4.24 For Agar that is the old Testament Sara that is the new Testament were both maryed to AbrahaÌ„ Abraham had them both 2. There are two seedes Ismaell of Abraham Hagar who typed the carnall seed borne after the Flesh Isaac of Abraham Sara who typed the Spiritual seed borne by promise vers 23. There are two seales Circumcision a seale of the carnal covenant vppon the carnal children Gen. 17.11 the Holy Spirit of promise a seale of the Spirituall covenant vppon the Spiritual seed 2. Cor. 1.22 Eph. 1.13 as circumcision was a seale from God to the carnal seed of the promise from the carnall seed to God in obedience So the Spirit of promise is a seale from God to the Spiritual seed of the promise from the Spiritual seed to the Lord in obedience Eph. 1.13 Ioh. 3.33 these things are evident but now you I am perswaded of mere ignorance mistaking the covenant doe make circumcision a seale of the everlasting Spiritual covenant which is an error therevppon you build all your false building of pedobaptistry which is as a howse built vppon the sand by the foolish builders Now for your places of Scripture I expound them in order Gen. 17.10.11.12 this place proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenant made with the carnall seed not a seale of the Spirituall covenant made with the Faithful For the Spirit is the seale thereof who is therfor called the Spirit of promise the seale Eph. 1.13 if the place of the Rom. 4.11 be objected to prove that circumcision sealed the righteousnes of Faith to Abraham I answer that is not the scope of the place but this viz that circumcision had one specialty in Abraham differing from al other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the Father of al the Faithful as coÌ„cerning the matter of their justificatioÌ„ namely that as he was justifyed by his actual Faith so should all the beleevers bee justifyed by their actuall Fayth whither they beleeved in their vncircumcision or in their circumcision Act. 2.39 the promise is offered to the impenitent Iewes to their posterity to the Gentils a far of it was exhibited only to so many as yeelded obedience to the Fayth whereas in rehearsing the Apostles speech you say the promise is made I say therein you ad to the text For if you intend that the promise of the Spirit was exhibited to al the Iewes their infants to the Gentils beleeving their infants that this place afordeth it I say the place doth not intend any such thing but only an offer of the Spiritual covenant to the carnal Iewes their children according to the Flesh also the Gentils but a true conferring or exhibiting of it to so many as should be effectually called by the offer of it in the preaching of the Gospel Further whereas you seem to assume that seing the covenant was made to Abraham his infants it is therfor made to vs our infants I deny that ever the covenant Spiritual was made that is conferred to al Abrahams infants according to the Flesh neyther therfor is it made that is conferred to al our infants this you should prove but it is vndone I confesse the promise was offered to all Abrahams carnall seed vnder that carnal covenant of the Old Testament so it is offered now to all our carnal children by the preaching of the gospel in the new Testament but as the Spiritual covenant was only exhibited to the Faithful the true seed of Abraham so is it now only exhibited to the Faithful which are the only true seed of Abraham who is the Father of vs al wee al his children justified by actual Faith as he was in respect whereof infants wanting actual Fayth cannot bee truely said the Children of Abraham but are that they are in secreat to the Lord whatsoever they are Thus much for the Scriptures by you alledged in your first argument From that which I have answered I reason against pedobaptistry thus 1. As it was with Abraham the Father of the Faithful so must it be with the Children of Abraham Rom. 4.11 But Abraham the Father of the Faithful first beleeved actually being sealed with the Spirit of promise afterward receaved the signe of circumcision Ergo The Children of Abraham the beleeving Gentils must first beleeve actually be sealed with the Spirit of promise then receave the baptisme of water 2. As in the Old Testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised so admitted into that Church of the Old Testament So in the New Testament the spiritual children must be Spiritually circumcised that is in hart then be admitted by baptisme into the Church of the New Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 3. As in the Old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents then were carnally circumcised receaved into the carnal covenant So in the new Testament Spiritual infaÌ„ts new borne babes in Christ must be Spiritually begotten borne by the immortal seed of regeneration by the Spiritual parents then being Spiritually circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be receaved into the New Testame But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 4. If the carnal infants in the Old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the New Testament must not be baptized bicause that as circumcision is abolished which was the signe or seale so the infant is abolished which is the subject of that signe or seale a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the Spirit the word But the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the New Testament to be baptised 5. As in the Old Testament when the male appeared the 8. day ther was a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne when the party was receaved into the covenant actually So in the new Testament when the Lord Ies Ch. typed by the male appeareth when ther is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of the hart the party so qualified shal be by baptisme receaved into the new Testament actually But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in truth And this shal suffice for answer to your first argument Mr. Rich. Clifton Col. 2.11.12 If circumcision belonged to Faithful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to al beleevers to their feede being infants But the first is â—â—ue Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The consequent wil â—â—llow seing baptisme cometh in place of circumcision seaâ—ling vp vnto vs â—â— ouâ— seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham to his seede Coll.
