But the first is true Mat. 28. 19. Ergo the latter also is true Act. 13. 48. 16. 14. 15. 32. 33. It wil be objected against the Major that it followes not that the infants are any more bound to receive baptisme then they are bound whilest they are infants to receive the word but the word they cannot receive Ergo. I answer that the coÌ„mandement is general to al nations and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circumcise him self and al his familie yea the infants he should grevously have rebelled against God so whosoever of the Gentiles shal not beleev and be baptised both himself and his seed shal have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ seeing he cutts himself and his seed from the covenant of God Genes 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the covenant which notwithstanding they are bound unto as they shall come to yeares of discretion yet are they capable of the seal as before is shewed and therefore by vertue of this generall commandement Mat. 28 19. are to be baptised M. Smyth The errors of this Argument I wil discover in order first I deny that baptisme is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ Thirdly Baptisme therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision c. Fourthly I deny that although Abraham had a speciall commandement did circumcise his male infants therefore Christians upon this generall commandement Mat. 28. 19. shal baptise their infants Fiftly I say rather the contrarie is hence proved c. R. Clyfton This is a ready course in answering if it might be admitted of to denye one thing after another without shewing any reason to the contrary As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors of three of them I have spoken before more particularly the fourth is now to be answered unto concerning the baptising of infants upon the general commandement of Christ Mat. 28. 19. which you deny to have warrant from that scripture I prove it thus If there was a commandement given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children then is this Mat. 28. 10. a comandement and faithfully described in the institution of baptisme as the person condition and tyme of circumcision But for paedobaptisme there is no expresse description of the person condition or tyme of their baptisme c. I answer to the consequent of the Major that our Saviour hath †reveled â— 17. 6. â—14 26. â— â— â— to his church the whole will of his father which is conteyned in the Scriptures not onely in the writings of the Apostles but also of the prophets which hee hath for that end commanded us to search Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter to take heed unto 2 Pet. 1. 19. and Paul commends to be profitable to teach to convince to correct and to instruct in righteousnes c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods wil must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles that the prophets be excluded but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expresly then the writings of the Apostles But to come to the point I answer that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner which before had been written and were stil to continue as example the sealing of the covenant the persons yong and old that were to be signed and such like what needs a new repetition hereof when the Lord purposed not to disaÌ„nul them so much as was to be altered concerning the outward signe Christ omitted not to declare And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaithfulnes if he in expresse words had not commanded infants to be baptised seing under the old Testament they had the signe of the covenant Again the Apostles writings do plainly ynough declare unto us that infants are to be baptised as both from that commandement of Christ Mat 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles in baptising of families and by other reasons hath been shewed And concerning the tyme of baptising I see no reason why you should cavil about it more then about the tyme of administring the Lords Supper which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day nor tyme of the day for the administring thereof as Moses did of the passeover And the scriptures which you cite do shew that bap is to be administred when men enter into Gods covenant and children entring in at the same tyme with their parents are to be baptised at the same tyme with them as Ismael and al Abrahams howse were circumcised * the same day with Abraham Deu. 17. â— And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major which â—so serveth to answer your minor But touching those scriptures which you alledge for proof of your Minor thus I answer in general to them all that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel to beleeve that Iesus was the Christ who were never baptised before And this rule I confesse to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptisme that they make confession of their fayth sinnes as they did but they serve not to teach vs to deale so towards their infants or the infants of beleevers that are borne within the covenant For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it is not the same as concerning the administration of baptisme no more then it was in the Iewish Church towching circumcision for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their owne profession and the other to be within it by their being borne of beleeving parents if you had instanced an example of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament of pareÌ„ts that were members thereof whose baptising was differd until he was able to make confessioÌ„ of faith then had you sayd more to the purpose though in such an example there might haue bene neglect as was in Moses in circumcising his sonne Argument VII Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly the Apostles practise is our instructioÌ„ but they baptised not onely the maister of the familie which beleeved but all his household Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now also the like is to be done and so consequently the infants are to be baptised for they are a part of the family see Gen. 45. 18. where Ioseph bad his brethren take their father and their househoulds and come to him Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is sayd they caried their children and wives in charets noting hereby
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.
