from a false Church except he also do separate from the baptisme of Engl. c. Wherevnto he may be answered that it wil not follow that they which separate from a Church standing in apostasie or sinne must separate from the baptism therein receaved or yet from any other of Gods ordinances there retayned We are commaunded to forsake the whordomes of Babylon Apoc. 18. 4. but not to seperate from any ordinance of Christ that is found therein save onely from the polutions thereof Yea Mr. Smyth cannot deny that a Church standing in Apostasy is to be separated from when the baptism therein received if it be of such as confesse their fayth and sins is still to be retayned for such baptism sayth he iâ— true Baptism though administred by Antichristians Character p. 51. 2. Those Israelits that separated from Ieroboams Church which stood in Apostasy went to IerusaleÌ„ 2. Cor. 30. 11. did not separate froÌ„ their circumcisioÌ„ therin receaved No more are we from our baptisme as afterward is proved As for his Reason That the baptism of England cannot be true and to be reteayned and the Church of England false and to be rejected c. It is but as if he should say the circumcision of Israell cannot be true and to be reteyned and the Church of Israell false and to be rejected I speake of Israell being in Apostacy And therefore thus I answere vnto it that baptism retayned in Rome and so in all Apostate Churches is baptism and is not to be repeated as in the latter part of this Treatise is proved And seing Mr. Smyth holdeth there Character â—ag 51. may be †true baptism in an Apostate Church if they confesse their fayth doth not he crosse himself here to say neyther can the Church of England possibly be false except the baptism be false Now if true baptism may be in an apostate Church as he affirmeth then a Church may be false that is apostate not baptism by his owne reasoning Yet this man chargeth vs with contradiction vz. to say England hath a false constitution Engl. hath a true baptism We hold baptism so to be true in an apostate church as circumcisioÌ„ was in the 〈…〉 ate Church of Israel otherwise we do not affirm Now concerning 〈…〉 ptising of infants Mr. Sm. thus proceedeth saying It seemeth to vs thâ— vnreasonable heresy of all Antichristianism for considering what baptism is An 〈◊〉 is no more capable of baptism then is any vnreasonable or insensible creature â—d then addeth 3. Reasons agaynst it 1. from his owne description baptism saying baptism is not the washing with water but it is the baptism of 〈…〉 it the confession of the mouth and washing with water c. These blasphemous speeches against the ordinance of Christ bewrayeth â—f what spirit this man is Gods ordinance is a most vnreasonable heresie with â—im yea the most vnreasonable of all Antichristianisme Thus iustifying all the â—dolatries of the Papists and their detestable heresies in comparison of baâ—tising of infants Besides his odious and blasphemous comparison afâ—rming Infants no more capable of baptisme then the vnreasonable and insensible 〈…〉 ures So that in his judgement a horse yea a block may aswell be â—aptised as the children of the Church whom the Lord of his free grace 〈…〉 ceiveth together with their parents to be his by an everlasting covenant Gen. 17. 7. and therefore are holy and capable of the blessing of Christ 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. Mark 10. 16. as hereafter is sufficiently 〈…〉 ved And therefore to compare these infants with vnreasonable and insensible creatures as touching the participation of Baptisme argueth the authour of such comparisons to be void of spiritual sense and reason and more to follow the corruption of his own hart in hatred against the truth then to mind what he affirmeth Concerning his description of Baptisme and those Scriptures which he quoteth for proof thereof see them answered hereafter pag. 94. where I have shewed 1. that the baptisme of the Spirit is no part of that outward Ceremonie of baptisme that is administred by man but is the inward work of the spirit in the elect of God 2. That the confession of faith of sinns is no part of the Sacrament of Baptisme seing the confession of sinns is so often to be repeated as we transgresse against the Lord likewise of faith as we have occasion administred vnto us And therefore baptisme which is given to be the seale of Gods covenant to his Church is the baptising of the faithful and their seed with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost Mat. 3. 11. with Mat. 28. 19. of this infants are capable neyther is their baptisme folly as Mr Smyth sayth but it wil prove his fully to make mans confession a part of the Sacrament which oftentymes â— hypocrical as it was in S. Magus to shut out of Gods covenant whoâ— the Lord hath accepted And it wil prove his folly to denye baptisme to infants because they caÌ„not performe such actions as in other respects are required of the elder sort that are to be baptised who also not having traÌ„sgressed in like manner therefore need not so to confesse And it wil prove his folly to deny that an infant can be baptised with the spirit for so to say is to deny that an infant can be saved But of these things hereafter His 2. Reason is taken from Iohns baptisme framed thus Iohns baptisme was the baptisme of repentance Infants have not Repentance