2.11.12 that in as large ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelits for of them only were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coming of Ie. Chr. should be more restrayned â—hen it was vnder the law who came to ratify confirme that wholly as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham his infants if Christ should give it vnto vs onely not to our infants this were to lessen infringe the covenant not to conâ—â—â—â— all but to take away part of that which God before had given Iohn Smyth Your second argument followeth from Coll. 2.11.12 which is framed thus If circumcision belonged to Faythful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also aperteyne to all beleevers to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The reason of the consequent is double 1. for that baptisme cometh in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed Col. 2.11.12 2. For that the covenant must be as largely sealed vp to vs as to theÌ„ therfor to our females as wel as males infants as wel as persons of yeeres For the covenant in Christ is not lessened but of as larg extent now as then 2. Cor. 1.20 Seing in Christ all the promises of God are yea amen I answer that this argument is built vppon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant seale seed their is manifest violence committed vppon the Scripture by perverting wresting it to false consequents first therfor I deny the consequence I give reasons of my deniall 1. Bicause circumcision did not aperteyne to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant of life Salvation but of the external temporary covenant of the land of Canaan of obedience to the Law of Moses therfor though circumcision aperteyned to Abraham his carnal infants as a seale of the external covenant yet it doth not follow that baptisme belongs to the Faythful their carnal infants as a seale of the Spiritual covenant of the New Testament made in respect of Christ 2. Secondly bicause the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the New Testament bicause Abraham is the Father of all the Faythfull but no man though never so Holy hath that perrogative to bee the Father of the Faythfull Therefore Abraham receaveth the Faythfull into his bosome Luk. â—6 23 3. Thirdly bicause the infants of the faithful do not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham the Father of the Faithful but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the Fleshe therfor the disproportion being in al these particulars the consequence of the argument is weake insufficient But if you wil make true consequents you must reason froÌ„ the type to the truth proportionably not from the type to the type as this argument importeth neyther must you confound the covenants seales as you do but must make al things distinct proportionable the one to the other as thus Abraham the Father of the carnal infants Abraham the Father of the Faithful Carnal Abraham his carnal seed carnally circumcised So Faithful Abraham his Faithful Children Spiritually circumcised The carnal infants of the old Testament carnally circumcised The Spiritual infaÌ„ts of the new Testament that is men regenerate baptized Thus you se the disproportion of your argument the true proportion that you ought to have made if your argument had been good But let vs see the reasons of your consequence the Scriptures you do produce for the confirmation of them you say that baptisme cometh in the â—ome of circuÌ„cision as a seale of the same promises to vs our seed I vtterly deny it I prove the contrary vnto you Seing that the circumcisioÌ„ of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh RoÌ„ 2.29 circumcision made without hands cometh in the place of circumcision made with hands Col. 2.11 compared with Eph. 2.11 circumcision the seale of the flesh hath the H. Spirit of promise which is the Spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Eph. 1.13.14 which seale of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance as circuÌ„cision of the flesh was an earnest of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the carnal Israelites I desire to be enformed in al the Scriptures where baptisme is called a seale for I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new Testament though I cannot deny that the baptisme of the holy ghost is the seale I say therfor that the seale of the Spirit must go befor the baptisme of water as al the ordinances of the new Testament are Spiritual yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament Spiritual yet visible thervppon men being visibly sealed with the Spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10.47 may challendg the baptisme with water as Peter there teacheth this visible seale of the new Testament is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confessioÌ„ baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale You see therfor that baptisme is not the seale of the new Testament that circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnal seed now the place of Col. 2.11.12 which you produce to prove that baptisme cometh in the rome of circumcision is not so to be construed but the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Chr. circumcisioÌ„ baptisme which is mortifying burying of sinne resurection from sinne the Apost doth not intend to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth for circumcision but hee teacheth the vertue of Ch. circumcision baptisme in the Faithful so that seing circumcision was a seale of the promises of the old Testament to the carnal seed that the Spirit is the seale of the promises of the new Testament to the faithful seed of AbrahaÌ„ therfor neither doth baptisme of water succeed circumcision neither doth baptisme with water seale vp any promises to the Faithfull but onely doth visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of viz of the Spirit of promise Againe in your second reason you would infinuate a restraynt in the new Testament 1. baptisme be not due to infants seing circumcision was due to infants in the Old Testament I answer many wayes 1. Seing that baptisme doth not succeede circumcision this alegation is nothing to the purpose 2. Seing baptisme is both to male female it is larger then circumcision which was only vppon the male 3. seing that baptisme is both to Iew Gentil therfor
