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
that which is appointed to perdition to perdition let it goe I wil never vse meanes to support it Finally although I have professed my readines publiquely privately to forsake my errors vppon their discovery as I have already practised for the which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never professed my readines to bee perverted from the truth which you cal heresy therfore if you did vndertake to write vppon this ground you might wel have spared your paynes saved your self from so greevous a sinne as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth by blessing your labours in opugning at this breefly shal suffice for your preface general Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. That infants are not to bee Baptised Answere Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of Infants next after him Pelagius the heretike against whom Augustine others of the auncient Fathers have opposed condemned for heresy that according to the Scriptures which by Gods grace we shal together with them also fâ—rther manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vndertake then answere the reasons to the contrary Gen. 17.20 God made his covenant to Abraham to his seed from whence I reason thus 2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to bee sealed to him to al his seede yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therefor that is commaunded to be fealed to vs c to our seede yea even to our infants for so was that to Abrahams The Major can not be denyed see Gen. 17.10.11.12 The Minor is likewise as true for the Apostle speaking of this covenant Act. 2.39 sayth the promise is made to you to your children to al that are a farre of as many as the Lord our God shal cal In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant promisse that was made to Abraham which they that were a far of that is the Gentiles beleeving doe receive were baptised into And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations Gen. 17.4 also Gal. 3.13.4 Christ is said to redemne vs from the curse of the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Ies Chr. that wee might receive the promise of the Spirit see vers 8.9 Now then if wee bee partakers of the same covenant for otherwise Abrahams covenant should not be an everlasting covenant Gen. 17.7 seing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a tyme Rom. 11 15.17.20 it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs to our infants els is it not the same that by the commaundement of God For the abolishing of circumcision the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospel doth not abrogate or disanulle the commaundement of sealing the covenant to the beleeving parents with their infants which was once commaunded to Abraham but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seal thereof to them to their seede as that did to Abraham to his seede The outward ceremonie onely changed Iohn Smyth Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point affirming that baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius whom Augustine others refuted condemned for heresy that by Scripture I say that one heretique condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answere I can prove that Augustine Cyrill Ciprian Origen Nazianzen Ambrose many others were almost as grosse heretiques if he be an heretique that holdeth an heresy as Auxentius Pelagius you your selves account theÌ„ all Antichristians therfor the auncient practise of pedobaptistry in auncient antichristian Churches is no more to be respected then the auncient practise of the Prelacy read prayer in the fame but these are but Florishes let vs heare your arguments from the Scripture proving 1. That infants are to be baptised Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10 is framed thus That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to be sealed to him to al his seed yea even to infants But the covenant that we vnder the gospel do receave is the very same that was made to Abraham c. Therfor it is commaunded to be sealed to vs to our seed yea eveÌ„ to our infaÌ„ts for so was it to Abrahams To this argument I make answer thus first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments for a covenant testament is al one in the originals though the English words are two one covenant was made with Abraham his carnal seed of that covenant was circumcision a seale another covenant made with AbrahaÌ„ his Spiritual seed of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seale for the carnall covenant had a carnal seale vppon the carnal seed the Spiritual covenant had a Spiritual seale vppon the Spiritual seed For things must be made proportionable circumcision which was a carnal seale could not seale vp the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed for to say so is to leap over the hedg to make a disproportion betwixt the type the truth These things being thus distinguished let theÌ„ bee remembred applyed orderly the argument wil appeare of no value for the major is thus to be vnderstood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with AbrahaÌ„ his carnal seed was to be sealed vp to his infants with a carnal seale viz circumcision if it be not so vnderstood it is false Now the minor if it be assumed out of the major as it must be els it is a Sophisme is very false flatly contradictory to the Scripture for we vnder the gospel do not receave that carnal covenant which was made to Abraham his carnal seed whereof circumcision was the carnal seale but that carnal covenant seale together with the subject of that seale viz a male of 8. dayes old is taken away by Christs crosse in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant the Spiritual seale viz the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seale the Spiritual infant viz a new borne babe in Christ in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed signified by that carnal infant That al these particulars are so I prove vnto you plainly by these places of Scripture 1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham Gal.