ask you why you put me to the proof of it seing I never held any such thing Nay I deny that the blessing of God reacheth no further then to the members of the visible Church for the Churches †King 18. Rev. 4. members are many invisible but that the blessing of Abraham perteyneth to the visible Church I hope you wil not deny see Ephe. 2. 11-22 3. 6 19. 4. 8 -14 2 Cor. 4. 9. Col. 1. 3-6 1 Thes 1. 2. 10. in all which places in divers others it doth appeare that these visible Churches had received the blessing of Abraham Or that from this particular of Christs praying for infants Mar. 10. 13. baptising of infants to follow My argument from this place of Mat. 10. 13. 14. to prove that baptisme belongs to the infants of beleevers you have already and have not answered it why require you it againe I have proved that infants are of the Kingdome of God as also that the holy things of God as baptisme c. belong to all the members of this kingdome But further to satisfie your desire thus I prove baptisme to belong to infants from this particular of Christs praying for them For whom Christ prayed they were of his everlasting covenant for he prayed for them ¶ Ioh. 17. 10. 20. which were given him and not for the world But Christ prayed for these infants Mat. 19. 13. Therefore these infants were of his everlasting covenant and so consequently baptisme the signe thereof belonged vnto them seing God both in making “‘ Gen. 17 7 -10 this covenant with Abraham gave to him and to his seed together with it circumcision the seale thereof And also in commanding the †Mat. 2â— 19. publishing of the same covenant to all nations did withall command baptisme to be administred Againe those whom Christ blesseth he blesseth with the blessing of Abraham Gal. 3. 14. conferd with vers 8. 16. 9. But Christ blesseth these infants Mar. 10. 16. Therefore Christ blesseth them with the blessing of Abraham and so consequently these infants were capable of baptisme because the Lord hath ioyned together the blessing or covenant and the signe or seale thereof as before hath bene shewed Or how caÌ„ you prove that Christ obtayned for theÌ„ prayed for remissioÌ„ of sinnes the holy Ghost fayth everlasting life for many were brought to Christ for releife of bodily infirmities And I demande of you againe for what other things should Christ pray for these Infants but for spirituall graces there is no mention that they were brought for the curing of any bodily infirmitie in them and if they had been diseased it is like the Apostles would not have hindered their Mat 19. â— comming to Christ the end of their †bringing of their infants to him was to put his hands vpon them and to pray The reason that Christ yeeldeth why they should suffer little children to come to him because of such is the kingdome of God doth argue of what nature the things were he prayed for Againe where Christ prayed for the curing of any corporall disease Mat 8. 4. 15. â— 28. 29. â— Mat 8. â—6 it is recorded with what * infirmitie they that he prayed for were troubled that so the miracle might be knowen which was the end of his doing of great works The “ Centurion requiring Christ for his servant shewed his disease but those that brought the infants mention no corporall infirmity for which they should desire him to pray for them Thus you having made all these questions you proceed to a second answer saying I deny that it followeth because Christ blessed some of the infants of the Iewes or Gentiles vpon speciall intreatie therefore that it may hence be concluded that generally the covenant and the seal of the covenant as you call baptisme doth apperteyne to them for there is not the same reason of all infants as of some specially blessed as Iohn Baptist Ieremy Sampson I marvel greatly that you will thus shift off doth not my reason prove that the covenant and seal therof apperteyneth to the infants of the faithfull seing of such is the kingdome of God Doth Christ say these infants are blessed onely because they alone are of the kingdom of God Nay sayth he not of such including other infants also is the kingdome of God And dooth not the reason which our Saviour useth here why these infants should come to him inferre so much for they that brought them being stayed he reasons thus against his disciples why they ought not to hinder them because of such as these are is the Kingdome of God meaning not all infants but the infants of beleevers as these were But in that you say there is not the same reason of all infants as of some speâ—â—lly blessed c. Neyther doo we reason for such speciall blessings or callings as were â—iven to John Baptist Jeremy or Sampson but for the right of the covenant â—o appertayne to all the seed of the faithfull for although God do out of â—he seede of beleevers chose some whome he wil imploy to speciall service aâ—ove others and therefore doth bestowe on them more then ordinary â—iftes yet this hinders not the rest of the infants of the faythfull from â—heir right to Gods covenant or coÌ„mon salvation Neyther indeed can you prove that these infants which were blessed of Christ were blessed with any extraordinary blessings or callings for no â—â—ch things