that which is appointed to perdition to perdition let it goe I wil never vse meanes to support it Finally although I have professed my readines publiquely privately to forsake my errors vppon their discovery as I have already practised for the which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never professed my readines to bee perverted from the truth which you cal heresy therfore if you did vndertake to write vppon this ground you might wel have spared your paynes saved your self from so greevous a sinne as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth by blessing your labours in opugning at this breefly shal suffice for your preface general Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. That infants are not to bee Baptised Answere Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of Infants next after him Pelagius the heretike against whom Augustine others of the auncient Fathers have opposed condemned for heresy that according to the Scriptures which by Gods grace we shal together with them also fâ—rther manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vndertake then answere the reasons to the contrary Gen. 17.20 God made his covenant to Abraham to his seed from whence I reason thus 2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to bee sealed to him to al his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therefor that is commaunded to be fealed to vs c to our seede yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrahams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17.10.11.12 The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2.39 sayth the promise is made to you to your children to al that are a farre of as many as the Lord our God shal cal In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant promisse that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive were baptised into And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17.4 also Gal. 3.13.4 Christ is said to redemne vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ies Chr. that wee might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8.9 Now then if wee bee partakers of the same covenant for otherwise Abrahams covenant should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.7 seing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a tyme Rom. 11 15.17.20 it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs to our infants els is it not the same that by the commaundement of God For the abolishing of circumcision the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospel doth not abrogate or disanulle the commaundement of sealing the covenant to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seal thereof to them to their seede as that did to Abraham to his seede The outward ceremonie onely changed Iohn Smyth Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point affirming that baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius whom Augustine others refuted condemned for heresy that by Scripture I say that one heretique condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answere I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Ciprian Origen Nazianzen Ambrose many others were almost as grosse heretiques if he be an heretique that holdeth an heresy as Auxentius Pelagius you your selves account theÌ„ all Antichristians therfor the auncient practise of pedobaptistry in auncient antichristian Churches is no more to be respected then the auncient practise of the Prelacy read prayer in the fame but these are but Florishes let vs heare your arguments from the Scripture proving 1. That infants are to be baptised Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10 is framed thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him to al his seed yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel do receave is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfor it is commaunded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea eveÌ„ to our infaÌ„ts for so was it to Abrahams To this argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments for a covenant testament is al one in the originals though the English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham his carnal seed of that covenant was circumcision a seale another covenant made with AbrahaÌ„ his Spiritual seed of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seale for the carnall covenant had a carnal seale vppon the carnal seed the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seale vppon the Spiritual seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnal seale could not seale vp the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed for to say so is to leap over the hedg to make a disproportion betwixt the type the truth These things being thus distinguished let theÌ„ bee remembred applyed orderly the argument wil appeare of no value for the major is thus to be vnderstood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with AbrahaÌ„ his carnal seed was to be sealed vp to his infants with a carnal seale viz circumcision if it be not so vnderstood it is false Now the minor if it be assumed out of the major as it must be els it is a Sophisme is very false flatly contradictory to the Scripture for we vnder the gospel do not receave that carnal covenant which was made to Abraham his carnal seed whereof circumcision was the carnal seale but that carnal covenant seale together with the subject of that seale viz a male of 8. dayes old is taken away by Christs crosse in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant the Spiritual seale viz the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seale the Spiritual infant viz a new borne babe in Christ in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed signified by that carnal infant That al these particulars are so I prove vnto you plainly by these places of Scripture 1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham Gal.
