natural seed was promised and given the land of Canaan Ergo to them did God promise to be their God so made with them his covenant of grace in Christ then to come The same may be seen by the †Deut. â— 10. 15 renuing of this covenant as formerly hath bene shewed I affirme that circumcision was never a seale of Gods covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ c. I have proved the contrarie before and have also shewed that the confession “ pag. 12. of beleevers under the Gospel is not the seale of the new Testament then is it not so large as circuÌ„cisioÌ„ for that infants were circuÌ„cised but ConfessioÌ„ is onely of them that are growne to yeares As for your opposing of true beleevers to the carnal Israelites circumcised it is not a iust and equall opposition for actuall beleevers are onely of persons growne to yeares but the circumcised were not onely of such but also their infants And thus you lessen both the covenant and seale thereof if things be taken in their due proportion though you pretend the contrary deceived by your owne devised definitions and distinctions Lastly to 2 Cor. 1. 20. you answer saying this place is strayned to the â—or 1. 20 proving thereof for the meaning of it is that unto the faithful all the Lords promises are verified but his promise was never that all their carnall seed should have baptisme as a seale of life and salvation but that all beleevers should have the spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seale You grant that the meaning of this scripture is that all the Lords promises are verified to the faithfull and further then this I do not streyne it but do affirme that this promise of life in Christ I will be thy God and the God of thy seed * was made to faithful Abraham and his seed which promise Gen. 17. 7. he received that he should be the father of circumcision and the father of all that beleeve not being circumcised Rom. 4. 12. 11. But where you say the promise was never that their carnal seed should have baptisme as a seale of life I answer that those whom you call carnal seed being the infants of the faithful are a †holy seed in respect of that title and right which they have Cor. 7. 14 Pet. 2. 9. 〈◊〉 11. 16 to the covenant received by their parents though they be carnall inasmuch as they are begotten and born of them after the common course of nature And therefore being holy and children of the covenant have also a right to Baptisme as hath beene and shal be further proved in the residew of the arguments following Here also out of your answer you set downe five arguments against Poedobaptistrie 1. If all the carnall infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it then they never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant But all the carnall infants were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it seing Abrahams children according to his actuall faith were onely under it Rom. 4. 11. Ergo c. I answer unto the major that to be under the everlasting covenant is to be considered two wayes 1. according to the Lords externall dispensation thereof who of his free grace “ maketh his everlasting covenant Act. 2. 39 with the faithful and their seed 2. according to Gods secret election in the former sense all the carnall infants of Abraham were and all the infants of the faithful are under
the covenant * For if the root be holy so Rom. 11. â— Gen. 17. 7 â— 11. 12. â—at 28. 19 are the branches And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant through the free grace and large promise of God so have they †to the seal thereof which is administred by the commandement of God according to the outward dispensation of his covenant and not after his secret election according to which election neyther all the carnall infants of Abraham or all the seed of the faithfull or yet all that make * 1 Io. â— visible profession of their faith and stand members of true Churches are under the covenant save onely the elect But thus to vnderstand to be vnder the actuall possession of it as it is proper onely to the true children of Abraham so the certaine knowledge thereof †2 Tim 19. belongs onely to God And thus you see the majors consequent in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow Your second is this If Baptisme doth not succeed circumcision then Baptisme doth not perteyne to carnall infants But Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision because the seale of the spirit is correspondent to the typicall seale of the flesh and Baptisme with water is onely the manifestation of the seale Ergo c. The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true for though baptisme should not succeed circumcision yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God But I deny the minor and do affirme that Baptisme doth succeed circumcision as I have formerly proved The reason of your assumption is also before disproved for the spirit as you vnderstand it for our confession is not correspondent to circumcision seing infants are excluded Your third is this If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants then by your proportion baptisme doth not seale up the everlasting covenant to the faithful their carnal infants But circumcisioÌ„ did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants Ergo c. The Assumption is false being rightly vnderstood viz in respect of their outward standing and the contrarie is proved before to wit that circumcision did seale up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed Gen. 17. 7. c. Your fourth is this If beleeving Parents do not stand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants then though they be baptised themselves yet their children shall not But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants for no man is the father of the faithfull as Abraham was and he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnall infants Ergo c. For conveighing of the everlasting covenant this is that which we say that it is conveighed to the children by the free grace and disposing of the Lord who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their seed And although the beleeving parents stand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations yet stand they in Abrahams rowme in this that as * God did conveigh his everlasting covenant by Abraham beleeving â— 17. 7 â— 2. 39 â— 7. 14 â— 11. 9. to his seed so dooth the Lord conveigh †his covenant to the children of beleevers for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their seed and thus entred Abrahams carnall seed as you call them into the everlasting covenat as before is proved And be it that all their seed are not within Gods election yet leaving secret things to the Lord we are to beleeve the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely and not to put difference before the time that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham Amongest them that confesse Iesus Christ and “ are members â—oh 2. of the visible Church many depart away yet we account them childreÌ„ of the covenant vntill their hypocrisie be discovered and so in like manner are we to esteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy vntill the coÌ„trary â—or 7. appeare Your fift argument is this If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham but onely occupy the place of carnal children then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized yet the infants shall not which cannot beleeve actually 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 Joh. â— 39. which infants cannot do Ergo c. First it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onely occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderstand it for they are also the †children â—ct 3. 32 â—at â— of the covenant and of the “ kingdome Secondly the consequent of the major according to the true meaning of the termes therein used is also denyed the contrary is proved before viz that infants are to be baptised though they have not the actuall use of fayth To the minor I answer that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the Act. 2. 29 â—t 29. â— 15. true children of Abraham for to * them is the promise and in that respect children of Abraham as hath been sayd Your reason drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children is not truely gathered from that scripture for Christ there proveth that the Iewes living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be seing they did not the deeds of Abraham and he speaketh to men of yeares of whom the practise of â—â—ith is required Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires â—o such works is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes 3. 6. that because children cannot work therefore they must not eat And such is â—our absurd reasoning from this place Now when children of beleevers do come to yeares to manifest their infidelitie by their works we are accordingly to iudge of them after the example of Christ and not before Thus much to your five reasons whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptised Argument III. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive But the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts are of the kingdom of God Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptisme seing they are capable of it
not desolved when eyther of them is called to the faith so that the beleeving husband may lawfully use her as his wife if she be content to dwel with him 1 Cor. 7. 12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or separated to such use to their father as the wife is to her husband And therefore are the children called holy because they are the seed of a beleeving father Mr. Smyth I answer first denying your maiors consequent Seing that all the nation of the Jewes were holy and yet not within the covenant of Abraham I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ that they were not all within that covenant is playne Rom. 9. 6. all they are not Israel which are of Israel verse 7. neyther are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham ver 12. God revealed that the elder should serve the younger Act. 7. 51. yee have alwayes resisted the holy Ghost as your forefathers haue done so do you c. Rich Clifton This is a strange opinion of yours that a people of God can be holy be without the covenant in Christ Is there a people called out and separated from the world to offer sacrifices and to worship God which may be called and are a holy people considered out of Christ The covenant made with Abraham and his seed in Christ to come which Abraham received caused that the Israelites were called * a holy natioÌ„ or a holy people Exod. 19. Rom. 11. â— Hâ—b 4. 2. Rom. 11. â—6 collectiuely being separate from the nations to be the house kingdome of God And although †many of the Iewes by vnbeleefe cut of themselves from the priveledges of Abraham yet considering the rest of that people as his seed and the generall face of that Church in the true constitution therof they were holy as the Apostle sayth “ if the root be holy so ar the branches and if the first frutes be holy so is the whole lumpe As it is one thing to consider of a Church in respect of the whole as it is one body of Christ and another thing to consider thereof according to every particular member so is it one thing to call a people holy respecting theire covenant in Christ into which they have solemnely entred Deu. 29. 10. 15. and promised to be Gods people and another to consider thereof according to the personal holynes of every particuler member the Church hath the denominatioÌ„ of holines of the former not of the latter though this also be required for the personall holines of any particular members causeth not the whol multitude to be called a holy people els might many assemblies be called holy for that there may be and are some particular persons in the same indued with personall holynes but their joynt entering into Gods covenant and felowship in the same therefore let divers holy persons come together to serve the Lord entermingled with an Antichristian assembly that congregation shall not be called holy because there Philip. 1. 