is recorded of them therefore to compare them their blesâ—nge with these three extraordinarie servants of God John Baptist Ieremy â—d Sampson is not to make an equall comparison Thirdly If Baptisme doth appertaine to infants because Christ blesseth some partiâ—ular infants and because Christ saith the Kingdome of God appertaines to such then the lords supper also I answer that doth not follow the ordinances of Christ belong to the members of the Church and they are to partake of them as they are capable The infantes of the Iewes could receive circumcision at eight dayes of age but could not eat the passeover so likewise the children of Christians are capable of Baptisme the first day of their birth but not of the Lords â—pper because the Lord Iesus of such as participates therof requires †1. Cor. 11 26-31 to examine themselves to shew forth the Lords death c. which children cannot performe in regard of their yeares And therefore it wil not follow that if infants are to be baptised therefore to receive the Lords supper And though you would prevent this answer by saying They must have it meaning the Lords supper as sone as they can eat it I grant as much as sone as they can eate it as the Lord hath * 1. Cor. 11 27. commanded They cannot confesse their sinnes and faith and so cannot be baptised To this objection sufficient answer is given already and further occasion of answer wil follow 4. I would know why the
that children were of the household els had they no commaundement to haue caried them into Egypt see also verse 27. and Exodus 1. 21. it is sayd because the midwives feared God therefore he made them howses in 1 Tim. 5 8. The Apostle sayth hee that provideth not for his own namely for them of his houshold he denyeth the fayth c. Now I would ask if children be exempted from the howshold in any of these places or in any other where mention is made of a particular howshold Therefore this Argument will prove that children were baptised unlesse it can be shewed that they were especially exempted And if the holy Ghost have not exempted them who dare do it against a general commandement of baptising al nations M. Smyth I make answer to this Argument confessing it wholly but yet denying the consequent of your conclusion for it doth not follow because all the houshold of Lidia and the Gaylor were baptised that therefore infants were baptised you shal see what exceptioÌ„s I take R. Clyfton The consequence wil follow for if the Apostle baptised whole families then children also if there were any seeing they are of the familie and no where excepted but I wil come to your exceptions the first whereof is this I say though infants are a part of the familie c. yet it doth not follow that whersoever there is mention made of a familie that therefore that familie had infants in it c. Neither doth it follow that the families of Lidia of the Gaylor and of Stephanas were all of them without children because the scripture doth not mention their children The generall speech of baptising the houshold satisfies you not except it be proved that there were infants therein and why should not you that standâ— for actual beleeving before baptisme as wel prove that Lidias familie did beleev as the mistresse did of whom onely it is sayd that the Lord opened her hart and she attended unto the things which Paul spake The Actes of Christ and his Apostles are summarily recorded and not every thing that was done at large explayned Certeynly if the Apostle had minded that children were not to be baptised he would not haue spoken so indefinitely of the family yea hereby he teacheth that in the administration of this sacrament he followed the coÌ„mon * Gen. 17 -13. Exoâ— 1â— 4â— 4â— practise used in circumcising of the whol family when the governor thereof received the faith 2. By this reason you might proue that Lydiaes husband and the Gaylors wife and their children of 40. yeres old and their servants of 60. yeres old were baptised c. First it is a question whether Lydia had a husband and more like that she was a widow because it is sayd to be her household 2. Concerning the Gaylors wife their children and servants what letteth that they might not be baptised if they refused not the grace of God offered The Apostle preached †Act. 16. 31. 32. salvation to the whole family and the Gaylor beleeved and he with all that belonged unto him were baptised Dare you now except against any in that family seing the holy Ghost so speaks from these general speaches I prove that all in both households were baptised shew the contrarie if you can 3. If it were yeelded that there were infants in Lydiaâ—s family and in the Gaylors doth it follow that they were baptised no thing les and that I wil declare thus 1. You say to the baptisme of the Gaylors wife and children of yeres of discretion there was necessarily required saith and repentance or els they were not baptised so say I because infants cannot beleeve and repent though they were in the family yet they shall not be baptised I might ask you where I so sayd of the Gaylors wife and children but I wil not coÌ„tend with you about it CoÌ„cerning infaÌ„ts I haue proved that their baptising is not to stay until they can themselves make confession of their faith and sinnes and you do not yet say any thing worth answer to the contrarie 2. I say that although it be said that all that perteyneth to the Gaylor were baptised yet it is also sayd verse 32. that the word was preached to all that were in his house verse 34. that all his howshold beleeved c. seing therfore all that were baptised in the Gaylors house beleeved by the preaching of the word Infants that could not beleeve were not baptised c. First all that you here say doth not prove that all that were baptised in the gaylors howse beleeved by the preaching of the word The word was preached to al in his house that were able to understand and so must both ver 32. 