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.
of the Flesh Rom. 9.7 Gal. 4.23 are not actually vnder the possession of the everlasting New Testament therefore baptisme which you call the seale can not bee administred vppon them the place Act. 2.39 hath oâ— tymes receeved Answere Mr. Rich. Clifton The Second Position 1. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme Answere As the former position denyed the baptising of infants so doth this annihillate that baptisme which wee have received in the Apostate Church establisheth rebaptisation this also I wil shew to be an error by proving the contrary then answere the reasons herevnto annexed That the baptisme administred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is baptisme not to be reiterated thus I prove it If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented no more doth the Apostacy of our fore Elders so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented But the first is true 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21 els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierushalem have eaten the Passeover seing no vncircumcised might eate therof Ergo the second If it be objected that the Apostacy is not alike then let it be shewed that the Apostacy vnder Antichrist did make a nullity of baptisme not the Apostacy of Israell of circumcision For Israell played the harlot soo deepely that the Lord denyed her to bee his wise or him selfe to bee her Husband Hos 2.2 Iohn Smyth And thus having shewed the vanity of your answeres to my reasons against pedobaptiestery â— let vs come to your answer made to my second position which is this 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme The first thing that in your Answer you intend to prove is that the baptisme administred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is not to be reiterated And for this purpose you produce 6. Arguments Your first Argument is framed thus If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented no more doth the Apostacy of our forefathers so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented But the first is true 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21 Ergo the second I Answer that the Apostacy of Antichrist is deeper then the Apostacy of Israell for first Antichristians are not called Israelites but BabyloniaÌ„s Egyptians Sodomites Gentils in the Revelation wherby the holy Spirit of wisdom giveth vs to conceave that he doth account the Apostacy of Antichrist equal to Paganisme it self yea to the very worst kind of Paganisme Secondly I declare plainly the differences betwixt the Apostacy of Antichrist Israel in this that Israels Apostacy did not destroy the true constitution of the chur But Antichrists Apostacy did rase the true Apostolique constitution For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or Proselites circumcised Gen. â—7 10-14 Exod. 12.48.49 so long as they retayned circumcision in the Land of Canaan they retayned a true constitution though their Apostacy was never so great in the worship ministery Government as is to be seen Hos 4.6.8.12 therfor Abijah doth not chardg the Israelites with a false constitution but declareth vnto them their false Government 2 Chron. 13. vs 8. Their false ministery vs 9. Their false worship vs 8. declareth the true government ministery worship of Iudah But it is manifest that Antichrist hath not only set vp a false Government of Prelacy a false ministery of Preisthood a false worship of reading but also hath set vp a false constitution of the Church For whereas the true Apostolique constitution was of baptized Disciples that confessed their Faith then sinns he hath foysted in a false matter of the Church viz infants persons vnbaptized so a false forme for infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole oâ—â—â—d man or Pagan neitheâ— can they expresse any more repentance oâ— Faith then such persons doe seing the true forme of the Church is a covenant betwixt God the Faithful made in baptisme in which Christ is visibly put on that infants cannot receave the covenant which is only done by actual visible Faith nor cannot seale back vnto the Lord that hee is true Ioh. 3.33 as God sealeth vnto them his truth by his Spirit Eph. 1.13 For the covenant is this I wil be their God 2. Cor. 6.16 they shal be al taught of God Ioh. 6.45 shal al know God from the least vnto the greatest Heb. 8.11 the covenant is this I wil be their Father 2. Cor. 6 18. wee shal be his sonnes calling him Father by the Spirit wherby we are sealed Gal. 4.6 Hence it followeth that the Church of Antichrist being constituted of a false matter viz infants vncapable of baptisme of a false sonne viz infants vnable to enter into the New Testament by sealing back the covenant vnto the Lord consenting vnto the contract therefore they can have no title to Christ or any of his ordinances but are as pagans or Gentils in the Lords account Circumcision therfor in the Israelites Apostacy was true circumcision bicause it was performed vppon carnal Israelites or Proselytes the eigth day but baptisme in Popery is false baptisme so in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing being administred vppon infants a subject that God never appointed to baptisme a subject that is as vncapable of baptisme as an infidel a mad man a naturall foâ—le or any other subject that cannot confesse their Faith or sinnes or be made Disciples by destruction Thirdly I declare that Israel was the true Church of God or a member or part of the true Church of God though infinitely corrupt aswel as Iudah in the dayes of her Apostacy see Ezechiel 3. toto Ezech. 