2 Cor. 6. â—6 17. is not a separation of the cleane from the vncleane and a joyning together of the godly in one body or “ felowship of the Gospel neyther can you ever prove that any people or congregation is called holy with whom the Lord hath not made his covenant of salvation But let vs see how you reason All the nation of the Iewes say you were holy yet not within the covenant of Abraham c. You reason not ad idem for in saying that all the nation of the Iewes were called holy here you speak of them as they were a people separated from other nations and had * Deut. 10 -15. entred covenant with God to be his people as he with them to be their God in which respect they were called holy but in saying that all were not with in the covenant you intend it of some particular members of the body of that people being considered a part from the whole and so the Scriptures by you alledged do import For neyther Paul to the Romanes cha 9. 6. nor Steven in the Act. cha 7. 51. do speake of the whole nation but of particular persons who by their vnbeleiffe and evil workes did manyfest themselves to be no true Israelites Concerning that place of rom 9. 6. the Apostle speaking of the rejection Rom. 9. â— of the Iewes which might there vpon charge God that if he did reject them he kept not promise with their fathers labours to remove all such Calumnies saying it cannot be that the word of God should take none effect proveth withal that the promise is not cut of though the Iewes for their vnbeleife be rejected seing the promise is sure to the elect The Apostle thus speaking not of the body of the people but of some particulars that sel away is falsly alledged to prove that all the natioÌ„ of the Iewes were not within the covenant of salvation And that some of them that were of Israel were not true Israelites who wil deny but that many of them discovered themselves to be no true sonnes of Abraham yet this proves not that the whol Church in respect of the visible face of it was not within the covenant But you will reply that you sayd that they were not all within the covenant and I answer agayn if you reason not concerning the face of that people of Israel but of Gods secret election and reprobation it is not to the purpose for so disputing you answer not the Argument And so may you reason against the visible Church under the Gospel that not all therein are within the covenant because * Luk. 1â— 25. 26. 27 1. Ioh. 2. 19 many prove hypocrites And so by your reasoning neither the Church of the new Testament nor of the old in respect of the generall face thereof are under the covenant of grace which is the thing controverted and not the state of particular persons As towchting that place of Act. 7. 51. Steven spake to the Ieâ—es there present to accuse him but in so speaking did not accuse the whole body of the church vnder the old Testament but those his persecuters and there forefathers who also persecuted the Prophets before them brake Gods covenant and * so manifested themselves to be of their father the Divil â—oh 8. 44. Now to reason thus from the example of those wicked Iewes and to say many of the Iewes brake the covenant and became rebellious for al did not therefore the body of the people was never within the covenant is to conclude upon a false ground If it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secret election and not of mans knowledg I answer the twelft verse is plâ—yne of that which was reveled vnto the church and yet Esau was holy and circumcised being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ. The place I have expounded
Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5. Secondly for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament which you say was of another nature then that of the new I answer that former church was of an heavenly constitution a †kingdome of Preists and a “ holy nation the people * saincts as wel as the members of the church of the new Testament And this people being separate from al other nations called out to be the Lords “ peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them and so became the people church and kingdome of God as in renuing of their covenant is manifest Deut. 29. 9-15 Exod. 14. 8. They were †natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by fayth on Christ then to come in whom they beleeved 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation Gal. 3. â—6 Luk. 1 68-75 This old church by their constitution admitted of no prophane person to be a member therof but such as professed holynes They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con 〈…〉 their syn Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch 5. 5. NuÌ„ 14. 40. to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged Num. 5. 7. Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be coÌ„â—idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof with that of the â—d and there wil be no such difference in substance between them as you pretend the matter of them both being holy and living stones and the forme an holy uniting together in the covenant of God to walk in al his commandements els could not the Gentiles be made one body and coâ—heriters with the Iewes Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promises in Christ if the constitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not spiritual Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament 〈◊〉 onely a carnal holynes viz. the circumcision of the foreskin c. I have already proved that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holynes Lev. 11. 44. saying I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and â—e holy for I am holy Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after Gods example who neither is carnally holy or yet delites in carnal holynes without the spiritual Psal 50. 7-23 Esa 1. 11-20 chap. 50. And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not onely the truth but your self for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal holynes carnal yet in your Differencâ— pag. 10. book of Differences you say that the Septuagint Translation was a gree 〈…〉 synn for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles So by your own confession Israel had the covenant of grace els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant can not your hearers mynd how unstable a leader they follow Wel let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer that the Apostle by the law of carnal commandement intendeth not thereby to teach that the coÌ„stitution of the old church was carnal but sheweth the diversitie of Christs priesthood from Aarons understanding by carnal commandement those frayl and transitorie things which the †law commanded â—… 24. 1. â—sa 61. 1. â— 45. 7. in the consecration of the Levitical Preists so called in respect of Christ his anoynting which was “ spiritual Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for justification exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. c. to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath madâ— â—… 5. 3. us free c. testifying to every man that if he be circumcised he is bound to keep the whole law Noting circumcision especially because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification And he reasoneth against it not as it was in it self by the ordinance of God but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it which made circumcision a part of their salvation And he that so esteemes of it as a work to justifie must also sayth Paul keep al the rest of the commandements For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances the whole observation therof Deut. 27. â—6 Gal. 3. â—… RoÌ„ 3. 20. â—al 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promise no * life And because no man can be “ justifyed by the works of the law therfore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them and calleth them †beggerly rudiments And now if a papist or any other should contend that a man is justified by Baptisme as by a work wrought we might so speak to them as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians that if you receive baptisme to be made righteous thereby ex opere operato you are bound to keep the whole law for baptisme being made a work to justifie is perverted And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision in this place as a work urged to justification the very next verse viz. ver 4. sheweth wherein he sayth ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are iustified by the law And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth 2. The type shadow figure similitude of a thing is not the truth the substance the thing it self true is nature and reason The constitution viz. the matter forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type c. the constitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Test is the truth c. Heb. 10. 1. 9. 19. 23. I answer first to your Major that one and the same thing may both be the type and the truth for Isaac was a type of the faythful as your self doth affirme yet was he also faythful and so was both the type and the truth Secondly to your Minor the constitution viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type c. of the church of the new Testament in that sense as you take matter and forme for the matter of that former Ch. â—as not to be ceremonially but truly holy as before I have proved and these †Deu. 2â— 9. 14. â— Esa 5. 4. â— 15. 24. 3. 4. 5. Esâ— 58. 2 7. â— 14. Deu. â— 12 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further
that is which by the works thereof †seek justification â—l 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. â—or 3. 7. and so were some members of the old church under the law as the Pharisees that * sought to justifie themselves as now they ar that do the like but to hold that the whole church was under condemnation without faith in Christ is an error to be abhord That scripture 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death coÌ„pareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that coÌ„tinued not in al things to fulfil it then much more the ministration of righteousnes shal exceed in glorie which bringeth salvation to them that beleev This is the meaning of the Apost and not to shew that Israel was under condemnation seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ And as they so wee under the Gospel have the law to accuse condemn us if we transgresse it but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Christ are freed from the curse of the law so were the Iewes also Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur eyther before or since Christ but to the “ faythlesse and disobedient both â—s 1 Tim. 1. â— 10. under the old Testament and under the Gospel Finally you say the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iustification by fayth in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iustification Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the disputation of Paul concerning justification is a notable error For where Paul reasoneth against such as mainteyned justification by the works of the law he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holynes for albeit some of the Iewes fel into this error to hold justification by works of the law yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then as wel as now And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification yet fayth in Christ could effect it which I have proved that the old church had in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could â—ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament iâ— the matter or constitution of it was not really holy but onely typically c. I have shewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes not to make them holy and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given and therefore your bould defence against al men that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically hath in it more boldnes then truth the contrary is proved †pag. 23. c. before And therefore your inference is false fiz that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant c. but onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham and afterward assumed written â—mplified by Moses Ioh. 7. 19-23 with Heb. 8. 8. 9. That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed see pag. 20. c. concerning these scriptures in the former Christ charging Iohn 7. 