34. be undâ—â—stood of such But Paul speaking of baptising them sayth that he was baptised and al that belonged unto him Which speach must needs include his little children also if he had any And although it be sayd that he reioyced that he with al his howshold beleeved in God yet wil it not follow hereupon that his children were not baptised seeing children are to be esteemed in the number of beleevers And those words may have this construction viz. that he rejoyced that he with al his familie were received into the fayth of Christ or were accepted into the number of beleevers and so it includes his children Concerning the tyme being midnight which you say was a distempered time to waken yong children it is nothing that you say were not the infants of Israel awakened and caried out of Aegypt at the like tyme of the night Exod. 12. 31. upon lesse occasion then either of these children may be awakened â— I say for Lidias familie it is not sayd that al her howse was baptised or yet if it had been so said that everie particular person of her familie was baptised for Mat. 3. â—â— It is sayd al Judea went out to John and were baptised of him c. yet hence it cannot be concluded that al and every one that went out were baptised c. The scripture sayth that Lidia was baptised and her houshold without excepting of any the like is sayd of Stephanas familie 1 Cor. 1. 16. And by †that which is written of the gaylors house we are taught how to understand Act. 16. 33 the Apostle And be it that this word al be used sometimes for many as in that of Mat. 3. 5. 6. What then yet it followes not therefore it is so to be taken in this place of the Apostle seeing he useth it for every particular of the whole in al these places 2 Cor. 5. 10. Hebr. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 27. 28. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 4. 20. 4. 15. 5. 18. and in divers others But you say As Act. 16. 32. 34. onely they that beleeved were baptised sâ— was it with them of Lidias familie You are to bold with the text to add unto it The Apostle sayth
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
that very place the holy Ghost distinguisheth between such as were borne in the house and bought with mony as between them that were by their birth of the family of those that being bought were received into his house Secondly the children of belevers be eyther members of the Church Ephe. 2. 12. and within the covenant or els without if without then are †they aliants from the comon welth of Israel strangers from the covenants of promise without Christ without hope and without God in this world for this the Apostle sets downe to be the state of them that are without but thus Christ did not esteme of infantes who sayd “ suffer litle children to come to me for of such is the kingdome “ Marc. 10 13. 14. of God nor Pau †1 Cor. 7. â—4 that sayd but now are they holy speaking of the children of belevers Concerning the pareÌ„ts of these childreÌ„ that were brought to Christ which you say cannot be proved belevers by these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. I have shewed before what I thought of them But if they â—re baptised say you Christ cannot intend baptisme vnto them Who labours to prove that Christ in blessing them did intend Baptisme vnto them This I sayd that such as are of the Kingdome of God and capable of the blessing of Christ are not to be denyed baptisme And that infantes are such I have proved from these scriptures Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. And therefore baptisme not to be denyed them 2. If the Apostles by putting back infantes presented to Christ declare playnely that infants were not to be brought to be baptised by Christ the infantes were not to be baptised by Christ nor coÌ„manded to be baptised by him But the first is true Ergo c. The assumption is denyed for if the children were not brought to be baptised how can the Apostles putting them back signifie that infants are not to be baptized the bringers of them did expresse their mind wherefore they brought them Agayne if the Apostles by putting the infants back did erre and by Christ are thereof rebuked what can you conclude from their example but this not to judge them vnworthy of Christ and of his ordinances whome he approveth receiveth The Scripture speakes not one word that they did put them back as judging them vnfit for baptisme 3. If the persons presenting Infants to