16. toto Ezech. 20 28-31 therfor if Iudah retayned true circumcision in her Apostacy when the L. calleth her a harlot Ezech. 16.35 the Apostacy of Iudah is worse in the L. account then that of Israel Ezech. 16 47-53 Surely the circumcision of Israel was also true Israel a true part of the Church as wel as Indah for the bil of divorce which some plead was given to Israel by Hosea Hos 2.2 I say that was after the passeover of Hezechiah which was in the first yeer of his raigne 2. Chron. 29.3.17 30.2 the bil of divorce was given the sixth yeer of his raigne 2. King 17.23 compared with 2. King 18.10 yet neverthelesse Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophesied of the bil of divorce to be given Hos 4.6.8.12 when the bil of divorce was given divers of Israel I doubt not kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme
retained circumcision came vp yeerly to Ierusalem even til the dayes of Iosiah 2. Chron. 35.18 compared with 2. Chron. 34 6.7.3-33 So that hereby it is most manifest that no manner of sinne made the Church of the old Testament a false Church so long as they retayned circumcision in the Land of Canaan yea if they retayned circumcision though in BabyloÌ„ wherevppoÌ„ I am perswaded that if the Papucy or England or the Greek Churches did only baptise men confessing their Faith their sinnes into Chr the Sonne of God or into the Trinity though they retayned their false ministery worship Government other ther abhominations yet the baptisme was true not to be repeated as their circumcision was good notwithstanding al their abhominations horrible Idolatryes fearful Apostacy in Israel Mr. Rich. Clifton Babylon in Chaldea which was a type of Spiritual Babylon Apoc. 18.2 though they did abuse profan the vessels of the L. Dan. 5.3 yet did not that make a nullity of them that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lor. but were brought vp with them of the captivity that came vp from Babel to Ierusalem Ezra 1.11 Even so although Spiritual Babylon have profaned the Holy things of God as baptisme the rest yet remaine they stil Gods ordinances to al them that come out of her Apoc. 18.4 returne to the celestial Ierusalem as these vessels of the howse of the L. need not to be new cast bicause of Babels polluting them no more is baptisme to be reiterated to the people of God bicause it passed thorow the polluted hands of the Papists If it bee objected that they that administred baptisme in Babylon were Idolaters had no calling therto I answere That they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters so standing in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods holy ordinances that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nullity therof the circumcising of Moses Sonne by his mother Zippora Exod. 4.25 doth plainly teach For as the Lord makes effectual his word to his people though comming vnto them by the hands of a false ministery so doth he baptisme to al that bee his though administred by them that have not a Lawful calling thervnto The sin of the minister makes not a nullity either of the word or Sacraments els thould the efficacy of the word Sacraments depend vpon him that administreth theÌ„ which is not so for both have their effect from the Lord. If againe it be objected that baptisme was not administred in the Apostate Chur. of Antichrist to a fit subject I answer that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receave baptisme as the infants of Israell in the dayes of Ieroboam Ahab were to receave circumcision Seing the covenant of Abraham after the comming of Christ belonged as properly to the Gentils Gal. 3.14 as before it did to the Israelites Iohn Smyth Your second argument followeth which is this in effect As the Babilonians abuse of the vessels of the L. howse did not make a nullity of them but they were vsed after the captivity Ezra 1.11 so the Antichristian abuse of baptisme cannot disanul it but it may bee retayned when men come to the Fayth it needeth not to be reiterated no more then the vessels of the howse of the Lord be new cast I answer many things First this arg is an excellent arg for the retayning of idoll Temples the worship government ministery