19-23 the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabboth day proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practise reasoning thus if you may circumcise on the Sabboth and not break the law then why may not I as lawfully heal a man this is that Ch. intendeth now because it is sayd ver 22. that Moses gave them circumcision c. it seemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test were given first to Abraham and afterward assumed written by Moses but thaâ— cannot be proved by this place For circumcision was a signe of the promise in Christ not of the law as before is proved In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apostle sheweth that Christ is the Heb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Priests and ther fore his ministerie more excellent then theirs this first hee proveth because this covenant was established upon better promises and then he sheweth the excellency of it compared with the former And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of Ieremy Now concerning the first Testam it was made with the church when the Lord gave his law in Sinai the people did covenant with him saying Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do of Abraham we do not finde that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse as Israel did Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law the covenant of works or old Testament was not first made with him and after examplified by Moses but â—xo 19. 5 24. 3. Lev. 34. â— Dâ—u 5. â— Heb. 9. â— 23. it was †made with Israel as further also may be shewed by the description thereof in Heb. 9. 1-10 which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme. Agayn the Apostle * sayth when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law he toke the blood of calves and of goates and sprinckled al the people saying this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you c. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministerie of Moses And Paul sayth that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham his seed in respect of Christ Now if the law had been geven to Abraham the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of tyme had been of no force And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs Next followes your answer to my objections wherein stil you afferme That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy but tipically that their holynes was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trained or schooled to Christ c. What is here sayd is answered elswhere here I deny that the Iewes holines was onely typical though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Christ whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Israel was called a holy â—od 19. 6 people you answer thus I say that eyther the meaning is that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes or that they by atteyning the end of the law should attayne true holynes in Christ so that this place
is nothing to your purpose of the holynes of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham It seems you are not fully resolved of the meaning of this scripture Ex. 19. 6. ye shal be to me a kingdome of preists a holy nation This being minded Exo. 20. 1. c. Deut. â—3 8. 1 Pet. 1. 5 of the people or nation they could not be called a kingdome of Preists in respect of a typical preisthood which was proper to †Aaron and his sonns but in respect of their spiritual priesthood in Christ as the Apostle sayth * ye are made a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices which place doth wel expound this of Exodus 19. 6. that the Lord doth intend to cal them holy in regard that he had chosen them for himself and had received them into his covenant to be his people For to be preists to offer up spiritual sacrifices must needs be in Christ therfore truly holy Again you say that they by attayning the end of the law should attain true holynes in Christ which if you grant then must this holynes be in respect of the eternal covenant out of which neither Christ nor true holynes can be attayned unto Thirdly ceremonial holines without true holynes the †Esa 1. 11-16 Psâ— 50. 16. 17. Lord regardes not it were to approve of hipocrisy which he hateth therefore in that they are called holy it must be understood of true holynes as also Deut. 7. 6. 14. 2. Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. 19. 2. And thus you see this place is to my purpose unlesse you can shew me that a people can attayne Christ and true holynes and be without the covenant of grace So that infants though they be under the offer of the covenant made with Abrah iâ— respect of Christ yet shal not baptisme be administred upon them because that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually seased upon the external covenant therefore none in the new Testament shal be baptised but those that â—e actually possessed of the covenant of the new Testament First it is proved * pa. 12. 13. before that circumcision was a seal of the covenaÌ„t of salvation Secondly you are to explayn what you mean by actually seased upon the external covenant for actual possession of Canaan the Israelites had not of a long tyme after Abrahams death otherwise then by fayth whereof you say Infants are not capable If children were circumcised were ney ther seased upon Canaan by possessing it nor by actual fayth how were they seased upon the external covenant The law was not then given what were they seased on and how Thirdly the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel are “ Act. 2. 39. 1 Cor. 7. 14. possessed of the covenant of grace by the vertue of the free giving thereof to the faythful and their seed therefore to be baptised Fourthly If Infants be but onely under the offer of the covenant then they dying in their infancy are without the covenant of salvation and so perish so farr as we can judg for to be under the offer onely you wil not say that thereby they can be saved Againe if they be not in Christ and so within the covenant they are under condemnation Rom. 8. 1. But actual possession you say is by obedience to the fayth This is true beingrightly applyed But you must know that there is a general giving and applying of the promise on Gods part to his people and there is a more special and particuler applying of the same by the ministerie of the word and spirit The former was to Abraham when God made his †covenant with Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 Rom. 4. â— 12. him and his seed The other is to al that receive the word keep it wherof Luk. 11. 28. Act. 2. 21. Iam. 1. 21. This actual possâ—ssion to use your phrase belonges to such as by their yeares are capable to understand and it is a continual applying of that which was given in general to the faythful and their seed And of such are those places of Rom. 10. 17. Gal. 3. 2. 14. to be understood And this the Lord requires according to the dispensation Mat. 13. â—4 11. Heb. 4. 2. Rev. 2. 7. â— Rom. 11. â—8 â— Rom. 10. 14-17 21. of the covenant both under the old and new Testament that al they that are his people capable of understanding should †hear his word and yeeld obedience to the fayth For although God love the children for the “ fathers sake respect his promise yet wil he have them as they come to yeares to practise fayth and obedience unto which end the †preaching of the word is given unto us Secondly I answer concerning the consequent of your maiors consequent that it shal not follow that because children are under the covenant that therefore they shal have the outward signe and seal thereof for under the law the females were actually under the covenant of the old Testament yet were not signed with the seal And before the law was given al that were actually under the covenant until the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seal thereof It must follow that if children be under the covenant that they must havâ— the outward signe or seale because the †Lord hath so commanded joyning Gen. 17. â—-11 Mat. 28. 19. * Mat. 19. â—6 “ Gen. 34. 24. the seal to his covenant which man may not * separate For your reasons to the contrary they are of no weight First concerning the females under the law though they were not circumcised yet were “ they accounted of the circumcised And for the ceremonie it self they were never capable of it yong nor old the like you wil not say of children under the Gos 2. For the fathers before the institution of circumcision they might be under the covenaÌ„t without the seal because the L. did so dispeÌ„ce with those times but you must prove that the state of children under the new Test is alike to the condition of those fathers before Abr. or of the women under the law theÌ„ wil it follow that they shal not be sealed at al for these that you instance were not It is one thing when God hath commaunded the signe and adjoyned it to his covenant to be received another when he coÌ„manded no such thing They are to receive the seal to whom the covenant with the seal is given as it was to Abraham and now is unto us And therefore the signe may not be denyed to whom the covenant belongs But to infringe this truth you say The Lord in chosing the male onely to be circumcised thereby purposed to teach in a type that onely the male that is one that is in Christ should be sealed with the spirit of promise under the new Testament That circumcision so signifieth as you set downe you are to prove in that
it was sett upon the male it did type out Christ that promised seed through whom our corruption is purged as before is observed And if circumcision be such a type as you here afferme how can you exclude children under the new Test they are Christs and in the covenant †Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7. capable of the spirit or nevv berth therefore to be sealed If it be obiected that before the law there was no seal appointed I say hereby it appeareth that to be under the covenant was not the cause of â—ytle to the seal but the expresse commandement of God c. But to be under the covenant after the seal was thereunto annexed is sufficient cause of tytle to the seal except you vvil disjoyn those things that God hath coupled together In the next place you ansvver to the Assumption of my Argument vvher first you desire of me to expound unto you vvhat is this holynes vvhich the Apostle mentioneth 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I say under the covenant then you demand vvhat it is to be under the covenant and so you proceed from question to question as if you could not find out a direct ansvvere vvithout such interrogatories To your first demaund I ansvvered before shewed that this holynes in 1 Cor. 7. 14 is in respect of the covenant that children of the believing fathers are called holy by the Apost Then what it is to be under the covenant happely you wil say to be iustified by the imputatioÌ„ of the righteousnes of C. righteousnes Although thus to answer be true yet is it not al that vve are to ansvver to this demande For to be under the covenant is to be considered 2. maÌ„ner of vvayes 1. according to the L. solemne dispensatioÌ„ of his covenant vvith his people their admittance thereinto after vvhich manner it vvas made vvith Abraham and his seed And thus the covenant vvas established to * Gen 17. 21. Act. 39. Deuâ— 15. them that vvere unborne at the tyme of the promise making being then in the loynes of Abraham Secondly men are sayd to be under the covenant after a more special and hidden manner And so al the elect whether known by the confession of their fayth or lying hidden 〈◊〉 â—om 4. 4. â—at 8. 12. â—zo 14. 6. Rom. 11. â—-2â— Esa 29. 13 Luk. 13. â—-27 â—at 8. 12. in the confused assemblies of the world are within the cov of salvatioÌ„ but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within who is without some wee may judge to be within in respect of their outward standing which in the Lords sight are without and some without whom the Lord accepteth but after that external and solemn making and receiving of the covenant of life we are to repute †al that makes profession of their fayth with their seed to be under the covenant and * branches of the olive tree until they fal away And of these that are thus under the covenant there be many “ hypocrites which are not partakers of salvation in Christ Then I demand which of these three viz. to be holy to be under the covenant to have Christs righteousnes imputed is first in nature happely you wil say first they are under the covenant secondly iustified 3. sanctified or holy I perceive you would draw us by your supposed answer from that generall holynes apperteyning to the whole church of God by reason of the covenant of salvation made with them to the sincere holynes of perticular persons which is not found to be in al that are visible members of the ch Heb. 4. 