be blessed and prayed for do not desire baptisme for them then they knew no such custome used by Christ to baptise them But the first is true Ergo c. Whether they knew any such custome or not it is not to the purpose Christ did as occasion was offerred he satisfyed them according to their desire 4. If Christ receiving infants praying for them blâ—ssing them doth neyther baptise them nor coÌ„maund his disciples to baptise them then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptised or els he forgat his duetie in not teaching baptisme of Infants upon so iust an occasion But Christ did neyther baptise them nor command his disciples to baptise them neyther did he forget his dutie c. Ergo. I answer the consequent followes not Christ his pleasure was not against that †GeÌ„ 17. 1â— general commandement given first to Abraham for the setting of the seale unto his covenant to all the faithful and their seed Also Christ performed as much as they intreated for at his hands and though he taught not all things at one time yet was it no forgetting of his dutie â—eing in due time he taught all things 5. They that are not actually possessed of the promises or covenant are not actually to be invested with baptisme Infants are not actually possessed in the coâ—â—nant seing they performe not the condition viz. confession of their sinnes and their faith actually Ergo c. If you mean by actually possessed such a state right or possession as the Lord of his free grace hath infeoffed his people withall by vertue of the â—en 17. 9. â—1 Act. 39. 1 Cor. 14. graunt of his covenant to Abraham I deny the minor and say that infants of beleevers are †children of the covenant and of the kingdome and actually possessed thereof As concerning the reason annexed to the minor it is answered before that the Lord requires the actuall vse of faith and repentance of them that are of yeares and not of infants And thus much for confirmation of my third reason Argument IIII. 1 Cor. 7. 14. If the children of beleeving parents be holy then are they within the covenant of Abraham and so consequently have right to the seale thereof But the first is true 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo the second Touching the former proposition I take it that none will affirme holynes in any that are not of the covenant for in that respect Israel was called an holy nation Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. and all others vncleane Act. 11. 3. and 10. 15. that were without If infants be within the covenant then cannot the seale be denyed to such seing the Lord hath joyned the promise and seale together Gen. 17. 10. which no man may or ought to separate Mat. 19. 6. What can be objected against the assumption I see not seing the Apostle playnly affirmes but now are your children holy Vnlesse it may be sayd as of some I have heard that as the vnbeleeving wife is sanctified to the husband so are the children viz to the use of their Father but this to affirme is a great abusing of the scripture For the Apostle in that place answering an obiection that the faithfull is defiled by the societie of the unfaithful proveth that the faithful husband may with good conscience use the vessel of his unfaithful wife by an Argument froÌ„ the effects namely because their children which are borne of them are accounted holy or within the promise God having sayd to all the faithful I will be thy God and the God of thy seed As for that other strange exposition that the Children of a beleeving father are no otherwise sanctified theÌ„ the unbeleeving wife is unto her husband viz to their fathers use onely that can not stand with the meaning purpose of the Apostle For so much may be sayd of an unbeleeving servant that he is for the vse of his master to do him service if children be no more holy then so then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father neither is the objectioÌ„ removed by this answer If it be further pressed that the unbeleeving wife is sayd to be holy as well as the children yet is she not within the covenaÌ„t I answer that she indeed is not holy as be her children for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant and therefore she is sayd to be sanctified to her husband the Apostle respecting their mariage which though it was contracted before eyther party beleeved yet stands firme and
to be baptised unto Moses may thus be understood viz. that they were baptised Moses being their guid or minister by whom they were instructed in the wayes of God Thirdly the baptisme of the Israelites howsoever it might be typicall in some respect yet did it signifie unto them true things whereof they were partakers Deu. 6. 6. 11. 