4.24 For Agar that is the old Testament Sara that is the new Testament were both maryed to AbrahaÌ„ Abraham had them both 2. There are two seedes Ismaell of Abraham Hagar who typed the carnall seed borne after the Flesh Isaac of Abraham Sara who typed the Spiritual seed borne by promise vers 23. There are two seales Circumcision a seale of the carnal covenant vppon the carnal children Gen. 17.11 the Holy Spirit of promise a seale of the Spirituall covenant vppon the Spiritual seed 2. Cor. 1.22 Eph. 1.13 as circumcision was a seale from God to the carnal seed of the promise from the carnall seed to God in obedience So the Spirit of promise is a seale from God to the Spiritual seed of the promise from the Spiritual seed to the Lord in obedience Eph. 1.13 Ioh. 3.33 these things are evident but now you I am perswaded of mere ignorance mistaking the covenant doe make circumcision a seale of the everlasting Spiritual covenant which is an error therevppon you build all your false building of pedobaptistry which is as a howse built vppon the sand by the foolish builders Now for your places of Scripture I expound them in order Gen. 17.10.11.12 this place proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenant made with the carnall seed not a seale of the Spirituall covenant made with the Faithful For the Spirit is the seale thereof who is therfor called the Spirit of promise the seale Eph. 1.13 if the place of the Rom. 4.11 be objected to prove that circumcision sealed the righteousnes of Faith to Abraham I answer that is not the scope of the place but this viz that circumcision had one specialty in Abraham differing from al other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the Father of al the Faithful as coÌ„cerning the matter of their justificatioÌ„ namely that as he was justifyed by his actual Faith so should all the beleevers bee justifyed by their actuall Fayth whither they beleeved in their vncircumcision or in their circumcision Act. 2.39 the promise is offered to the impenitent Iewes to their posterity to the Gentils a far of it was exhibited only to so many as yeelded obedience to the Fayth whereas in rehearsing the Apostles speech you say the promise is made I say therein you ad to the text For if you intend that the promise of the Spirit was exhibited to al the Iewes their infants to the Gentils beleeving their infants that this place afordeth it I say the place doth not intend any such thing but only an offer of the Spiritual covenant to the carnal Iewes their children according to the Flesh also the Gentils but a true conferring or exhibiting of it to so many as should be effectually called by the offer of it in the preaching of the Gospel Further whereas you seem to assume that seing the covenant was made to Abraham his infants it is therfor made to vs our infants I deny that ever the covenant Spiritual was made that is conferred to al Abrahams infants according to the Flesh neyther therfor is it made that is conferred to al our infants this you should prove but it is vndone I confesse the promise was offered to all Abrahams carnall seed vnder that carnal covenant of the Old Testament so it is offered now to all our carnal children by the preaching of the gospel in the new Testament but as the Spiritual covenant was only exhibited to the Faithful the true seed of Abraham so is it now only exhibited to the Faithful which are the only true seed of Abraham who is the Father of vs al wee al his children justified by actual Faith as he was in respect whereof infants wanting actual Fayth cannot bee truely said the Children of Abraham but are that they are in secreat to the Lord whatsoever they are Thus much for the Scriptures by you alledged in your first argument From that which I have answered I reason against pedobaptistry thus 1. As it was with Abraham the Father of the Faithful so must it be with the Children of Abraham Rom. 4.11 But Abraham the Father of the Faithful first beleeved actually being sealed with the Spirit of promise afterward receaved the signe of circumcision Ergo The Children of Abraham the beleeving Gentils must first beleeve actually be sealed with the Spirit of promise then receave the baptisme of water 2. As in the Old Testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised so admitted into that Church of the Old Testament So in the New Testament the spiritual children must be Spiritually circumcised that is in hart then be admitted by baptisme into the Church of the New Testament But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 3. As in the Old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents then were carnally circumcised receaved into the carnal covenant So in the new Testament Spiritual infaÌ„ts new borne babes in Christ must be Spiritually begotten borne by the immortal seed of regeneration by the Spiritual parents then being Spiritually circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be receaved into the New Testame But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in the truth 4. If the carnal infants in the Old Testament were circumcised then the carnal infants in the New Testament must not be baptized bicause that as circumcision is abolished which was the signe or seale so the infant is abolished which is the subject of that signe or seale a proportionable infant introduced which is one regenerate by the Spirit the word But the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the New Testament to be baptised 5. As in the Old Testament when the male appeared the 8. day ther was a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne when the party was receaved into the covenant actually So in the new Testament when the Lord Ies Ch. typed by the male appeareth when ther is a painful circumcising mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of the hart the party so qualified shal be by baptisme receaved into the new Testament actually But the first was signified by type Ergo the second is verified in truth And this shal suffice for answer to your first argument Mr. Rich. Clifton Col. 2.11.12 If circumcision belonged to Faithful Abraham his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to al beleevers to their feede being infants But the first is â—â—ue Gen. 17.10 Ergo the second The consequent wil â—â—llow seing baptisme cometh in place of circumcision seaâ—ling vp vnto vs â—â— ouâ— seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham to his seede Coll.