1. â— Rom. 11. â—0 For this we say that a people that are entred covenant with God are in regard thereof holy because they are separate from the world unto God and so are to be esteemed of us as they to whome is promised Christ with al his blessings whereof they are partakers if by †unbeleef they hinder not themselves of that holynes of the olive whereinto they were planted in this sense are we to understand that place of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. Then I proceed and demand when do Infants come under the covenant when they are conceyved or when they are born or when the parents are converted being born already It wil be answered that Infants begotten of faythful parents come under the covenant in their conception and such as are borne come under the covenant when their parentes are regenerate Hereby it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children by generation by filial relation Thus I answer as formerly I have done that the covenant belonges to the parents and their seed through the free grace gift of God the Lord binding himself by promise to be God to the faythful and to their children which though they be borne according to the course of nature are in the covenant yet is their so being within it not by vertue of their carnal berth simply considered but by vertue of Gods promise Indeed this we say to be borne of beleeving parents is a declaration of the childrens being in Gods covenant that they come under the covenant when their “ Act. â— 14. 15. 33â— parents do * first beleev whether they be borne already or to be borne I mean such parents as were before strangers to the covenant Hereunto adde if it be true that some say that children under the goverment of the faythful also are under the covenant that the covenant is conveighed also by pupilship â— adoption so of servants under beleeving masters c. God making his covenant with beleevers includeth their families as in Gen. 17. 7. with verse 9 13. where the Lord establishing his covenant with Abraham included his whole houshould borne in his howse or bought with money for he commanded al to be circumcised So Zacheus manifesting his fayth and repentance Christ sayd †Luk. 1â— 8. 9. this day is salvation come unto this howse see also Act. 16. 30 31 33. and Ier. 31. 1. And thus do we affirme hereof according to the scriptures You say Why may not at the infants borne under one king if his subiects be al his servants â—d vassals be by that relation brought under the covenant and so be accounted iustifyed and sanctified God hath established his covenant to the beleevers and their seed not to a king and his subjects and therefore this relation wil not stand with the condition of the covenant The relation of a King and a subiect is as neer as the relation of a master and a servant or an adopted child The relation of a king and subjects be it never so near maketh not tâ— the purpose seing we are to mynd with whom God maketh his covenant who tyeth not himself to civil relations but freely accepteth the beleever and his family and further then this relation the scripture doth not warrant us to apply Gods covenant And then I demaund say you seeing the
meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not Neyther 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 continueth his proper tyme. c. I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting tyme as in these places Psal 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal 145. 13. Esa 45. 17. and so in divers other places Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting vid videlicet to be God to Abraham and his seed after him and therfore gnolam must needs be understood for ever unles you wil say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tymâ— for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words I am the God of thy father the God of Abraham c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant And though gnolam do sometymes signifie a tyme that hath an end as it doth in the type â—t it noteth tyme everlasting in the truth of those types and therefore â—s Canaan called an everlasting possession Gen. 17. 8. But be it granted say you that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. â— the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ what then â— it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful whether Iewes or Genâ— beleeving actually as Abraham the father did therfore it is made with the faithâ—â—an c. and with his children begotten of his bodie c. I denie it utterly Yes it †Act. 2. 3â— wil and must follow els are not the faithful partakers of Abraâ—ms covenant for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed and the beleeâ—ers onely to themselves then is it not the same neither in the giving nor â—â—iving thereof as before is proved And if you graunt Abrahams inâ—â—s as Isaac c. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant â—ade with him in Christ for to deny it by any colour of scripture you â—an not then must the same account be made of al other infants of beleeâ—ers seing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed â—â— the same fayth that Abraham did to him and his Because the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz. Christ or the 〈…〉 al beleevers The words of the Apostle are these * Gal. 3. 1â— but to thy seed as of one which is Christ Some understand by seed the church Christ mistically as 1 Cor. 12. 12. gaâ—hered of Iewes and Gentiles which grow together in one body in Christ of the seed of Abraham as ver 18. According to which exposition both â—ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise â—ade unto them that are partakers of salvation yea infants els are * Eph. 5. 2â— 26. they â—ot sanctified by Christs death But if by seed be understood the redeeming â—eed which is C. it is he in whoÌ„ both the elder people infants ar blessed But you to prove that by one onely actuall beleevers is to be minded â—edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted that Paul intendes not to shew â—hat none are in Christ save onely actual beleevers for that were to conâ—mne al infants but he speaking to the church and such of them as were â—apable of instruction and having exhorted them not to faynt because of â—is troubles prayeth the Lord that they may be strengthned with his spirit that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith that is bring forth the fruits of the spirit testifiing their fayth and so continue constant Now it is to be observed that RoÌ„ 8. 9. 11 â— Joh. 3. 24. Christ dwelleth in al his by his spirit and thereby joyneth them unto him and so in infants els are they †Rom. 8. 9. not Christs this should you have minded as wel as the other and haue knowen that actuall beleeving and the practise of other Christian duties is the work of the spirit as the act of reasoning is of the soule in the elder sort required of them and not of infants as oft inough hath bene shewed But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle you thus obiect 1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one seed the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten which is an other seed c. then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many and that is directly against the Apastle Gal. 3. 16. I answer that the covenant is made with the faithful and their seed as of one kind God of his free grace estating the beleevers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life both of them becomming * spiritual or Rom. 7. 4. â—ct 2. 39. â—zech 16. â— 21. â—sal 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. â—phe 2. 14 â— holy seed and sonnes of God by vertue thereof and not two contrarie seedes as you would pretend and therefore the Apostle is not contrarie to that we affirme for as he sayth the seed is one so say we whether Christ our Saviour be thereby understood or the Churches united into †one or all beleevers who together with their children are after a spiritual maner the sonnes of God Therefore that one seed is of persons actually beleeving c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actually infants do not beleeve actually Ergo c. Your conclusion ariseth from false premisses which are answered before to the former Proposition of this argument I answer that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeve but in no place of the scripture is added of them onely that actually beleeve which you do insinuate therefore there lyeth deceipt in your proposition God promised his blessing to Abrahams seed which coÌ„prehends his infants “ to blesse the house of Israel not only the elder sort That promise of blessing the families GeÌ„ 12. 3. 28. Ps 115. â—2 14. Act. 31. 25. Esa 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth childreÌ„ for they ar of the family Againe Abrahams covenant was onely to Abrahams one seed that is to all beleevers Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo c. This Argument is the same in effect with the former the maior in your understanding is false the faithful and their children in respect of the covenant are but of one seed Children though they cannot actually beleeve yet are they accounted of the beleevers and partakers of the promise with their parents Again They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham Infants cannot do the works of Abraham Ergo c. The Proposition is false in your understanding Paul saith if any would not â—â—k he should not eate 2 Thes
3. 10. intendeth not this against children no â—ore doth our Saviour Christ when he sayth if you were Abrahams chilâ—ren ye would do the works of Abraham Ioh. 8. 39. but both places are to â—e understood of such as be of yeres not of infants which are not come â—o that strengâ—h to work good or evil Againe I reason thus They that are not under the everlasting covenant made â—â—th Abraham shall not be baptised infants are not under the everlasting covenant â— Abraham Ergo c. The minor is false Infants are under the everlasting covenant as beâ—ore is proved and therefore to be baptised This your reason implies â—e condemnation of infants for if they be not under the covenant of Abraham there is for them no promise of salvation Argument V. 1. Cor. 10. 1. 2. If the infants of the Israelites were baptised in the cloud and in the sea as well as their parents what letteth the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts vnder the Gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme as well as they The former the Apostle affirmes 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. and therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from this priveledge that the Iewes children had And if the former baptisme of the Iewes was a type of our baptisme theÌ„ must there be an agreement between the type and the thing typed which is not if our children be not baptised aswell as theirs The depriving of our children of the Sacrament is to shorten the Lords bountie towards his people of the new Testament that being denyed to their children which God gave to his people and to their infants under the law is to â—eny them in regard of their seed the like assurance and comfort which the Israelites had of theirs And so to make our estate worse and more uncomfortable then theirs was And yet the Prophets prophecied of the grace that should come to us and did inquire search after the same 1 Pet. 1. 10. Glad tydings were preached to Abraham and his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3. 8. And this before Christ came in the flesh and therefore much more he being come is joyful tydings brought unto us our infants And so are we to beleeve that the grace of God is not lessened eyther towards us or our children but inlarged by his comming M. Smyth To this Argument I make answer by framing the like Argument If their infants did eat the same spiritual meat and drink which the parents eat then why may not our infants being able to eat and drink eat drink the Lords Supper the former the Apostle affermeth 1 Cor. 1. 2. Therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from that priviledge c. R. Clyfton This is not to answer the Arg for first our infants must come to such abilitie as that they can * 1 Cor. 11. â—6 25. 28. â—9 shew forth the Lords death do it in remembrance of him and can examine themselves and discerne the Lords body before they receive the Lords Supper which conditions were not required of all that did eat Man and drink of the rock 2. The proportion holdes not for Man and water were not onely given to Israel to be to them a sacrament but also served for their ordinarie corporal food and so is not the bread and wyne in the Lords supper 3. If things be compared alike our sacraments to their ordinarie sacraments no such consequence can be gathered as you intend for the infants of Israel were circumcised but did not eat the passeover until they were able to go to that place which God had appointed for the eating thereof and to eat it according to the Lords ordinance and so much we wil graunt for the Lords supper that they are to eat it that can eat it according to Christs institution 4. If infants in partaking of those former Sacraments were in them partakers of Chr why shal not our infants also in the use of the sacrament of baptisme be held partakers of the things signified seeing as you say those sacraments were types of ours the truth must be answerable to the type Againe I answer more properly thus that there shal be a proportion between the type and the truth that baptisme of the cloud and the sea and our baptisme viz that as yong and old carnal Israelites were baptised in the cloud and sea so yong and â—â—l spiritual Israelites shal be baptised by the baptisme of repentance c. First I deny that the Israelites considered as they were accounted worthy to partake of the sacraments were carnal but †Ex. 19. 1. Pet. 2. spiritual and holy 2. Vnder the type you have yong and old in yeares so if you would keep Proportion must be the like under the truth But this you deny and make two sorts of beleevers yong and old Now I ask you whom you cal yong and old Israelites and if any that beleeves may defer his baptisme until he be old in fayth And if this be * Act. 8. 12. 36. 37 9. 18. 10. 47. 4. 16. 15. 33. not lawful and none but young beleevers be baptised how wil your proportion stand between the type the thing signified 3. Their baptisme in the cloud and sea did preach unto them repentance as wel as our baptisme doth unto us and in this there is a similitude between them but that our outward baptisme is the truth of that former baptisme in the sea and cloud to the Israelites I desire it may be proved Lastly I would know whom you mean by spiritual fathers and their spiritual children Before you called Abraham the father of the faythful and al beleevers his children But thus to make up a proportion between your type and truth you are driven to acknowledge other spiritual fathers besides Abraham which being so you must grant that they are then so called in respect of their children to whom the covenant is conveighed by Gods free grace together with them For if the children come into the covenant by their own fayth and enter as did their parents then are they Abrahams children not theirs according as the scripture speaketh Rom. 4. 11. that he shal be the father of them that beleev Further I say that our infants shal have a priviledge far greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that tipical baptisme For they by it were onely baptised into Moses and the law that by it they might learn Moses and in Moses the truth in Christ as it were under a vaile but our infants under the Gospel shal have the daylie institution and education of faithful parents c. The Apostle sayth in 1. Cor. 10. 2. that al the Israelites were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea But sayth not as you say into the law those sacraments were seales unto them of the covenant of salvation not of the law which then was not given Secondly
coÌ„maÌ„dement of sealing of the covenant expired therfore infants are stil to be sealed with baptisme which succedeth circuÌ„cision In the last place you require prose that onely persons that confessed their sinns their faith were baptised I prove it thus They onely were to be baptised that Christ coÌ„manded to be baptised persons made disciples by teaching were onely commanded to be baptised by Christ Mat. 28. 29. Ergo c. I deny your Assumption the affirmative is not to baptise them onely that are made disciples by teaching but also their seed as formerly hath been proved and you feighne a false negative to that affirmative in Mat. 28. 19. 2. Againe considering that in every affirmative there is included a negative therefore wheresoever example is that persons confessing their sinns and their fayth were baptised there is signified that those that did not confesse their sinues c. were not baptised This is graunted of such as were of yeares and to be added to the Church so now to be practised towards any of the Turks or such like that should come to the faith But this is false that because persons confessing their faith were baptised therfore the infants of the faithful not able to make confession of their faith shall not be baptised Willing confessing must be opposed to actuall refusing if the argument according to the mind of the holy Ghost stand good For we must know that the bodie is one c. and the seed one and not two for in the new Testament they know God from the least to the greatest Heb. 8. 11. and they are al taught of God Mat 11. 11. and this I take to be a playne proofe of the point which you desire This serves rather to prove that children are to be baptised because they are of the same body of Christ To affirme infants to be baptised is not to hold two seedes of contrary natures as you charge us for as the father so are his children partakers of the covenaunt and both are a holy seed children of God in respect thereof though the father professe his faith the childe cannot in respect of age the father can reason so cannot his infant yet both of them are of the same nature reasonable creatures And be it that some of the children whose parents professe the faith are not elected so may it be also that the father that confesseth his faith is not elected but this belongs not to us we are to hold them as children of the covenant as the word teacheth â— 8. 11. Concerning Heb. 8. 11. all shall know me c. it must be vnderstood of all that are capable of knowledge God promised a more singular grace of illumination under the gospel of those thinges which the Church had more obsurely before Christs comming so doth he promise remission of sinnes wherof childreÌ„ are partakers shal be of this heavenly knowledge also as by yeres they shal be able to learne the want whereof doth no more hinder them from being partakers of Gods promise in Christ then the want of knowledge hinders an infant to be heire to his fathers inheritance But if this be an argument of force against the baptising of infants because the Lord sayth I wil put my lawes in their harts then wil this be as forceable against them that are of yeres that they need not be taught because the same Lord sayth they shall not teach every man his neighbour c. and so teaching shal be overthrowen also The true sense is to be sought after â— not thus to pervert scriptures aÌ„s you do to your own destruction Touching that of Ioh. 6. 45. they shal be al taught of God it must be understood Ioh. â— of al as they are capable of instruction the promise is made to the church Esa 54. 13. and so to children as also that in Hebr. 8 11. and shal be fulfilled to every one as they shal be able to understand Next upon my speeches affirming that of Iohn it is not said that he refused to baptise infants you say that Iohn his preaching was such as peremptorilie excluded infants for it was the baptisme of repentance c. Iohns preaching of repentance is the preaching of the Gospell which excludes not children your reason is not good for baptisme of repentance respects the tyme to come and not onely sinns past and byndeth the baptised to continual mortification And both Iohn Christ preached to the Iewes which * Act. 2. â— 3. 25 were of the covenant and therefore called them to repentance and taught them to beleeve that Christ was come whom they looked for For being not regenerate c. yet they could not enter into the kingdome of God Joh. 3. 5. Christ in Iohn 3. 5. speaketh of true members in his sight we are to hold the professors with their seed to be regenerate because they are of the covenant until the contrary appear by their deeds And here it would be considered vnto whom Christ and Iohn spake unto the Jewes c. and yet he sayd repent and beleeve Now if the Jewes had been truly regenerate in their communion Iohn needed not to have required such conditions of them but in few words might have sayd come you faythful and al your infants and be baptised 1. Iohn spake to them that were of yeares and had sinned therefore repentance was necessarily required not so of Infants that have not committed actual sinne 2. The preaching of the Gospel belongs to the regenerate I mean the preaching of repentance and fayth seeing we are but regenerate in part and “ dayly sinne The primitive churches I hope Mat. 6 1â— you wâ—ll graunt were regenerate in their communion I use your termes yet to them was preached †Rev. 2. 5. 16. 21. and 3. 3. 20. repentance Ergo your reason fayles you 3. The members of al true churches whether under the old or new Testament are holy in regard of Gods covenant and so wee are to walke towards them but that every particular person is truly regenerate is not our faith because in visible Churches †Joh. 2. 19 there may be hypocrites man oft fayleth on his part * and breaketh of Notwithstanding †charitie bindes â—om 11. 20. 1 Cor. 13. vs to hope the best until the contrarie appeare Lastly where you say That the Iewes were not faythful in their coÌ„munioÌ„ because Iohn saith the Lord wil purge his store Christ sayth they are of your father the Divil 1. This may fall out to any true Church to have unfaythfull members that may pollute their coÌ„munion see the Churches of Asia Rev. 2. 4. 5 14. 15. 20. 21. 3. 1. 2. 16. of Galatia Gal. 3. 1. but what is this to the purpose that the Iewes became unfaithful but by the way remeÌ„ber that they ought to haue bene faithful which you deny to that Church did not Gods covenant stand stil
comparison toucheth not the thing in question you might know that faith could not intitle the females to circumcision when they had no coÌ„mandement for it In the Gaylors Lydias families the women were capable of the seal by the ordinaÌ„ce of God Againe concerning the males infidelitie might and did hinder from circuÌ„cision as it did the Gentiles vvhich received not the faith and so infidelitie excludes from baptisme both males females As for infants they can not be sayd to be infidels or vnbeleevers for they are partakers of the promise which is the ground of faith els * Rev. 2â— were they under condemnation To the second particular of my answere you reply thus I answere that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abraham and the other of Lydia and the Gaylor according to the commission of Christ Mat. 28. 19. 1. Abraham and all his family by the Lords commaundement came under the covenant of the old Testament actually the males onely were circumcised but Christ doth not commaund all persons of a family in the new testament to be baptised but onely such as are made disciples 2. the Gospel was onely preached to Abrahams owne person but in the Gaylors case Paul preached to all that were in his house c. 3. The gospel was not preached to Abraham thereby to prepare him to circumcision as if thereby it should follow that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel for it is not so c. but Christ in the new testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every parricular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme and so Paul did to the Gaylors family To your first difference I answer as formerly I haue done that Abraham and his family came not under the old testament or covenant of works seing it was not made with him but with Israel afterward by the Ministery of Moses 2. Your comparison should thus be propounded as Abraham all his family came under the covenaunt of God so likewise do the faythful of the Gentiles and their families therefore as Abraham and his family were circumcised so ought the faithful and their families to be baptised thus holds the comparison and thus it is against you and you do but beg the question in saying that Christ commaunds not all the persons of of a family in the new Testament to be baptised for this is defended against you that Christs commaundement of baptising extends to the infants of the beleevers as wel as to themselves To your 2. difference I answer that the Gospel which was by the Lord preached to Abraham was by †Gen. 11. 