18. â— Gen. 18. Lastly the infants under the law and before †had their dayly education by faythful parents as wel as ours have under the Gospel so that in this respect there is no such material difference as you pretend Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud and sea was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete that is the baptisme of the cloud did type out our baptisme in the three partes thereof viz. 1. the baptisme of the spirit 2. the declaration of fayth and repentance the antecedent of the baptisme with water 3. the outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulers c. Here you set us down types things typed but no proofs thereof I know that the Sacraments of the new Testament did succeed the Sacraments of the old confirming to us the same spirituall thinges that theirs did to them But how these did type forth ours in the concrete as you speak I conceive not our sacraments are external as wel as theirs and administred by * man who neither doth nor can administer the spirit 1. For Mat. 3. â—1 the baptisme of the spirit “ Deu. 10. â— 30. 6. â— Cor. 10. 4. Heb. 11. â—9 30. 39. â—sa 1. 16. they were partakers thereof and †manifested their fayth and repentance as we do 2. concerning the declaration of fayth and repentance to be a part of the sacrament of baptisme I see no warrant seeing it is more general then the sacrament it self and is an imperfect work in man and sometymes hypocritical and therefore cannot be a part of the seal of Gods covenant that shal confirme fayth Also this were to teach that the assurance and pledge of mans salvation depends upon himself if the declaration of his fayth and repentance be held a part of the sacrament Again fayth and repentance is that condition of the covenant that is required on our part and therefore not a part of the seal thereof Besides that which is often to be repeated cannot be a part of baptisme confession of synne and fayth is so often to be repeated as there shal be occasion Ergo c. 3. The outward washing with water being administred to the faythfull or their â—ed in the name of the Father c. is that sacrament of baptisme which was “ Mat. 3. â— administred by Iohn and is administred by the ministers of the Gospel Furthermore whereas I sayd that to deprive children of baptisme â—â— to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people you answer That Gods bounty is as large everie way to our infants as to theirs for Gods 〈…〉 tie of actual exhibiting and sealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham 〈◊〉 his carnal infants was never extant in the old Testament neither were their parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it up 〈…〉 their infants You confesse the Lord to be as bountiful towards our infants as toâ—ards the infants of the Iewes indeed neither comfortable to theirs or ours Not to theirs because say you the everlasting covenant was never exhibited and sealed to Abraham and al his carnal seed I have †pag. 12. 13. before shewed that the covenant was sealed up to Abraham and his infants And that it was exhibited and sealed to him and to al the faithful see Gen. 17. 7. 13. Rom. 4. 11. Hebr. 11. 13. 39. but not to al say you externally it was given to all and sealed by circumcision though internally it was not no more is it to all that stand members of the visible church of the new Testament Secondly if the parents had â—o comfort in circumcising of their infants in respect of the promise in Christ to be unto their infants they had none at al in that action for out of Christ is no true comfort and so you make circumcision an idle signe which indeed did preach unto them howsoever you think therof Christ the promised seed * Col. 2. 11. in whom they were circumcised And circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached â—â—w to infants Your doctrine casteth infants out of Gods everlasting covenant both under the old and new Testament and so Christ to them is not preached at al. But what is it that now preacheth Christ to infants more plainely then circumcision did to the Iewes infants if not baptisme How be it you make a question how the preaching of Christ could profit infants eyther then in types or now in truth And you say neither do I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infants any thing at that instant but afterward to learn that which circumcision taught him viz. the circumcision of the hart And if you say that infants baptised are to be instructed I answer that in the new Testament by baptisme we manifest what we have namelie the inward baptisme whereas in the old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have viz. the inward circumcision of the haâ—… c. First the preaching of Christ by circumcising and baptising of infants did then and doth now profite their parents by seeing the covenant confirmed to their seed And although the infants themselves know not the use thereof til afterward yet it makes not the Lords ordinance to be any more unlawful then †Christs washing Peters feet because Peter understood â—oh 13. 7. it not Yt sufficeth that the Lord commandeth the thing to be done and that children be * taught the use thereof as they shal be capable Deu. 6. 20. Secondly concerning that difference you make between baptisme and circumcision afferming that by the former wee manifest what we have c. and by the other they learned what they had not It is not true that you say of the circumcised that they had not inward circumcision for God did promise it to them and their children Deut. 30. 6. as wel as to us And here let it be minded that you confesse that the Israelites ought to have had inward circumcision if they ought to have had it it was by their constitution or everlasting cov of God made with them For otherwise how ought they have had it then how wil you prove that their covenant was carnal which required inward circumcision the truth agrees with it self Argument 6. Math. 28. 19. If Christ gave a commandement for the publishing of his covenant and administration of baptisme the seal thereof to al nations then are the beleeving Gentiles and their infants to receive the same