and therefore can not have the baptisme of Repentance To this Argument I answer thus 1. That repentance is required of such as have actually transgressed not as the proper cause of baptisme but as a necessarie fruit of fayth condition of the Gospel required of them that being of yeares are to be received into the church whether before or since Christs coming But of the infants of the faythful whether of those that are newly received into the church or of beleevers borne in the church it is not so Ergo c. 2. Repentance was not required of the infants of the Iewes before they were circumcised no more is it to be required of our infants before baptisme these two Sacraments being the same in use 3. If Baptisme of repentance be understood onely of the tyme past not of the tyme to come then is that a false exposition of Iohns baptisme For as he taught that those that came to be baptised should repent so also his baptisme did preach a continual dying to sinne or practise of repentance al our life long Rom. 6. 4. And therefore though children cannot repent of actual sinne which they are not to do they having not committed the same yet is their baptisme the baptisme of repentance seeing it preacheth continual mortification repentance to the receivers thereof which is one true use of baptisme His third
not that onely they that beleeved were baptised but that they preached to al that were in his howse and waâ— baptised with al that were his Next you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants the former is this The Apostles practise is our instruction but the Apostle in baptising howsholds First Preached to all that were in the family and then they beleeving were baptised Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised This argument might have bene granted had not the conclusion contayned more then the former propositions viz. this word onely which ought to have bene placed in the one of them and if in the assumption then were it false to say that onely they that beleeved were baptised and â—o more the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before And it is to be further observed that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church Your other Argument is this That which the Apostles practised in one family they practised in all families that they baptised But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. c. This argument also may be granted and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants except your heretical collection which I deny And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this the rest of my argumeÌ„ts OF THE TESTIMONIE OF THE fathers concerning the baptising of infants HErevnto I will adioyne some testimonies of the fathers not to prove that children ought to be baptised which is to be done is by the scriptures already proved but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches Augustine as I find alledged writing to Ierome epist 28. sayth Cyprian not making any new decree but firmely observing the faith of the Church iudged with his fellow Bishops that as soone as one was borne he might lawfully be baptised See Cyprian epist to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists lib. 4. cap. 23. 24. sayth that the baptisme of infants was not derived from the authoritie of man neither of counsels but from the tradition or doctrine of the Apostles Ciril vpon Lev. Cha 8. approveth the baptisme of infants and condemneth the iteration of baptisme Origine vpon the Rom. sayth that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles Nazianzenus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum 3. sayth that baptisme agreeth to everie age to every condition of life to all men if thou hast an infant it is sanctified from his infancy yea from the finger ends it is consecrated After he sayth some man wil say what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne what shal we baptise those he answers yea verily Amb. lib. 2. de Abraham cha 11. Speaking of baptisme sayth neyther old man nor Proselyte nor infant is to be excepted because every age is guilty of sinne and therefore stands need of the Sacrament These many other of the fathers do beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the lawfulnes of the baptising of infants Mr. Smyth And for conclusion you produce the fathers I say that the producing of fathers who all of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies shall availe you nothing in your cause and you that deny the testimonie of fathers contrary to the Scriptures how can you with any colour produce fathers against vs in case contrary to the Scriptures c. R. Clifton I plead not for the errors of the fathers but for the truthes which they held according to the Scriptures And where you charge them to hold pleÌ„tie of antichristian heresies you tax them very deeply and you that so censure others had need to judge your selfe otherwise the Lord wil find out a sentence against you Also I desire you to shew where I produce the testimonie of the fathers contrary to the Scriptures you are growen to be very careles what you affirm For my producing of the fathers against you I do not recall that I have done seing theire testimonie is the truth who shew the practise of their times according to the Scriptures I know the device of your producing