of the ecclesiastical assemblies of England if it be said they were never apointed by God so sayâ— that baptisme of theirs was never apointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist Secondly I answer that the vessels of the Lords howse were his owne ordinaÌ„ces therfor need not to be new cast but the baptisme of Antichr is not the L. owne ordinance who never ordeyned it for you must distinguish them thus The vessels of the L. howse were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the L. apointement but the baptisme of the L. is a compound or concrete ordinance or action limited in certaine essential particulars not being a substance but an accident in definition now if Antic had retained the essential parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated no more then the vessels of the L house need to be new cast after the abuse of the Babilonians but seing baptisme in popery Antichristianisme is not the L. ordinance in the definition of it but Antich invention Therefor though the vessels of the L. howse may be retayned yet baptisme may not That baptisme is Antichr invention in the definition of it I manifest thus The matter of baptisme the forme of baptisme is invented by Antich go it is an invention of antichrist in the definition The matter of antichristian baptisme is a carnal infant The forme is washing one into the covenant that cannot consent to the covenant or baptising without a contract sealing the covenaÌ„ts on both parts for the L. doth not seale to the infant and the infant cannot seale to the Lord As I have manifested already in the answer to the former argum of yours Therefore the baptisme of antichr is in the definition of it the meer devise of antichr For the Scripture describeth true baptisme which is the Lords owne ordinance thus The matter must bee one that confesseth his Fayth his sinnes one that is regenerate borne againe The forme must bee a voluntary delivering vp of the party baptized into the Name of the Father Sonne Holy Spirit by washing with water Mat. 28.19 Mat. 3.6 Iohn â— 1 Act. 2.41 8.36.37 compared with Roman 6.17 Mat. 28. 20. 18.20 Gal. 3.27 Roman 6 2-6 VVherein ther must be a mutual consent of both persons contracting together that this is so the forme of baptisme retayned in popery yet teacheth plainly wher they say Credis Credo Abrenuntiâ—s abrenuntio which other persons speak for the infant that cannot speak therby declaring that ther must needs bee a mutual contract of both the parties contracting This ordinance of the L. therfor is abolished both in the matter forme an other straunge invention of man is in the rome therof substituted which is not the L. therfor a nullity as if the Babylonians should have framed a Temple altar arck or candlestick after their devise given them to the people of the Iewes they could not have retayned them vsed them to VVorship God withall So cannot true Christians retayne Antichristian baptisme which is devised in the definition of it Thirdly I answer that if the Antichristians had baptized persons confessing their sinnes their Faith into the name of the Sonne of God the Trinity it had then been true baptisme though in the hands of the Antichristians as the vessels of the L. howse in the
satisfaction of every indifferently mynded man that â—oveth sekeâ—â— the knowledg of the truth more then the defence justification of error yet seing many things are variably alledged concerning the covenants made with Abrah his feeds concerning Abrah Fatherhood concerning circumcision which is called a seâ—le of the righteousnes of Faith I have thought God to referre these particulars to moreful discourse intertained vpon occasion with another of the Mrs. of the sepâ—ration not doubting but very shortly through Gods goodnesse that treatise also shal be published wherin the reader shal find larger instraction satisfaction câ—ncerning the forsaid particulars of the covenants or Test other matters therto aperteyning In the meane tâ—me I desire the reader to make vse of this writing to reade without prejudice or pa tiality I doubt not but that through Gods mercy much light of truth shal shine in his â—art even by this present discourse for the seperation who are the stiâ—â—est most obsâ—inate adversaries of this truth of the â— I could wish as the Tyrant wished concerning the people oâ— Rome that al their heâ—ds were joyned into one al their strength comprised into one writing that with the sword of the Spirit it might bee smiten of at once that so we might have an end of this controversy that we might not be troubled charged with the writing printing of many books Howsoever it be wee professe our readinesse to imploy our time cost for the manifestation of the truth we desire the Sep. that they wil not in craftines withdraw from the combat as hitherto they have done in the mater of the translation wors the Presbitery but we require them in the feare of the L. that seing