actually beleeving actually justified by the righteousnes of Fayth as Abraham the Father of al the Faithful was Roman 4.11 whence this Argument may bee framed Abraham is the Father of al them that actually beleeve Infants do not actually beleeve Ergo Abraham is not the Father of infants so infants are not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe Abrahams covenant was only to Abrahams one seed that is only to the beleevers Infants are not actuall beleevers Ergo Abrahams covenant is not to infants so infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Againe They that are the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham Infants cannot do the workes of Abraham Ergo infants are not the children of Abraham so not vnder the covenant of Abraham Againe I reason thus They that are not vnder the everlasting covenant made with Abraham shal not be baptized Infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham Ergo infants are not to be baptized These many other such Arguments may be colected out of the answer to this fourth Argument of yours but these shal suffice Mr. Rich. Clifton 1. Corinth 10.1.2 If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea as well as their parents what letteth the infants of beleeving parents vnder the gospel to bee likewise partakers of baptisma aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmes 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therefore good warrant must bee shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes Children had And if the former Baptisme of the Iewes was a Type of our Baptisme then must there bee an agreement betweene the Type the thing Typed which is not if our Children bee not baptized as well as theirs The depriving of our Children of the Sacrament is to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people of the New Testament that being denyed to their children which God gave to his people to their infants vnder the Law is to deny them in regard of their seed the like assurance comfort which the Israelites had of theirs And so to make our estate worse more vncomfortable then theirs was yet the Prophets prophecyed of the grace that should come to vs did inquire seach after the same 1 Pet. 1.10 Glad tydings were preached to Abraham his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3.8 And this before Christ came in the Flesh therefore much more he being come is joyful trydings brought vnto vs our infants so are we to beleve that the grace of God is not lessened either towards vs or our children but inlarged by his comming Iohn Smyth Your 5. argument is taken from 1. Cor. 10.1.2 framed thus If the infāts of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud in the sea aswel as their parents what letteth the infants of beleving parents vnder the gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme aswel as they The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes children had that baptisme being a type of our baptisme To this argument I make answer by framing the like argument If their infants did eate the same Spiritual meate drink which the parents did eate then why may not our infants being able to eate drinck eate drinck the Lords Supper The former the Apostle affirmeth 1. Cor. 10.1.2 therfor good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from the priviledg those sacramēts were types of our Sacraments Againe I answer more properly thus That ther shal be a proportion betwixt the Type the truth that baptisme of the cloud sea our baptisme viz that as yong old carnal Israelites were baptized in the cloud sea so yong old Spiritual true Israelites shal be baptized by the baptisme of repētance as the carnal parents with their carnal children were baptized in type So Spiritual parents with their Spiritual children that is such as are regenerate by the word Spirit shall bee baptized with the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes which is baptisme in truth Further I say That our infants shal have a priviledg fair greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that typical baptisme For they by it were only baptized into Moses the Law That by it they might learne Moses in Moses the truth in Chr. as it were vnder a vele but our infants vnder the gospel shal have the dayly institution education of Faithful parents which is infinitely superior to that darke pedagogical baptisme al the baptismes ordinances of the old Testament Seing that with open face they may in the preaching of the gospel see Christ Iesus not vnder the vele of Moses Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud sea was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete that is the baptisme of the cloud did Type out our baptisme in the 3. parts therof viz. 1. The baptisme of the Spirit 2. The declaration of Faith repentance the antecedent of baptisme with water 3. The outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulars all these to bee conferred vppon infants proportionable to those infants that is New borne babes in Christ And whereas you further alledg that if your infants bee not baptized the Lords bounty is shortned to vs our infants our confort is diminished in respect of our infants which they had in respect of theirs the gospel is not preached to our infants as it was to theirs I answer that Gods bounty our confort in respect of our infants the preaching of the glad tydings of the gospel is as large ample every way to our infants as to theirs For Gods bounty of the actual exhibiting and fealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham al his carnall infants was never extant in the Old Testament Neither were the parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it vppon their infants circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached now to infants but what could the preaching of Christ profit infants either then in types or now in truth Neyther doe I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infant any thing at that instant but afterward hee was to learne that which the Schoolemr circumcision vppon his Flesh taught him viz the circumcision of the hart if you say that so infants baptized are to be instructed I answer that in the New Testament by baptisme wee manifest what wee have namely the inward baptisme whereas in the Old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have viz The inward circumcision of the hart mortification of the sinnefull Flesh. Mr. Rich. Clifton Mat. 28.19 If
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