1â— 19. 12. 1-5 Gal. 8. him preached to his family To your third difference I answere that the gospel was preached to Abr to be the meanes and ground of his faith circumcision was given to him to be a seale of the righteousnes of faith therefore a seal of the Gospel which was preached unto him and so the Gospel was preached to Lydia the Gaylor baptisme given for the same use as circumcision was to Abraham And where you say Christ commandeth the gospel to be preached to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme and so Paul did to the Gaylors family Why sayd you not according to the point in hand And so Paul did â—â— Lydias familie the Gaylors Did your self perceave that you could not shew it so in Lydias familie Did you therfore passe by that exaÌ„ple Act. 16. 14. 15. Let the reader wel observe these things and this dealing of yours And to this your standing so strictly that the gospel or covenant was preachedâ—â— every creature I answer that as it was preached to such as were received into the Christian Church so was it to Abraham all the Gentiles which entred into the old Church and therefore in this is no difference To my 3. exception thus you answere Christ speakes onely of such as to whom the gospel may be preached that are of a docible age and nature I graunt that Christ intendeth by his commaundement that they should be taught that are of a docible age but with all intendeth it so to be preached to them as it was before to Abraham which was not to exclude their infants from the covenant or seale thereof To this obiection how infants not being in the covenaunt can be saved you answere Eyther they are all saved though they can not come to faith by hearing or that they are one of the Lords secrets Can you speak of faith to say they are all saved and not within the covenant of grace but it is not your faith for you hold it doubtingly and being driven to a non plus you answer as the Preists and Elders did to Christ concerning Iohns baptisme who sayd wee can not tell whether it be from heaven or of men and so you make the state of children one of Gods secrets but the contrarie I have before proved And here you might see if your erronious opinioÌ„ had not blynded your eyes that you cannot beleev that any infants shal be saved seing by your doctrine you haue no word to grouÌ„d your faith upon for their salvation To the last particular of my answer you reply saying First you confesse that this place of Mat. 28. 19. is not vttered of Christ in respect of infants that they should be taught and then I say he never intended by this place that they should be baptised c. I wil coÌ„fesse as much as I haue spoken In this scripture Mat. 28. 19. Christ commaunded to make disciples and to baptise them the former I sayd Christ intended to such as were unconverted but yet so as they receiving the gospel their infants came also under the covenant the latter I did and stil do affirme to be vnderstood of the beleevers and their seed and so I have not contradicted my self as you untruly speak Next I say that general rules shal be expounded with their senses and as impotent persons infants shal eat though they can not work so infants shall be saved though they cannot be baptised seing they cannot by teaching be made Disciples c. Now you affirme infants shal be saved a little before you doubted whether it were not a secret thus vnstable men are when they erre from the truth But if infants can be saved as now you affirme then tell me whether you hold them to be saved in the covenant or out of the covenant if within you crosse your self and if without shew me what warrant out of the word you haue so to beleeve certainely * Act. 4. â— there is no salvation out of Christ And if children can be saved by the covenant why is the signe thereof denied them You separate those things that Christ hath ioyned together and yet you charge me therewith and so you pronounce a woto your self in saying wo be
to them that so do without repentance seing you deny baptisme to infants that are the children of the covenant which ioyneth the parents and the children together Your conclusion of this argument is shut up with some bitter and reproachful speeches saying You blaspheme the truth with your title of Anabaptistry You are driven to most miserable shifts for your Paedobaptistrye which you see can not stand without scraping together all the wrestings and pervertings of the Scriptures These speaches and divers others of like sort which you use in your writings take and apply to your self for the mainteyning of your heresy against Paedobaptistrie also they serve to testifie the corruption of your hart and therefore I will answer them with silence praying the Lord to give you a sight of his truth and a better hart The 3. Reason against baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now followes the 3. reason 3. Reason 3. Because if infants be baptised the carnal seed is baptised and so the seal of the covenant is administred to them vnto whom the covenant appertayneeth not Rom. 9. 8. which is a profanation Answer 1. This reason semeth to imply that the seed of the faithfull is part carnal and part spiritual for I can not imagine that the author holdeth al the seed of the faithful to be carnal and that the covenant appertaines not to any of them seing so to affirme coÌ„tradicts Act. 2. 39. And therefore because the spiritual seed is not discerned vntil it manifest it selfe by outward profession therefore may not be baptised least in baptising them the seale should be set also vpon the carnal seed unto whom belongs not the covenaÌ„t To affirme this first is to deny that which is done to the seed to whom the promise belongs for the wicked sake so to iniure them 2. this reason also serveth as well against the circuÌ„cisioÌ„ of the infaÌ„ts of the Israelites seing at 8. dayes of age they could not be discerned whether they were of the carnal or spiritual seed so the seal of the covenant be administred to them to whoÌ„ the covenant did not belong But as then the not discerning hereof did nothing hinder circuÌ„cision to be administred to all the infaÌ„ts of the Israelites no more now can the not knowing of the spiritual seed from the carnal hinder baptisme 2. Touching the seed of the faithful thus I conceive thereof that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects carnal as they naturally descend of their parents so are they all alike borne in sin Psa 51. 5. Spiritual in respect of the covenant wherein they are comprehended with their parents Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. in which regard also al the children of the faithful are sayd to be holy 1. Cor. 7. 14. And thus considered I deny the children of the faithful to be carnal seed do affirme that to such belonges the covenant and the seale thereof Act. 2. 39. And though some of them in the sight of God be knowen for none of his yet to vs it sufficeth for the administration of baptisme that they be the seed of the faithful And therfore as the Israelites circumcised al there children though some of them proved to be carnal afterward as Ismael Esau c. so are we to baptise al our infants leaving the secreet things to God Deut 29. 29. 3. If this be sufficient to cleare us from the profaning of the Sacrament if we baptise them that make confession of their fayth because they so do though they be not the children of God as S. Magus Act. 8. 13. then is it not simply a profaning of baptisme to administer it to theÌ„ to whoÌ„ belongs not the covenaÌ„t but to do it to them which playnely appeare to vs to be without Therefore if no man dare take vpon him to say this or that infant is carnall and 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 faithfull holy 1. Cor. 7. 14. If it be obiected as some have done to me that all the seed of the faithful are carnal and so to be held until they beleeve and make confession of theire fayth I Answer 1. If they take carnal as it is opposed to the children of the promise Rom. 9. 8. 13. these two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle as that the one can never be the other 2. If by carnal they meane nothing els but that natural corruption wherein we are borne that hinders infants no more froÌ„ baptisme then it doth those that can give an account of their fayth seing natural corruption remayneth stil in the purest professor Rom. 7. 23. And 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 theÌ„ neyther could they be saved dying whyst they be yong Lastly if Abraham knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac Gen 17. 19. yet circumcised Ismael vers 25. and Isaac knowing that God had chosen his yonger son Gen. 25. 23. with 27. 33. yet circumcised Esau as wel as Iacob and in so doing neither of them prophaned the sacrament muchles is baptisme prophaned 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 your reasons against baptising of infants let us come to the 2. position M. Smyth In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argument which may be framed into this formâ— â—eyther do â—ey the â—rks of the â—ivil and â—erefore if â—ey be not Abrahams â—nes for de â—ct of the â—e they arâ—â—ot the Diâ—els because â—hey do not â—â—e other The carnal seed is not to be baptised for the covenant parteyneth not to them Infants are the carnal seed Rom. 9. 8. Ergo Infants are not to be baptised To this Argument you make answer in 4. particulars 1 You expound my meaning but I can expound myne owne words best and therefore by the carnal seed I understand children borne by carnal generation what soever though they afterward beleeve for they are carnal visible to me whosoever they be that do not shew then fayth by their workes †that do not the works of Abraham Rom. 7. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. Rom. 9. 8. 4 23. Heb. 7. 16. R. Clyfton In the last part of your reply to my answer to your former reason you sayd that infants shal be saved and now they are al carnal visibly unto you can you say that they that are carnal to you shal be saved If the word teach you that they are carnal how can you call them spiritual Your reason seemes to be grounded upon Iam. 2. 18. Iohn 8. 39. in both which scriptures application is made to them that are of yeares and capable of instruction and you applying them to infantes do pervert the meaning