they have suffered so much for so much truth as they professe they would not now subtily being guilty in their consciences of their dishability to defend their errors draw back pretend excuses as they do but we require them nay we chardg them yea we challendg them to the defence of their errors Loe we protest against theÌ„ to be a false Chu falsely constituted in the bap of infants their owne vnbaptized estate we protest against them to have a false wors of reading books we protest against them to have a false govern◠〈…〉 protest against them to have a false Minist of Doctor Teachers Finally wee protest against them that seing their constitution in is false therfor ther is no one ordinance of the L. true among them These things wee have published of these things we require answer For we proclaime against them as they proclaime against their owne mother England That the Seperation the yongest the fayrest daughter of Rome is an harlot For as is the mother so is the daughter Now furthermore we desire the Sepera al men that they would not impute vnto vs vntruths condemne the innocent without cause For we disclayme the errors commonly but most slaunderously imputed vnto vs we are indeed traduced by the world as Atheists by denying the old Testament the Lords day as Trayters to Magistrates in denying Magistracy as Heretiques in denying the humanity of Christ Be it knowne therefore to al men first that we deny not the Scriptures of the Old Testament but with the Apo acknowledg them to bee inspired of God that wee have a sure worde of the Prophets wherevnto wee ought to atend as vnto a light shining in a dark place that whatsoever it written aforetyme is written for our instruction that wee through patience comfort of the Scriptures might have hope that wee ought as Christ counselleth to search the Scriptures of the Old Testament as the men of Berza did bicause that in them wee may find everlasting life that they do testifie of Christ This wee beleeve according to these Scriptures Iohn 5.39 Act. 17.11 Roman 15 4â— 2. Timoth. 3.16 2. Pet. 1.19 yet neverthelesse wee affirme all the ordinances of the Old Testament viz The Church Ministery VVorship Government of the Old Testament to bee abolished al which were Types shadowes of Gods things to come but the body is in Christ Col. 2.14.17.20 Secondly we acknowledg that according to the president of Ch. Disciples the primitive Churches the Saints ought vpon the first day of the weeke which is caled the Lords day Revel 1.10 to assemble together to pray prophecy praise God break bread and performe other parts of Spiritual Communion for the worship of God ther owne mutual edification the preservation of true Religion piety in the Church that we might be better enabled to the forsaid dutyes we ought to Seperate our selves from the labours of our callings which might hinder vs therto that according to these Scriptures Ioh. 20.19 Act. 2.1.41.42 20.7 1. Cor. 16.1 Thirdly concerning Magistrates we acknowledg them to be the ordinance of the L. that every soule ought to be subject vnto theÌ„ that they are the ministers of God for our wealth that we ought to be subject vnto them for conscience sake that they are the ministers of God to take vengeance on them that do evil that we ought to pray for theÌ„ that are in authority that we ought not to speake evil of theÌ„ that are in dignity nor to despise government but to pay tribute tol custome c. that acording to these Scriptures Rom. 13 1-7 1. Tim. 2.2 1. Pet. 2 13-15 2. Pet. 2.10 Iud. vs 8. but of Magistrates converted to the Faith admitted into the Chu by baptisme ther may many questions be made which to answer 〈…〉 can 〈◊〉 if we would when such things fal out the L. we doubt not will direct vs into the truth concerning that mater in the meane tyme we are assured acording to the Scrip. that the Kings of the Earth shal at the length bring their glory honor to the visible Church Revel 21 24. Finally concerning the Flesh of Chr. we do beleve that Chr is the seed of Abraâ— Isaac Iacob of David according to the Prophecyes of the Scriptures that he is the Sonne of Mary his Mother made of her substance the holy Ghost over shadowing her So have other children ther bodyly substance from their parents also that Chr. is one person in two distinct natures the Godhead manhood we detestg the coÌ„trary errors our grounds of Scripture are these Gen. 22.18 26.4 28.14 Psal 13.2.11 compared with Act. 2.30 Rom. 1.3.4 Heb. 1.8 10. 2.11.14.16 Breefly to conclude let the Seperation be advertized That wheras they do so confidently through their self love self conceipt fil ther mouths with heresy heretiques as if therby they would feare babes That herein they tread in the steps of all the Antichristians their predecessors do not the Papists cal the Protestants heretiques cal for fire fagot do not the Protestants proclaime the Seperation Schismatiques
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.