of fathers viz. 1. to set a glosse vpon your antichristian heresy of baptisiing infants 2. to draw the world into dislike of the Lords truth But if any should produce testimonies of the fathers against your separation against you in the case of Prelacy c. what would you answere would you not say they are testimonies of men living in corrupt tymes c. even so say I to you c. Here I charge you with blaspheming the ordinance of Christ in calling the baptising of infants antichristiaÌ„ heresy †Esay 5. wo to him that speaks evil of good 2 with sinne in saying it is my device to produce the fathers to set a glosse vpon my antichristian heresy c. for were it a falseshod that I defend as I know it is not yet know you that my soule is free from such wicked intention to produce the fathers in that behalf It is one thing to produce the testimony of the fathers witnessing the truth according to the scripture another for the defence of errors the latter we reiect you take vp but the former we approve and you condemne And although we are not to build our fayth vpon the fathers yet for matter of fact done in their tymes we may give credit to their report and so theire testimonie serves to prove something namely to shew the practise of their tymes to which end I did alledge them and that is not to confesse that they prove nothing as you charge me And say Remember that and let al men take notice that you produce testimonies that you say prove nothing And I pray you remember with what spirit you writ these words But why do you produce testimonies of the fathers forsooth to shew the practise of ancient Churches But all these Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession c. Yea Sir I do produce them to shew the practise of Auncient Churches whose testimonies is not so lightly reiected save of you and such like that condemne all Churches for antichristian except such heritical Synagoges as your owne is As concerning these ancient Churches in the first two hundred yeares after Christ albeit some devises of men crept in and as they grew elder so increased yet that they were Antichristian where have you my confession it is strange that you dare affirme such untruthes And for anticihrstiaÌ„ antiquitie vniversality I could wish you were as free froÌ„ Anabaptistical novelitie as I am froÌ„ approving of any error or superstito eythâ—â—oâ— the antiquitie or universalitie of it the truth we defeÌ„d needs no such Popish propps but yet antiquitie when the thing is found to be true that is ancient is not lightly to be regarded seing the truth is
as the Lord God should call meaning to the Gentiles which should beleeve and to their seed Therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed c. To this I haue answered that childrē of beleevers though carnal by nature yet are they spirituall in regard of the covenant and in this respect to hold them the children of Abraham though they can not shew forth the fruites of faith which are required of the elder sort Why then they are damned wil you say God forbid do you cendemne all the men that are not of our saith and yet they are neerer to condemnation in the iudgement of the scripture to you then infants for Christ sayth he that beleeveth not shal be condēned c. It is wel that you detest the condēnatiō of infants if they be not condēned then are they saved if they saved then are they under the covenāt of grace in Iesus Christ Towching others of yeres according as the scripture sheweth their estate to be unto vs so must we judge but secret things belong not unto us the salvation or condemnation of this or that particular person is a secret nay wee are not able certainely to determine thereof amongst such as be external members of the Church because many that haue not on their * Ma◠11-1◠mariage garment may thrust in with the guests the †Ma◠1. c. five foolish virgins had lampes as wel as the wise But this is not the question we reason concerning the dispensation of Gods covenant in respect of us which we affirme according to the “ Gen. 17◠Act. 2. 3◠scripture to be given to the children as wel as to the parents And you deny it and therefore by your opinion in respect of us no hope can in deed be had of the salvation of any infant nay the infants of Turks and infidels wil be in as good estate as the children of beleevers for if infants be without the covenant as you affirm if we wil speak according to the scripture we must hold thē * Eph. 2. ◠without Christ and alianes from the common wealth of Israel without hope and without God in the world and standing dying in this estate to be as Turks infidels dying in the state of condemnation But you not able to shift of this Arg. loth to confesse the truth do say that the Scripture teacheth nothing concerning their final estate except it be the salvation of them al. If it teach the salvation of them al then I hope it teacheth that they are in Christ and within the covenant Christ teacheth that the kingdome of heaven is of such The final estate of many professors of the fayth being of yeares is a secret to us the scripture doth not open unto us the particular election of this or that man but teacheth with whom God hath made his covenant to esteeme them as of his covenant untill the contrarie appear by their falling away Rom. 11. 