as the Lord God should call meaning to the Gentiles which should beleeve and to their seed Therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed c. To this I haue answered that childrē of beleevers though carnal by nature yet are they spirituall in regard of the covenant and in this respect to hold them the children of Abraham though they can not shew forth the fruites of faith which are required of the elder sort Why then they are damned wil you say God forbid do you cendemne all the men that are not of our saith and yet they are neerer to condemnation in the iudgement of the scripture to you then infants for Christ sayth he that beleeveth not shal be condēned c. It is wel that you detest the condēnatiō of infants if they be not condēned then are they saved if they saved then are they under the covenāt of grace in Iesus Christ Towching others of yeres according as the scripture sheweth their estate to be unto vs so must we judge but secret things belong not unto us the salvation or condemnation of this or that particular person is a secret nay wee are not able certainely to determine thereof amongst such as be external members of the Church because many that haue not on their * Ma◠11-1◠mariage garment may thrust in with the guests the †Ma◠1. c. five foolish virgins had lampes as wel as the wise But this is not the question we reason concerning the dispensation of Gods covenant in respect of us which we affirme according to the “ Gen. 17◠Act. 2. 3◠scripture to be given to the children as wel as to the parents And you deny it and therefore by your opinion in respect of us no hope can in deed be had of the salvation of any infant nay the infants of Turks and infidels wil be in as good estate as the children of beleevers for if infants be without the covenant as you affirm if we wil speak according to the scripture we must hold thē * Eph. 2. ◠without Christ and alianes from the common wealth of Israel without hope and without God in the world and standing dying in this estate to be as Turks infidels dying in the state of condemnation But you not able to shift of this Arg. loth to confesse the truth do say that the Scripture teacheth nothing concerning their final estate except it be the salvation of them al. If it teach the salvation of them al then I hope it teacheth that they are in Christ and within the covenant Christ teacheth that the kingdome of heaven is of such The final estate of many professors of the fayth being of yeares is a secret to us the scripture doth not open unto us the particular election of this or that man but teacheth with whom God hath made his covenant to esteeme them as of his covenant untill the contrarie appear by their falling away Rom. 11. 20. And thus having explayned your own meaning of your former Argument you proceed to examine my Answer saying Now according to your exposition I should intend because it is not discerned which children are the spiritual seed which the carnal therefore both of them must be deprived of baptisme least by giving baptisme which you falsely call a seal to al it should be prophaned to the carnal seed Wel suppose this were my meaning what then If this were your meaning then my collection must follow for my calling baptisme a seal I have proved that which I affirme of baptisme p. 37. 38. You except against this exposition two things one that the spirituall seed should be iniured by denying baptisme unto it for the carnal seeds sake And I reply by giving baptisme to al indifferently we should iniure baptisme it is to be administred onely upon them that confesse their fayth and sinnes and are made disciples c. Your Answer stands in begging the question I say it is no more an injurie to baptisme to be indifferently administred to al them to whom the covenant is indefinitely given as it is to the seed of the faythfull then it was before for circumcision or is now when hypocrites are baptised For we can not be sayd to prophane the sacrament by administring it to them that appear to us to be within the Lords covenant as both hypocrites infants until they break off An other thing you except is that this reason should availe against circumcision seeing the males of eight dayes old could not be discerned to be the spiritual seed And I insist that it was not then needfull that then they should be discerned to be the spiritual seed for that carnal seal of that carnal covenant it was ynough for investing of them with that carnal and typical seal that they were the carnal typical seed and that they were Israelites or proselyts c. Your answer stands upon a false ground confuted before I have proved pag. 12. 13. that circumcision is a holy seal of the covenant in Christ and that your carnal covenant is a devise of your owne And where you call the Isralites the carnall and typical seed I have answered and do again say that though they may be called carnal in respect of their natural generation or in regard of the infirmities hanging upon them or some of them termed carnal in respect of their evil works yet the bodie of the Israelites considered as they were a body and children of the covenant were a spiritual seed and holy And it was needful that they should be so els had not †Rom. 9 5. Psal ◠16. 21. the holy things of God belonged unto them or they pleased God in their slanding And shew me that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised but to be a male But in the new Testament it is taught 1. that Christ the male must be in us and 2. that there must be circumcision of the hart 3. that wee must attayn to learn al that the schoolmaster of the old Testament could teach us before we can be baptised I answer that the Lord required as much of them that were to be circumcised as of them that are to be baptised of the infants both of the Iewes and Christians God requires onely that they be the seed of the faithful but for such as were of yeares and without the church as under the Gospel they are to turne from sinne and professe their fayth in Iesus Christ that require baptisme so likewise before Christ was the case of Abraham himself such of the Gentiles as would be circumcised were to * Exo. 1◠48. Este◠17. Esra ◠21. Ac◠27. renounce their hethenish and idolatrous worship and to professe the true God of Israel and his religion In Ester it is sayd many became Iewes that is addicted themselves to the religion of the Iewes which is to celebrate or
their parents come not to the fayth because they are not visibly knowen to vs to be of the covenant as the infants of the faithfull are And the Church is not to administer baptisme but to those that are children of the covenant visibly apparant As for condemning or not condemning I leave to God That which I speak of is touching our question about the administration of baptisme that it appertaines onely to members of the Church and to such as come out of the world to be ioyned vnto it And seing the infants of vnbeleevers to vs appeere not to be of the kingdome of Christ because their parents remayne stil in infidelity we cannot acknowledg them nether have we any rule to admit them vnles some beleever make them his children by adoption or the like And we refuse them as not belonging to the visible communion of the faithful as yet and there â—e rest without further searching into Gods secreet counsel And thus I hope the scruple which you say remayneth is removed To the 4. particuler of my answere you reply That the external scale of that external covenant was perticulerly inioyned by God and the knowledg of the reprobation of Esau and Ismael did not hinder it But now seing we have â—o expresse commaundement for baptising of infants but c. Circumcision the seale of the covenant of grace was †Gen. 17. â— 12. Mat. 2â— 19. commaunded to every member of the Church and so is baptisme now as before is proved Concerning Ismael and Esau that their parents had knowledg of their â—eprobation and yet did circumcise them 1. I do not find that that secreete was reveiled vnto them 2. Christ knew that Iudas was reproved yet eate he the passeover with him The administration of the Sacraments is according to mens outward standing not according to election therefore the parents ought to circumcise them of their houshold according as the Lord had commauÌ„ded And as Abraham did know that God would establishe his covenant to Isaac so he knew also that it should be in Christ that should discend of * Gal. 3. 1â— Isaacks line and not of Ismaels in whom not onely Isaac and his posterity but al the “ Gal. 3. 8. nations of the earth should be blessed yea Ismael if he beleeved and so many of his stocke as should beleeve And so the promise concerning Christ to come was to be fulfilled in the seed of Isaac and not of Ismael or Esau As touching Ismaels Esaus state is before spoken of And thus much concerning this first Position For where you say we have no expresse commaundement for baptising of infants and al that followes to the end of this question is answered before yet I wil note this here that you end this point with a notable vntruth saying That we have an expresse commaundement many examples to the contrary of baptising of infants For there is neither any coÌ„maund ment to forbid it nor any example to the contrary agaynst it as I have shewed before OF THE SECOND POSITION concerning the rebaptising of Elder People 〈…〉 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme Answer AS the former Position denyeth the baptisig of infants so doth this adnihilate that Baptisme which we hav received in the Apostate Church and establisheth rebaptization And this also I will shew to be an error by proving the contrarie and then answer the Reasons hereunto annexed That baptisme administred in the apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptisme not to be iterated thus I prove it I. Argument If the Apostacie of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that that it ceased to be the seal of Gods covenant to so many of theÌ„ as repented no more doth the Apostasie of our fore-Elders so polute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a sacrament to so many of them that turne unto God from their sinnes But the first is true 2 Chron. 30. 11. 18. 21. els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierusalem have eaten the Passeover seing no uncircumcised might eat thereof Ergo the second If it be obiected that the apostasie is not alike theÌ„ let it be shewed that the apostasie under Antichrist did make a nullitie of baptism not the apostasie of Israel of circumcision for Israel played the harlot so deeply that the Lord denyed her to be his wife or himself to be her husband Hose 2. 2. Mr Smyth And thus having shewed the vanitie of your answeres to my reasons against â—swer paedobaptistrie let us come to your answere made to my 2. Position 2. That Antichristians converted c. Your first Argument is framed thus If the apostasie of Israel c. I answer that the apostasie of Antichrist is deeper then the apostasie of Israel for first Antichristians are not called Israelites but Babylonias Egyptians Sodomites Gentiles in the Revelation whereby the holy spirit of wisedome giveth vs to conceive that he doth account the apostasie of Antichrist equâ—â— to Paganisme it self c. Rich Clifton Whether my answers be vaine or your reasons haeretical let the reader â—ply judge For your answer to this my first Argument against your second Position if it be graunted that the Apostasie of Antichrist be worse then of Israel yet this difference is but according to the lesse the greater both are Apostasie But as concerning these names of Sodomites c. they do not prove that Antichristianisme is equalled to Paganisme rather they shew that the Antichristians were in some things like to the Sodomites Aegyptians c. Was Iuda her circumcision voyd because the Prophet calles â—a 1. 10. their Princes * the Princes of Sodome the people the people of Gomorah If this had bene so they must haue bene new circumcised Know you not that the holy Ghost by these similitudes would manifest some abhominable sinne that he saw in his people wherein they became like unto the profane GeÌ„tiles And the more to cause them to detest their sinne likeneth them to such notorious sinners as had tasted of the hand of God against them for their sinnes Wherefore as Iudah for her uniust shedding of blood and other filthy sinnes is called Sodome and Gomorah So the Antichristians are called Sodome for their filthy sinne of Sodomitrie and such like wherein they become like to the Sodomites and Egypt and Babylon because they keep Gods people under a spirituall servitude as formerly Egypt and Babylon had done the Israelites and Iewes under a corporal boÌ„dage And the Antichristians if they be compared to the Gentiles which I do not remember it is in respect of their profanenes and strange Gods for as the Gentiles had many Gods to whom they gave spiritual worship so the Antichristians have their Gods Saincts of both sexes and the Angels to whom they do worship and service Notwithstanding all this their profanesse yet did they confesse God and Iesus Christ to be their saviour