Lactantius whom you also cyte are generall of yong old whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number but proves not your desire his words you set downe thus Candiduâ— egreditur nitidis exerâ—itus undis atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort Concerning Lodovicus Vives vpon August de Civit. Dei cap. 27. if â—dovicus â—ves floâ—â— anno â—4â— â—â—d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his â—â— as did â—â— Erasm he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him seing he is but a late writer I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth certainly froÌ„ that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name Lastly you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes to say That in Pauls time it was not received that infants should be baptised Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth and therefore being of so late time what is his witnes against so many fathers testifying the contrarie Thus in alledging of him and the rest you shew the weaknes of your cause that have not one auncient father directly to vvitnes with you but are driven to call them to vvitnes that in this thing vvere of contrary judgment to your selfe REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the coÌ„trarye the first of them is this 1. Reason Because there is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their faith were baptised Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. Answer 1. This reasoÌ„ being brought into form wil bewray the weaknes therof for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a speciall comandement or example in the practise of Iohn or Christs Disciples for the baptising of infants yet it may not withstaÌ„ding be lawfull to baptise them namely if by sound coÌ„sequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warraÌ„t froÌ„ the exaÌ„ple of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by Argument necessarily drawen from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expresâ—ly mentioned and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament though wee can not shew any playne precept or example yet may upon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead that the son is Homousius that is of the same substance with the father now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture And many such like 2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence because they are within the covenaÌ„t and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested I wil thirdly answer vnto it 3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants Commandement I say Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents the same lawe of sealing the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be changed except the lawemaker do repeal it or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof which must be shewed or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia her household Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers 33. both which seming to be great housholds it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist meÌ„tioÌ„ them not But the exceptioÌ„ is that only such as did coÌ„fesse their sins confesse their fayth were baptised CoÌ„cerning Iohn he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the waye of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confesse their sins he baptised but did Iohn refuse their children if they broughâ— them to him but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them no more say I is there that they were offered unto him There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised and yet it were too bold a part and no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptised All things that Iohn did nor that Christ did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof And therefore to gather an Argument from hence because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn therefore they ought not to be baptised is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country now in iourney homeward therefore not like that he should have his children with him specially in such a tedious iourney not knowing of this accident M. Smyth Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants to the first argument you say if it be brought into forme it wil bewray the weaknes of it wel I wil bring it into forme c. That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example Ergo. c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus That which hath precept and example must be practised Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ
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