justification seing they cannot have actuall Fayth Therfor you cannot declare that they are actually vnder the covenant by actuall Faith holines so if they bee not actually vnder it but vnder the offer of it onely that is it which wee affirme which wil help you nothing to baptisme of infants Secondly I desire that you would prove vnto me by Scripture that in this place 1. Cor. 7.14 Holines signifieth true sanctification or to be actually vnder the covevenant having it really invested vppon them You endevour to declare it out of the text For you say Paul answereth an objection viz that the faithful are defiled with the Society of the vnfaithful proveth that the Faithful husband may vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wise with a good conscience by an argument drawne from the effects namely bicause their Children are holy vnder the covenant God having said to the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Wel let vs see the force of your reason your fourth argument was this If infants be holy then are they vnder the covenant Infants are holy Ergo infants are vnder the covenant Your proof that infants are holy is this If infants be vnder the covenant then infants are holy Infants are vnder the covenant Ergo infants are holy I ask you Sir in good sooth is this circular reasoning sound you say infants are Holy bicause they are vnder the covenant you say they are vnder the covenant bicause they are holy Let al men judg whither you have proved infants Holy or not Thirdly I answer that Holy doth not so signify as you expound neither is the argument taken from the effects but from the greater to the lesse after this manner If your children in your owne judgment be holy you do not put them away when you are converted to the faith but vse thē stil as your Children to al those vses wherto children are apointed the relation natural of Father sonne remayning though you beleve then much more the relation of mā wife remayneth you may vse your wives they being of a neerer natural bond then your children But the first is true by your owne confession by the light of nature Ergo the second is true by the light of nature much more And whereas you say that by this exposition an vnbeleving servant is in as good an estate as holy as children in respect of the covenant I confesse it to be so you that plead for pedobaptisme say so likewise seing that you wil have servants vnder the covenant by their Mrs. Faith but I would know whither the Apostle speaketh only of infants or of al Children generally if generally of al Children then all the Children of the Faithful are holy yea even those that are vnbeleevers then would I know how vnbeleeving children can be holy if not as the vnbeleving wife is holy that is to the vse of their parents in the relative dutyes of children parents If the Apostle speaketh only of infants then he speaketh not so generally as God speake to Abraham saying I wil be thy God the God of thy seed for in that speech you say al the seed is comprehended whither of yeeres or vnder yeeres yea servants pupils children by adoption c. So that expound it as you wil it cannot be vnderstood of holines in respect of the covenant as you pretend but you wil say they are to bee esteemed Holy vnder the covenant til they manifest the contrary I say that they must manifest that they are Holy before they can bee esteemed Holy that you cannot prove that assertion from the Scripture the people of the Iewes Abrahams carnall Children were Holy when they declared the contrary by their sinnes Exo. 19.6 compared with Exod. 32.9 33.3.5 so are the children of the Faithful holy though they be vnbeleevers as the wife is holy though an vnbeleever Finally you say God hath said to all the Faithful I wil be thy God the God of thy seed I deny it vtterly God said that only to Abtaham Genes 17.7 whither you expound it literally or Spiritually I avouch confidently against you al men that the meaning of it is not that God made his covenant with the faythfull man or the Faythful woman their infants begotten of their Bodyes but that literally the meaning is I will be God vnto thee Abraham thy seed according to the Flesh to give them the Land of Canaan so it is expounded Genes 17.8 Or Spiritually the meaning is I wil give vnto Abraham the Father of the Faithful al that are his Spiritual seed everlasting life which is the true Land of Canaan The latter which is the truth being signified by the former which is the type shew mee in all the Scriptures that God said to every Faithful man woman for you must prove it spoken of women aswel as men that he will be God vnto them their seed For I would fayne know why the covenant should passe vnto the infants of the Faithful it wil be said bicause of the Fathers Faith this is false doctryne For the Prophet teacheth that every man shal live by his owne faith that one mans faith cānot conveigh the covenāt of justificatiō to another neither can one mans sin cut of another from the covenant as this doctrine importeth but the soule that sinneth it shal dye Neither wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlasting covenant For berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance but a covenant that doth continue his proper tyme For gnolam signifieth any hidden tyme or any set tyme of any length as 50. yeeres the tyme of the jubile But let it be graunted that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ which yet I do not see proved what then shal it follow that bicause it was with Abraham the Faithfull whither Iewes or Gentils beleeving actually as Abraham the Father did Therfor it is made with the Faithful men who is the child of Abraham with his children begotten of his body which have not Abrahams actuall Faith so are not the children of Abraham I deny it vtterly For the Apostle saith the seed is but one to whome the promises were made viz Christ or the actual beleevers For Christ dwelleth in the harts of men by Faith onely Gal. 3.16 Eph. 3.17 But if it bee made with the Faithful who beleeve actualy which is one seed whither Iew or Gentil the infants of the Faithful carnally begotten of their body which is another seed for they are not begotten of the immortall seed of regeneration then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many that is directly contrary the Apostles wordes Gall 3.16 Therefore the one seed is persons