As for the spiritual genealogy both vnder the law and the Gospel I do approve to be the true seede of Abraham but not in your sense that excludes the infants of the faithful from the covenant which of vs are to be * Mat. â— Act. 3. accounted the children thereof as wel as these that outwardly professe their faith And concerning the Ministerie of the old Church although none could be Preists †Exo. 28. but of the line of Aaron yet was the “ Num. 6-19 Dâ— 33. 8-â— tribe of Levi chosen by God himself for that office And God * sanctified them to the service of his name and to the Ministery of holy things Lastly you charge vs with an introducing of a carnal line into the Church to be baptised by succession fetch baptisme vpon the carnal line through the Church of Rome c. “ Numb 19. 1 Cor. â— 13. Of this I have spoken before and I answer further 1. that we do not introduce any other carnall line into the Church to be baptised then the Lord himself introduceth that is the children of the faithful And this is not as you say to set up Iudaisme in the new Testament seing all the people of God of al nations and ages are bound vnto it for we know no other covenant by which we become the People Church of God but that same which was made with Abraham and his seed Concerning the carnall lyne as you cal it though in respect of vs it may seeme to stop in Apostacy yet the Lord continueth his promise to his elect therin Neyther by this our retayning of baptism do we iustify Rome to be a true church nor make our selves Schismaticks seeing we cast of her adulteries and keep that which is Christs ordinance by her polluted Also you charge us To be fallen from Christ and become a new second image of the beast never heard of before in the world For being fallen from Christ look that it be not your owne case Of the image of the beast I †read but not of a â—ev 13. â— 15. â— 9. new second image and therefore no marveil though it be never heard of in the world as you say and if it had been by you unspoken of also by so applying of it unto us your sinne had been the lesse And thus much in answer to your premised ground Next you set down the summe of my exception First I say that the new Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affairs â—l and occasions that befal in our tyme in the new Testament as the old Testament was for the occurrents that befel under the old Testament seeing Christ is as faythful as Moses and the new Testament as perfect as the old Gal. 3. 15. and therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference betwixt the Apostalike constituting of Churches and our constituting of them in respect of the persons to be admitted into the church and in respect of baptising and not baptising or rebaptising of them he could would have done it c. The sufficiencie of the new Testament we acknowledge of the books Answ thereof for that use wherefore they were written But it seemes that you confound the new Testament or covenant of grace with the books thereof for you reason thus that the new Testament meaning the bookes thereof are sufficient for direction of al affaires of the church And your proofe out of Gal. 3. 15. is of the covenant it self and not of the books thereof And afterward you alleadge as a reason for the same end that the new Testament is perfect and sealed with the blood of Christ thus deceiving the Readers with an homonomy of the word Testament The books of the new Testament were al unwritten when Christ sufferred and had sealed the covenant of Grace This Testament had been perfect if there had been never a book written The historie of the Gospel was written * Ioh. 20. 31 Rom. 1. 1. 2. 16. 25. 26. that we might beleeve that Iesus is the Christ promised and foretold in the holy Scriptures of the Prophets and that beleeving in him we might have eternal life Concerning the faythfulnes of Christ it consisteth in “ Luk. 1. 70 24. 27. â— Pet. 1. 10. â—1 12. Act. 26. 22. 13. 29. fulfilling of those things which Moses and the Prophets had sayd should come to passe And if he give us direction for all the affaires and occasions that fall out in our tymes eyther out of the books of the new Testament or old we ought to be thankful to God and accordingly to use them and not bynd him or our selves onely to the writings of the Apostles Seeing Christ is the Author as wel of the doctrine writings of the Prophets as of the Apostles 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. 1 Pet. 3. 18. 19. Againe concerning the difference between the Apostolicke constituting of Churches and ours which you charge us with I answer we plead for no difference neyther do we practise contrarie to the first planting of the church witnesse Mr. Smyth Differences in the preface lin 12. â—ns â— for as then such as were to be received into the Church did confesse their fayth and so with thir families were baptised so wee hold that all such that are unbaptised and to be added to the church must enter thereinto they with their families after the same manner as in the Apostles tymes And we do acknowledge that all churches which have Apostated are to be reformed according to the patterne and platforme layd downe by the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures But this difference we put between persons that were never baptised and such as have received baptisme in an Apostate church affirming that the former are to be adjoyned to the Church by baptisme the latter not to be againe baptised which if it had been necessarie the Lord no doubt would have coÌ„manded when he bad his people to goe out of Babylon But seing he sayth not a word of the renuing thereof we are to content our selves and to practise as the Holy Ghost †2 Chr. â— 5. 13. else where doth teach us by the example of the Israelites in an other like case Now if you can shew us eyther commandement or example or any good reason in all the new Testament to rebaptise them which have been baptised in Apostate churches we will receive it and practise it if not why do you plead for it without warrant do rebaptise your selves also affirme so confidently that all things be so manifest in the APOSTLES writings that upon every occasion that falles out in our tymes we have direction for it Lastly it is not wee that adde to this new Testament as you charge us or that bring in a new CHRIST a nevv Church a nevv Covenant a nevv Gospell and a nevv Baptisme but you your selves are guilty of this sinne for you by
men to caâ—â— away with it that which is ordeyned of God then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have been brought agayne to Ierusalem nor yet the Temple it self that was so greatly prophaned in the dayes of the idolatrous Kinges haue been any more vsed as a place of worship to the Lord. 2. I answer that we have received as true Baptisme in the apostate Church as the people of God did circumcision amongst the 10. Tribes And therefore we may no more renounce it and to assume a new then they that returned to Ierusalem 2 Chron. 30. 11. might renounce their circumcision be recircumcised It is obiected of some that this comparison holdes not for Israel was a true Church and therefore their circumcision was true But an apostate Church hath nothing tâ—ue neyther are the members thereof capable eyther of the covenant or seale in that standing and it is not true baptisme to such This obiection in part I have answered before and now answer further 1. that the Israelites in their apostasie were not a true Church but a false seing they separated from Ierusalem the true and onely Church in the world and erected a new Church and communion amongst themselves ioyning together in a false worship and under a false Ministerie 1. King 12. 30 -33 and 18. 19 -21 and so became an Harlot Hosea 2. 2. Secondly in the Apostate Church there be some things true in the substance as the word and Baptisme though corrupted in the administration thereof by false Ministers and humane devises 3. The members of an apostate Church are to be considered two wayes 1. as they stand members of â—â—ch a Church 2. as they are the seed and posteritie of their forefathers which received the covenant for themselves and their seed And though in regard of the former estate they have neyther right to baptisme or the covenant for the holy thinges of God belonges not to false Churches properly yet even to such members considered a part from such standing and as they are the seed of their forefathers so are they capable of the covenant and sacrament and the same is avayleable to them upon their repentance For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their fathers sakes Rom. 11. 28. this appeareth in that he sayth come out of her my people Apoc. 18. 4. And to such it can not be denyed but that to them belonges the covenant yea whiles they are in spiritual Babylon as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea Bondage hinders not Gods grace But some may reply that they whose fathers were idolaters and unbeleevers could have no right to the covenant to be baptised through the faith of theire fathers I answer the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not onely vpon their immediate parents but title therevnto descends vnto them from their ancestors Exod. 20. if we respect herein Gods mercie even as mens inheritances do from their former fathers Neyther do the members of an apostate Church cast of all profession of faith for they beleeve the scriptures and in Christ c. though withall they professe divers errors and worship the true God in a false manner If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an apostate Church had forefathers that beleeved I answer it can not be denyed seing that an apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels for then could it not be called apostate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth but is the ruines of a true Church and therfore it must needs folow that their forefathers were beleevers and had received the covenant And thus haue I briefly answered these two Anabaptistical Positions with their Reasons as the Lord hath inabled me for the present wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could perform it better And further intreat that the truth which I contend for may not by my weak defence beare any reproch but that which is falt worthy let it returne vpon my head And do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written and both he and they that so practise may seriously coÌ„sider of that which is done and glorifie God by repentance March 14. 1608. Rich Clifton Mr. Smyth In the next place you make answer to my last Argument which may be framed into this forme As the false Ministerie worship are reiected the contrarie true Church and Ministerie assumed So the false worship and by consequence the false baptisme must be renounced c. Although al that is mentioned here is taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe something for the further clearing of the point 1. I deny that Popish baptisme to be true in the foure causes thereof as you affirme 1. the Lord never instituted that infants should be baptised 2. He never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptised 3. He never ordeyned that the carnall seed of the faythful should be baptised Therefore seing Infants that are not the seed of the faythful but the seed of Babylonians are baptised by Antichrist R. Clyfton Concerning the causes of baptisme they have been formerly spoken of Answ To these particulars thus I answer brieflly to the first that the baptisme of infants is proved in the former part of this writing To the 2. touching Pagans that they should be baptised without confession of their sinnes fayth I am farre from approving 3. Concerning the carnal seed of the faythful as you cal it I have before proved that Gods covenant is made with the faythful and their seed naturally descending from them and have removed al your objections to the contrarie The matter of baptisme is false 1. The Lord never appointed that the partie should â—ep be baptised without his own confession c. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Heb. 10. 22. This is true of such as are of yeares and now at the first to be received â—s into the church but not of their infants or of the infants of the faythfull borne in the church you alledge not one example of any borne of beleeving parents whose baptisme was deferd til he was able to make confession of his owne fayth Towching the places of 1 Pet 3. 21. Heb 10 22 I have answered unto in the former section Therefore the Lord doth not contract with them for Christ wil not contract â—ep in mariage with a bride or spouse that is under age Gal. 4. 14. It is strange how you apply scriptures would any that is a Scholer or â—ns made conscience of the truth ever have applyed this place of the Galathians to prove that the Lord wil not contract with the infants of the faythful The similitude that the Apostle useth comparing the Iewish church to an heire that is under Tutors might teach you that the Lord did contract with that church how els could it ever have been