20. And thus having explayned your own meaning of your former Argument you proceed to examine my Answer saying Now according to your exposition I should intend because it is not discerned which children are the spiritual seed which the carnal therefore both of them must be deprived of baptisme least by giving baptisme which you falsely call a seal to al it should be prophaned to the carnal seed Wel suppose this were my meaning what then If this were your meaning then my collection must follow for my calling baptisme a seal I have proved that which I affirme of baptisme p. 37. 38. You except against this exposition two things one that the spirituall seed should be iniured by denying baptisme unto it for the carnal seeds sake And I reply by giving baptisme to al indifferently we should iniure baptisme it is to be administred onely upon them that confesse their fayth and sinnes and are made disciples c. Your Answer stands in begging the question I say it is no more an injurie to baptisme to be indifferently administred to al them to whom the covenant is indefinitely given as it is to the seed of the faythfull then it was before for circumcision or is now when hypocrites are baptised For we can not be sayd to prophane the sacrament by administring it to them that appear to us to be within the Lords covenant as both hypocrites infants until they break off An other thing you except is that this reason should availe against circumcision seeing the males of eight dayes old could not be discerned to be the spiritual seed And I insist that it was not then needfull that then they should be discerned to be the spiritual seed for that carnal seal of that carnal covenant it was ynough for investing of them with that carnal and typical seal that they were the carnal typical seed and that they were Israelites or proselyts c. Your answer stands upon a false ground confuted before I have proved pag. 12. 13. that circumcision is a holy seal of the covenant in Christ and that your carnal covenant is a devise of your owne And where you call the Isralites the carnall and typical seed I have answered and do again say that though they may be called carnal in respect of their natural generation or in regard of the infirmities hanging upon them or some of them termed carnal in respect of their evil works yet the bodie of the Israelites considered as they were a body and children of the covenant were a spiritual seed and holy And it was needful that they should be so els had not †Rom. 9 5. Psal ◠16. 21. the holy things of God belonged unto them or they pleased God in their slanding And shew me that the Lord required anything of any person to be circumcised but to be a male But in the new Testament it is taught 1. that Christ the male must be in us and 2. that there must be circumcision of the hart 3. that wee must attayn to learn al that the schoolmaster of the old Testament could teach us before we can be baptised I answer that the Lord required as much of them that were to be circumcised as of them that are to be baptised of the infants both of the Iewes and Christians God requires onely that they be the seed of the faithful but for such as were of yeares and without the church as under the Gospel they are to turne from sinne and professe their fayth in Iesus Christ that require baptisme so likewise before Christ was the case of Abraham himself such of the Gentiles as would be circumcised were to * Exo. 1◠48. Este◠17. Esra ◠21. Ac◠27. renounce their hethenish and idolatrous worship and to professe the true God of Israel and his religion In Ester it is sayd many became Iewes that is addicted themselves to the religion of the Iewes which is to celebrate or
such imputation but your self is become faulty in calumniating the ordinance of Christ viz the baptisme of infants accounting it an Antichristian error which I wish you well to consider of and not to adde sinne vnto sinne both in pleading for error and in disgracing the truth and the professors thereof Further you say it will not helpe me that these two truthes have bene condemned for heresie by the Churches in all ages for if the Apostles affoard contrary to the succeeding ages that which is most auncient is the truth I graunt if you can prove that the Apostles age affoards contrary to the succeeding ages for the iustifieng of these your opinions that then you have good warrant of your syde for calling them truthes but if the Churches which have coÌ„demned your positions for error have agreed herein with the holy scriptures then I say the brand of heresie lies iustly vpon them And whereas you alledge that many truthes wherevnto we are come have bene condemned for heretical in as many ages as those truthes which you defend I answer that not many truthes if any which we hold to my remembrance have bene condemned in the ancient Churches for heresies And suppose those Churches did fayle in some things as every Church is subject to erre yet followes it not that therfore they erred in condemning your opinions for haeresie some things I think you wil graunt are heresies which those ancient Churches succeeding the Apostles age did condemne as those of Arius Eutiches Macedonius and the rest and then is not their iudgement so lightly to be passed over that no reconing is to be made of what they have done agreable to the scriptures As for your errors we reject them not onely because the ancient Churches have so censured them but finding them contrary to the word of God therfore we condemne them 3. Whereas I did feare your broaching of these and your former opinions would be offensive and to the hindering of the truth this you passe over in presuming of the goodnes of your cause saying if any be hindred froÌ„ the truth it wil be their sinne but if you feare you say that your Antichristian Church will fall to the ground I say it is that which is appointed to perdition and to perdition let it go Indeed if any be hindered from the truth by the publishing of the truth it is their sinne Mat. 11. 