the cause of title to the seale but the particular expresse commaundement or wil of God so the insufficiency of your consequent appeareth which importeth that to bee vnder the covenant is reason sufficient to prove a partie to be intitled to the seale or signe of the covenant this excellent truth herby is manifested that if it should be granted that infants were actualy vnder the covenant yet it could not follow thervppon that therfor they should have the signe of seale of the covenaÌ„t which you say is baptisme except it could be proved by expresse commaundement otherwise for this argument you see proveth it not Hence therfor apeareth the weaknes of your argument viz that if infants were holy so vnder the covenant yet it doth not follow that therefor they shall have the signe or seale of the covenant which you say but we deny is baptisme But I passe vnto your assumption which you say is evideÌ„t 1. cor 7.14 but now are your children holy you affirme that infants of one of the parents Faithful are holy I except many things here first I desire that you expound vnto me what this holines is which the Ap. here mentioneth happily you wil say it is to be vnder the covenant then I demaund what it is to be vnder the covenant prehaps you wil say though this be to runne in a circle it is to be justified by imputation of Chr. righteosnes TheÌ„ I demaund which of these three viz. to be holy to be vnder the covenaÌ„t to have Ch. righteousnes imputed is first in nature happily you wil say First they are vnder the covenant Secondly they are justified by the imputed righteousnes of Chr. Thirdly they are sanctified or holy Then I proceed demaund when do infants come vnder the covenant when they are conceaved or when they are borne or when the pareÌ„ts are converted being already borne It wil be answered That these infants that are begotten of Faithful parents come vnder the covenant in their conception these infants that are already borne come vnder the covenant when their parents are regenerate hereby then it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children from the parents by generation by filial relation herevnto add that if it be true that some say that children vnder the government of the faithful also are vnder the covenant that the covenant is conveighed also by pupilship or adoption if bondslaves or servants being infants be vnder the covenant bicause of their beleving Mrs. then servitude is also a meanes or instrument of conveigning the covenant from Mr. to Servants this being propounded then as the truth you hold that plead for Pedebaptisme then you maintayne that â—â—g generation filial relation pupilship adoptioÌ„ servitude are meanes to bring infants vnder the covenant then they are meanes to bring infants vnder justification vnder sanctification So that it followeth that we must account al the infants of beleeving parents that are childreÌ„ by nature by adoption al infants of beleeving Mrs. that are borne in slavery or servitude to be justified Sanctified bicause the covenant is communicated vnto them by the foresaid relation Then I proceed demaund why may not all the infants borne vnder one King if his subjects bee all his Servants Vassals as they say bee by that relation brought vnder the covenant so be accounted justified sanctified For relation of a King a subject borne so is as neer as the relation of a Mr Servant or an adopted Child And then I demaund seing the relation of a maÌ„ a wife is neerer a great deale then any relation of adoption or set vitude why the wife shal not be vnder the covenant for the relation of mariage happily it will bee said the wife being of yeeres cannot bee admitted bicause of her vnbeleefeâ— I say that infants of parents Mrs. cannot bee admitted bicause of their want of Faith being vnder yeeres but it wil bee said that the covenant with Abraham was with him his seed only I say that it was made by your confession with him and his adopted infants with him his pupils being infants with him his Servants being infants therfor not only with him his seed seing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant those that are further of why shall not those that are neerer as his wife but you wil say bicause infants do not refuse the covenaÌ„t they may be admitted to baptisme though adopted childreÌ„ though pupils though Servants but wives refusing the covenant may not I further insist that as infants do not resist so they do not consent that al the Children Servants Wives that do not resist may bee admitted though they cannot make declaration of their Fayth repentance if you say not so bicause that in them that are of yeers Faith repentance is required but of infants no such thing is required I answer first shew that by Scripture then I say ther is no reason why Faith repentance should bee required of one to make him capable of the covenant of justification Sanctification more then of another except you wil say that God is accepter of persons further the covenant is only with Abraham his seed not with his adopted Children not with his pupils not with his Servants therfor in theÌ„ Faith and repentance must necessarily be had so they cannot bee baptized til they shew their Faith repentance which is contrary to your doctryne besides you cannot shew in al the Scriptures that persons may be said to be partakers of the covenant actually except actually they fulfil the condition of the covenant if you say that infants being vnder the covenant justified sanctified therfor they have Fayth the graces of God in them I say that is contrary to the Scriptures which say that Faith commeth by hearing that the word is the immortal seed of regeneration wherby new borne babes vnder the gospel are regenerate if it be said that infants have a kind of Faith wrought in them invisibly after an hiddeÌ„ manner I say what God worketh invisibly secreatly we dispute not nor regard but what he worketh visibly to our knowledg by the meanes appointed for the communion of the Church For ther is but one Faith which is the common Faith of the members of the Church which is visibly seen by speaking confession according as it written I beleeved therfor I speake Tit. 1.4 if it be objected that then wee doe condemne al infants dying before they be converted I say No wee pronounce nothing of infants but leave the secreat of them to the Lord who hath reserved secreat things to himself Hence then I conclude that seing you cannot declare what this holines is which infants have seing they cannot have actuall holynes Seing you cannot declare that they have Faith or