other when we want light as with the Iewes who deny the new Testament in other like occasions Besides the trinity of persons vnity of essence in the Godhead is proved by playne words 1. Iohn 5.7 hereby the Homoiousia of Arrius is confuted as also Phil. 2.6 for the word person it is Heb. 1.3 the word Godhead is Roman 1.20 So that hereby you gett nothing but I say still that whatsoever cannot bee playnly shewed in the New Testament is not needfull for vs to know in the New Testament if it bee an ordinance of the New Testament as baptisme is but the trinity vnity is no part of the New Testament more then of the Old Testament being common to both may be sought out of both so any other common truth Finally I say shew mee any necessary consequence for baptizing infants eyther out of the Old Testament or New Testament I yeeld but I desire it may wel bee observed first that you are driven to consequents for this matter therein simple witted people may easily bee mislead by a Logician Secondly that the Gospel of Christ is for babes Mat. 11.25 therefore the most simple person is capable of it so ther shal need no obscure consequents out of it for they are not able to comprehend them lastly that the consequents that are brought I avouch to be meer hallucinatious sophismes as I have already declared shal doe hereafter more fully as they shal be produced Your second answer exception is that if want of Special precept example barre infants from baptisme it shal also barre weomen from the Lords Supper I deny it for in playne termes it is said 1. Corinth 11.28 Let Anthropos viz eyther man or woman eate after examination Gal. 3.28 Ther is neither male nor female in Christ Iesus but al are one 1. Corinth 10.17 wee that aâ—e many are one bread one body being al pertakers of one bread 1. Corinth 12.13 whee have been al made to drink into one Spirit Dorcas is a Disciple Act 9.36 the Disciples meet together to break bread Act. 20.7 the Disciples continned in breaking bread Act. 2.41.42 being first 3000. then 5000. amongst whom ther was Sapphyra the VVidowes of the Grecians Act. 2.41 5.1 6.1 so this exception is nothing to the purpose Your third answer exception followeth wherein you doe affirme that there is both precept example for baptising infants the Commaundement is Mat 18.19 The example is of the infants of Lydra the Keper of the prison Act. 16.15.33 To these I have already given answer in the 6. 7. reasons going before therefore hold it needles to repeat it heer againe onely one thing is heer to bee answered that you object viz That the Law once given of sealing the infants aswel as parents must bee retayned except a repeale can bee shewed I answer besides that baptisme is not the seale of the New Testament but the Spirit that circumcision was not a seale of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ but of the Old Testament that when Princes common wealths make Lawes to endure but for a tyme when the tyme is expired then they are repealed if they be not reestablished So though it were graunted that infants of the Old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in respect of Chr. which I peremptorily deny yet seing the tyme of circumcision is exspired therfor infants are not now to be sealed as you say by baptisme for the exspiring of the tyme is the repealing of the Law therfor vntil you can shew that baptisme of infants male female is in the new Testament established I wil desend that they are not to be baptized especialy the female infants which were never appointed to be circumcised but I count these but slender exceptions In the last place you require proof that only persons that confessed their sinnes their faith were to be baptized I prove it vnto you thus 1. They only were to be baptized that Christ commaunded to be baptized Persons made Disciples by teaching were only commaunded to bee baptized by Christ Mat. 28.19 Ergo persons made Disciples by teaching were only to be baptized The minor of this argument is evident Mat. 28.10 wher this being the affirmative you shal make then Disciples by teaching them then baptise theÌ„ this must needes be the negative you shal not baptise them til you have made them Discipâ—es by teaching so persons taught were baptized they only 2. Againe considering that in every affirmative ther is included a negative therfor whersoever an example is that persons coÌ„fessing the r sinnes their faith were baptiâ—ed theâ— is signified that those that did not confesse their sins their Faith were 〈◊〉 baptized For wee must know that the body is one the Fayth is one the Spirit one the baptisme one the seed one that there is not two in Christ but one For in the new Testament they know God from the least vnto the greatest Heb. 8.11 they are al taugit of God Ioh. 6.45 the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater then Iohn Mat. 11.11 this do I take to be a plaine proof of the point which you desire You say further that the reason why Iohn baptized no children is for that they offered them not wel I say that his preaching was such as peremptorily excluded infants For it was the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes Marc. 1.4 he required confession of sinnes repentance of them that he baptized Mat. 3 6-11 compared with Luk. 7.29.30 otherwise he would not baptise them therfor Chr doctryne is the same with Iohns Mar. 1.15 both therby signified vnto their hearers that whosoever would be baptized enter into the Kingdome of God must repent beleeve the gospel For being not regenerate though they were Iewes begotten of Faithful parents yet they could not enter into the Kingdome of God Ioh. 3.3.5 heer it would bee considered vnto whome Christ Iohn Baptist preached did he not preach vnto the Iewes the Lords owne holy people yet he said repent beleeve required of them amendement of life Now if they had been truly regenerate in their comunion as is pleaded Iohn needed not thus have preached nor Christ have required such conditions of them but onely they might in few words have said come you Faithful beleeving Iewes you all your infants be baptized at once For baptisme is for circumcision but Iohn saith think not to say you have Abraham to your Father Christ saith you are of your Father the Devil Iohn saith the Lord wil purge his floore wherby it is evident that the Iewes were not Faithful in their communion that they perceaved plainly that seing repentance Faith were required