6. but if you which haue stood for the truth shall now by publishing of error cause the truth to be the more blasphemed give offence to weak professors that is your sinne and wil be too heavie to be answered at the judgement day if you repent not And as for our Church which you blasphemously call Antichristian know you that I do not feare the fall of it for it is built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone Ephe. 2 20. which hath a sure promise that the gates of hel shall not prevayle against it Mat. 16. 18. And therefore your Anathema cannot hurt vs but shall rebound back agayn whence it came 4. You say though I haue professed to forsake myne errors vpon their discovery and as I have practised for which I am reproached among your brethren yet I never profeessed my readines to be perverted from the truth which you call heresie and therfore if you did vndertake to write vpon this ground you might well haue spared your paines and saved your self from so grevous a sinne by pleading for Antichristian corruptions c. The ground of my perswasion concerning your willingnes to yeeld vnto the truth did arise partly from that perswasion which I had of your sanâ—tification and partly from the speaches of the messengers before named â—ho did affirme vnto me that if I could manifest by the word of God â—hat it was error which you hold you would acknowledge it And still â—ou say if you be in error it is * Passages page 71. ignorantly And therefore desirous of â—our good I did vndertake according to my small abilitie to manifest â—he truth vnto you by such reasons as I could at that present gather for the confirmation of the same which seing you make so small account of and answer me that I might have spared my paynes and saved my self from sin I am sory in that respect that I did write yet in regard of witnessing the â—ruth and performing a duty towards a brother fallen into error I repeÌ„t â—e not neither yet of committing any grevous sinne thereby as you charge me withall seing I plead for that which is of Christs and not for Antichristian corruptions And as for your errors so often graced by you with the title of truthes which you say you never professed to be perverted froÌ„ I mervayle not greatly therat for heresie is a work of the flesh Gal. 5. 20. that is easily and quickly imbraced but not so left and herein differs froÌ„ the truth to the receiving whereof we are hardly drawen as both you and I had experience but error drincketh as a pleasant potion Rev. 18. 3. without resistance and bewitcheth many that they should not obey the truth described and plainly manifest in their sight Gal. 3. 1. the poison whereof I am sory hath so infected your soule that you seeme to be changed into the nature thereof and to be as confident therein as in any truth of the gospel and though you account my praying to be for an overthrow of the Lords truth which is in deed for the conversion of you and that deceived company with you from your errors yet will I pray stil that God may open your eyes if you belong to him to see your grevous fall glorifie the truth of God which in this your writing so greatly you have disgraced Now I will come to answer the Positions with the reasons thereof and first concerning the former which is this 1. That infants are not to be baptised Touching this first position that Infants are not to be baptised I read that Auxentius one of the Arrians sect with his adheâ—nts was one of the first that denied the baptisme of infants 〈◊〉 after him Pelagius the heretique against whome Augustine others of the ancient fathers have opposed and condemned for heresie and that according to the scriptures which by Gods grace we shall together with them also further manifest prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of baptising infants which first I will vntertake and then answer the reasons to the contrary Mr Smyth Now in the next place you make a speciall preface to the first point affirming thaâ— baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian by Pelagius c. Rich Clifton I sayd that Auxentius the Arrian was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of infants and then Pelagius whom Augustine and others refuted and condemned for heresie and you answer thus that one heretike condemned