belongs not the covenant but to â—ne it to them which plainly appeare to vs to bee without Therfore if no man dare take vpon him to say this or that infant is carnall without the covenant of grace it shal be no profanation of the SacrameÌ„t if it be administred vnto such seing we ought to hold the seed of the faithful holy 1. cor 7.14 If it be objected as some have done to me that al the seed of the faithful are carnal so to beheld vntil they beleeve make confession of their faith I answer first if they take carnal as it is opposed to the children of promise in Rom. 9.8 I vterly deny it for the children of the Flesh can never be the children of promise Rom. 9.8.13 These two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle as that the one can never be the other Secondly if by carnal they meane nothing els but that natural corruption wherein we are borne That hinders infants no more from baptisme then it doth those that can give an account of their faith seing natural corruption remaineth stil in the purest professor Rom. 7.23 if it be replyed that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that beleeve no more say I is it to infants els Christ dyed not for them neither could they be saved dying whilst they be yong Lastly if Abrah knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac Genes 17 19. yet circumcised Ismael vs 24. Isaac knowing that God had chosen his yonger sonne Gen. 25.23 with 27.33 yet circuÌ„cised Esau aswel as Iacob in so doing neither of them profaned the Sacrament much lesse is baptisme profaned when it is administred to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise Act. 2.39 And thus having shewed the weaknes of these 3. reasons against the baptising of infants let vs come to the second position which is this Iohn Smyth In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argum which Argum of myne may be framed into this forme The carnal seed is not to bee baptized For the covenant perteyneth not to them Infants are the carnal seed Rom. 9.8 Ergo infants are not to be baptized To this Argument you make Answer also in 4. particulars First you expound my meaning but I can expound myne owne words best therfor by the carnal seed I vnderstand al children borne by carnal generatioÌ„ whatsoever though they afterward do beleeve For they are carnal visibly to mee whosoever they bee that doe not shew their Fayth by their workes that doe not the workes of Abrah yea though they dye in their infancy are saved with the Lord For I must judg according to that which I see which is manifested I call them carnall as Paul calleth himself carnal Rom 7.14 the Corinthians carnal 1. Cor. 3.1.3 as in opposition to the Spiritual seed that one seed of Abrah vnto whome the promise was made Gal. 3.16 the Phrase is taken from Rom. 9.8 where the children of the Iewes are called the children of the Flesh Gal. â— 23 wher Ismael is said to bee borne after the Flesh Heb. 7.16 the commaundement is called carnal So children borne of their parents naturally are carnal such were al the Iewes infants who were after the manner of Ismael Gal. 4.23 Such are al our infants for our infants are in no better estate then the infants of the Iewes They were al borne according to the Flesh except Isaac who was in type burne after the Spirit Gal. 4.24.25.28 I say that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually fease vppon any infant of the Iewes in deed truth the place Act. 2.39 doth not prove that it did For that place is to be vnderstood of the offer of Christ the New Testament to all he carnal Iewes their children but of the real exhibiting â—t to al that are called only therefore I say that to baptise infants is to baptize the carnal seed for al infants are carnal being conceaved 〈◊〉 borne in since being the Children or wrath vntill the Lord work his work in them which when he doth I know not when I see it wrought in them by the fruites according as it is written sâ—ew mee thy Faith by thy workes then dare I pronounce them the Spirituall seed of Abrah for they that are of Faith are blessed with Faythfull Abraham Therefore I affirme that infants are not to bee esteemed actually vnder the possession of the new Testament which new Testament is visible in the visible ordinances the of why then they are damned you wil say God forbid doe you condemne al the men that are not of your Faith yet they are neerer condemnation in â—â—e judgment of the Scripture to you then infants for Chr. saith that he that beleveth 〈◊〉 speaking of them that heare the gospel do not beleve shal be condemâ—â—â— but the Scripture teacheth vs nothing concerning the final estate of infants except it bâ—â— the salâ—ation of them al This is my exposition Now according to your exposition I should intend that bicause it is not discerned which children are Spiritual seed which the carnal therefor both of them must be deprived of baptisme lest by giving baptisme which you falsely cal a seale I therin speak according to your opinion to al it should bee profaned by the carnall seed wel suppose that this were my meaning what then you except against this exposition two things one that the Spiritual seed should be injuried by denying baptisme to it for the carnal seeds sake 〈◊〉 I reply by giving baptisme to all indifferently wee should injury baptisme that is to bee administred only vppon them that confesse their Faith sinnes that are made Disciples by teaching another thing you except is that this reason should avayle against circumcision seing the mâ—â—es of 8. dayes could not be discerned to be the Spiritual seed I insist that it was not then needful that they should be discerned to be the Spiritual seed for that carnal seale of the carnal covenant it was enough for investing of them with that carnal typical seale that they were the carnal typical seed that they were male Israelites or Proselytes shew me in al the old Testament but especially in the institution of circumcision that the Lord required any thing of any person to be circumcised but to be a male but now in the new Testament we having the truths of those types it is plainly taught vnto vs first that Christ the male must bee in vs â— that theâ—r must bee circumcision of the hart mortification of the Flesh 3. wee must attayne to learne all that the Schoolm of the Old Testament could teach vs before wee can bee baptized for Iohn Chr. expresly require Faith repentance in them that are to be baptized I do infinitely wonder at you
by Iohn Christ particularly which must bee declared by confession therefore it was in vayne for them to offer their infants whom they knew Iohn Christ would not baptise but excluded from baptisme by their doctryne Againe wheras you say ther is no mention made that Christs Disciples were baptized yet it were boldnes to affirme they were not baptized so al Christs Iohns actions are not written but only the summe therfor though it be not mentioned that infants were baptized yet in the summe it may be collected they were I answere for the Disciples of Christ it is plaine they were baptized Ioh. 4.1 Ioh. 1.35.40 for the summing particularizing of al Iohn Baptists or Christs actions I say it was not needfull to set downe the particulars but the kinds if ther had been any commaundement or example of baptizing any one infant it had been sufficient though it had not been mentioned how many particular infants but as it fel out in circumcision that one particular precept was sufficient though it were not written how many thowsand were circumcised so likewise of baptisme Finaly for that you say of the Evnuch though I intend it not as you answere iâ— me thinks that some mention should bee made of Philip to the Evnuch or of the Evnuch to Philip his infants or children being at home far of concerning infants or at least of some other that had infants or did baptisâ— persons that had infants that after this manner What have you any infants Let them bee brought to baptisme aswel as your selvs For they have title to it through your Faith or thus I have infants I pray you let them be baptized aswel as my self or thus do you repent you shal be baptized your infants but the deep silence of infants baptisme yea the exclusive condition of beleeving repenting necessary to the Kingdom of God yea the confession of sinnes confession of Faith performed by persons baptized yea Christs commaundement of making Disciples before baptisme all these many mo are strong profes vnanswerable against baptisme of infants Mr Rich. Clifton The next reason is this 2 Bicause Christ commaunded to make Disciples by teaching them then to baptise them Matth. 28.19 Iohn 4.1 But infants can not by Doctryne become Christs Disciples And so can not by the rule of Christ bee baptized Answere 1. The Apostles were indeed commaunded to make Disciples to cal vnto the Faith fellowship of the Gospel not onely the Iewes but the Gentils through out the world Mat. 28 19. gave them power to preach the Gospel which before had been preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 to baptise al that did receive it thus we graunt that faith must go before baptisme in al such as are to be made Disciples brought into the covenant of God So went Faith before circumcision Abraham first beleeved after was circumcised likewise must al they which with AbrahaÌ„ enter into Gods covenant first beleeve then be baptized as the Evnuch Act. 8.37 Lydia Act. 16.13 the Keper of the prison Act. 16.33 But when such have received the Faith then are their infants howshold capable also of baptisme as Abrahams Family was of circumcision he beleeving the promises Gen. 17. therfor it is written that when God opened the hart of Lydia that she did atend to the VVord that Paul preached beleeved not only the her selfe but al her howshold were baptized yet is ther no mention of the Faith of any of them save of Lydias onely so the Kep beleeving al his received baptisme this is proportionable to the example of Abraham whose Faith we find sufficient to interest al his seed in the covenant make them capable of the seale 2. Secondly Christ taketh the same course in giving out this commission to his Disciples Mat. 28.19 in bringing the Gentils into Gods covenant that the L. tooke with Abraham for making his covenant with him that he should be the Father of many nations c. He did not first commaund him to be circumcised but preached to him the gospel or covenant Gen. 17 1-8 he beleevâ—ng was circumcised his howshold So here is a commaundement first for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ then for baptising such as beleeved with theire Familyes for that is included in this Commaundement els had not the Apostle baptized the Familyes of Lydia of the Kep as before hath been noted 1. Thirdly if children shal be excluded from baptisme bicause they cannot be made Disciples by teaching so beleeve then by as good reason may they be excluded from salvation for he that saith he that beleeveth is baptized shal be saved saith also he that beleeveth not shal be damned Mar. 16.16 if therfor want of faith be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme then likewise the want of Fayth is sufficient to exclude them from Salvation for if the former be held to be the meaning of Christ then must the latter also bee graunted a thought whereof is to bee abhord Lastly general rules must bee taken with theire sence meaning It is a generall rule given by the Apostle 2. Thess 3.19 That if any would not worke hee shousd not eate yet if any should gather from hence that the impotent infants should not eate bicause they doe not worke this were to offer violence to wrest the Apostles doctryne So Christ giving a general rule for the making of Disciples baptising them now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme bicause they cannot receive instruction which is intended onely of them that bee capable thereof vnconverted is to diminishe the commaundement of Christ even like as hee that should say infants cannot beleeve therfor cannot be saved Againe that can never be the true meaning of a Scripture wheÌ„ it is expounded so as it contradicteth other Scriptures or any sound conclusion gathered out of the Scriptures as this exposition of the Anabaptists vppon this place of Mat. 28.19 doth as my formet reasons for the baptising of infants doe playnly manifest Iohn Smyth Next followeth your Answere to my second reason which reason of myne is framed thus They that cannot by Teaching bee made Christs Cisciples ought to be baptized Infants by teaching cannot be made Chr. Disciples Mat. 28.19 Ioh. 4.1 Ergo infants ought not to be baptized Your answer to this argument of myne consisteth in 4. particulars First you say that as Abraham first beleeved then was circumcised then al his houshold receaved circumcision with him So al the beleving gentils must first be baptized then through ther faith al ther howshold must bee baptized as in the example of Lydia the Gaylors family of whose faith ther is no mention made as neither of the faith of Abrahams family To this first particular of your answer