the faithful and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh yea some infants circumcised should be types as the carnal seed of Abraham and other infants circuÌ„cised as well as they to wit the children of the Proselytes should be no types for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self nor you with the truth Secondly I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful Paul sayth * that all our fathers were under the clowd were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat 1 Cor. 10. â— 5. drank the same spirituall drink c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended and after the enumeration of many particulars the Apostle sayth all these through faith obteyned good report Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful if infaÌ„ts of the faithful then were they types of theÌ„selves 3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham as Isaac Iacob c. were the true children of Abraham Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh * Rom. â— 16. 17. 19 20. 23. â— coÌ„ferd wâ— Gen. 17. â— 9. 13. Joâ— 44. sonnes of the promise of life so to be reputed as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of beleeâ—ers But say you If you wil make true consequents you must reason from the type to the truth and not from the type to the type neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do c. And I answer you neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed But as for my confounding of the covenants and seales that is your bare affirmation and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham for your carnal and spirituall infants is answered before Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my argument and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed then you undertake to prove the contrary saying That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands commeth in place of circumcision made with hands Collos 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11. By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promised the †Deut. 1â— 16. 30. circumcision of the hart and the hart of their seed as before is shewed and they had the grace together with the outward signe therefore your reason is insufficient and the scriptures you pervert from their true meaning Towching the place of the Romaines 2. 29. the Apostle having convinced Rom. 2â— the Iewes of syn vers 17. 24. they might object what doth our circumcision nothing profit us that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles yea sayth he if thou keep the law els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision vers 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law before circumcision transgressing the law vers 26 27. then by distinguishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites the inward and outward circumcision sheweth who is a true Iew not before men but before God viz he that is one within wherein is no guyle And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation which is not onely outward but of the hart this is the Apostles meaning and not to teach that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh c. as you affirm That other place Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the â—2 11. former for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel in this verse he denyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh which was specially urged seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge seal and witnes of our inward renuing or regeneration therefore having baptisme to confirme these graces vnto them need not the use of outward circumcision And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught â—â—e 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes by nature corrupt but also after an especiall manner strangers without God c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise which is the spirituall seale to succeed in place therof Ephe. 1. 13. 14. Although circumcision was set in the flesh yet was it not a seale of the flesh but of the * spirituall covenant and the holy spirit of promise succeedes RoÌ„ 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them that heavenly covenant of salvation as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly as in Abraham Isaac Iacob and the rest yea the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision for they being converted were after circumcised Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “ assured by the â—om 4. â— 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision you quote Ephes 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes because they were called by the same gospel which they imbraced by fayth and sealed up by the same spirit which is the earnest of our inheritance And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision Againe the spirit being invisible is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant Further you say I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new teâ—stament though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal I say therefore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water and as all the ordinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible so is the seale of the new Testament spiritual and yet visible and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spirit as Cornelius company was Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water as Peter