I say that you erre mistaking the Scriptures For Abrahams faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or paterne of justification circumcision in Abraham was not a seale of his justification or of the everlasting covenant God made with him in respect of Christ therby to establish him into Christ for he was in Christ sealed in Christ many yeres before by the seale of the Spirit but Abrahams justification in vncircumcision was a type of the justification of the Gentils who are vncircumcised Abrahams circumcision alter his justification sealed him vp to bee the Father of all the beleevers circumcised so circumcision had a triple vse in Abraham one generall two speciall particular the two speciall are these First circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to be a paterne to al the beleevers in vncircumcision that the beleeving gentils should be al justified by actual faith as he was Secondly circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to bee a paterne to al the beleevers in circumcision that the beleving Iewes should be al justified by actual faith as he was The general vse of Abrah circumcision was common with him to Ismael al the persons of his family al the carnal Israelites viz to seale him vp to the old Testament to the observation of the whole Law wherby Chr. in that vele of the old Testament was preached vnto the Iewes it being ther Schoolmr to teach them Christ Now for the place Rom. 4.11 which I am assured you wil ground your assertiō vppon I say it is both falsely translated expounded for tes en te acrobustia is vsually translated which Abrah had when he was vncircumcized this I say is a false translation For this is the true translation viz which is or was or shal be in the vncircumcision meaning that circumcision vppon Abrah the Father of al the beleving Gentils was a seale of justification to al the vncircumcision that beleeve the end of his circumcision is his Fatherhood of the Faithful the righteousnes of faith is not sealed vp to Abrah particular person but to the vncircumcised that beleve that which was sealed vp in special to Abrah was his Fatherhood or presidentship of justification So that circumcision in Abrah was to establish him the Father of the Faithful Gentils his circumcision doth teach the Gentils that if they wil partake Chr. they must by their actual faith apprehend Christs righteousnes as Abrah their Father did otherwise they cannot be justified so Pauls intent is plainly proved namely that al men must be justified by faith without the works of the law this do I confidently affirme to be the true translation exposition that the common acceptation translation of the place is the mother of this heresy of pedobapistry Againe al the persons of Abrah Family were not circumcised bicause of Abrah saith but the males al only the males were circumcised bicause of the special cōmaundement of God Gen. 17.10 the males being assumed as types for to teach thē figuratively the male Ch. circumcision of the hart by him the females were vncircumcised as they were also put out from being the matter of the burnt-offring for the males only were offered in burnt-offring to signifie that those that had not the male Chr. in them were not fit eyther to be members of the church of the new Testament or to be sacrificed vnto the L. Mal. 1.14 but if Ch. the male were in thē whither male or female in Chr. it was nothing they were accepted Gal. 3.28 Further you say that as it was with Abrah his family in circumcision so was it with Lydia the Gaylor their familyes in baptisme that is not so I shew the difference in divers particular 1. They of Abrahams Family were circuncised vppon particular precept in obedience of the Commaundement Genes 17.23 you cannot prove that the infants of Lydias the Gaylors family were baptized vpon particular precept but only you say it indevour to justifie it by the example of Abra. family but if Abra. family be an example then you must bring a particular precept as he had for baptising infants 2. They that were males only were circumcised but you wil have both males females baptized this is another difference 3. They that were circumcised of Abrah Family were al the males being of yeres though they were never so lewd wicked persons So were not al the persons of Lydias the Gaylors family but only the beleevers being of yeeres according to your opinion 4. As Faith did not intitle the female to circumcision as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision in Abrahams Family So faith did intitle the female to baptisme in the Family of the Gaylor Lydia infidelity in the male did exclude him from baptisme you see therfor that the proportion is not alike betwixt baptisme circumcision The second particular in your Answer to this Arg. is that the same order is kept in Chr. comission Mat. 18.19 in bringing the gentils into Gods covenant as was kept with Abtah he al his Family were brought in by circūcision after the gospel preached to him Genes 17 1-8 so Lydia the Gaylor were brought into the covenant with all ther Family were baptized after the Gospell preached to them I answer that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abrah the other of Lydia the Gaylor according to the commission of Chr. Mat. 28.19 First Abrah al his family by the Lords commaundement came vnder the covenant of the Old Testament actually the males only were circumcised but Chr. doth not commaund all persons of a Family in the New Testament to be baptized but only such as are made Disciples al them though they bee weomen as Lydia was Secondly The gospel was only preached to Abrah owne person by the L. but in the Gaylors case Paul preached the gospel to al that were in his howse Act. 16.32 so Chr. commaundeth to make them Disciples by preaching So were not Abrah Family who being first circumcised afterward were taught the Law being a School 〈◊〉 to teach Christ Thirdly the gospel was not preached to Abrah therby to prepare him to circumcision as if therby it should follow that circumcision was a seale of the Gospel or New Testament for it is not so as I have already manifested but Chr. in the new Testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every creature that is to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme 〈◊〉 so Paul did to the Gaylors Family this is another difference The third particular in your answer to this argument is ◠if infants be excluded from baptisme for want of