is nothing to your purpose of the holynes of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham It seems you are not fully resolved of the meaning of this scripture Ex. 19. 6. ye shal be to me a kingdome of preists a holy nation This being minded Exo. 20. 1. c. Deut. â—3 8. 1 Pet. 1. 5 of the people or nation they could not be called a kingdome of Preists in respect of a typical preisthood which was proper to †Aaron and his sonns but in respect of their spiritual priesthood in Christ as the Apostle sayth * ye are made a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices which place doth wel expound this of Exodus 19. 6. that the Lord doth intend to cal them holy in regard that he had chosen them for himself and had received them into his covenant to be his people For to be preists to offer up spiritual sacrifices must needs be in Christ therfore truly holy Again you say that they by attayning the end of the law should attain true holynes in Christ which if you grant then must this holynes be in respect of the eternal covenant out of which neither Christ nor true holynes can be attayned unto Thirdly ceremonial holines without true holynes the †Esa 1. 11-16 Psâ— 50. 16. 17. Lord regardes not it were to approve of hipocrisy which he hateth therefore in that they are called holy it must be understood of true holynes as also Deut. 7. 6. 14. 2. Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. 19. 2. And thus you see this place is to my purpose unlesse you can shew me that a people can attayne Christ and true holynes and be without the covenant of grace So that infants though they be under the offer of the covenant made with Abrah iâ— respect of Christ yet shal not baptisme be administred upon them because that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually seased upon the external covenant therefore none in the new Testament shal be baptised but those that â—e actually possessed of the covenant of the new Testament First it is proved * pa. 12. 13. before that circumcision was a seal of the covenaÌ„t of salvation Secondly you are to explayn what you mean by actually seased upon the external covenant for actual possession of Canaan the Israelites had not of a long tyme after Abrahams death otherwise then by fayth whereof you say Infants are not capable If children were circumcised were ney ther seased upon Canaan by possessing it nor by actual fayth how were they seased upon the external covenant The law was not then given what were they seased on and how Thirdly the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel are “ Act. 2. 39. 1 Cor. 7. 14. possessed of the covenant of grace by the vertue of the free giving thereof to the faythful and their seed therefore to be baptised Fourthly If Infants be but onely under the offer of the covenant then they dying in their infancy are without the covenant of salvation and so perish so farr as we can judg for to be under the offer onely you wil not say that thereby they can be saved Againe if they be not in Christ and so within the covenant they are under condemnation Rom. 8. 1. But actual possession you say is by obedience to the fayth This is true beingrightly applyed But you must know that there is a general giving and applying of the promise on Gods part to his people and there is a more special and particuler applying of the same by the ministerie of the word and spirit The former was to Abraham when God made his †covenant with Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 Rom. 4. â— 12. him and his seed The other is to al that receive the word keep it wherof Luk. 11. 28. Act. 2. 21. Iam. 1. 21. This actual possâ—ssion to use your phrase belonges to such as by their yeares are capable to understand and it is a continual applying of that which was given in general to the faythful and their seed And of such are those places of Rom. 10. 17. Gal. 3. 2. 14. to be understood And this the Lord requires according to the dispensation Mat. 13. â—4 11. Heb. 4. 2. Rev. 2. 7. â— Rom. 11. â—8 â— Rom. 10. 14-17 21. of the covenant both under the old and new Testament that al they that are his people capable of understanding should †hear his word and yeeld obedience to the fayth For although God love the children for the “ fathers sake respect his promise yet wil he have them as they come to yeares to practise fayth and obedience unto which end the †preaching of the word is given unto us Secondly I answer concerning the consequent of your maiors consequent that it shal not follow that because children are under the covenant that therefore they shal have the outward signe and seal thereof for under the law the females were actually under the covenant of the old Testament yet were not signed with the seal And before the law was given al that were actually under the covenant until the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seal thereof It must follow that if children be under the covenant that they must havâ— the outward signe or seale because the †Lord hath so commanded joyning Gen. 17. â—-11 Mat. 28. 19. * Mat. 19. â—6 “ Gen. 34. 24. the seal to his covenant which man may not * separate For your reasons to the contrary they are of no weight First concerning the females under the law though they were not circumcised yet were “ they accounted of the circumcised And for the ceremonie it self they were never capable of it yong nor old the like you wil not say of children under the Gos 2. For the fathers before the institution of circumcision they might be under the covenaÌ„t without the seal because the L. did so dispeÌ„ce with those times but you must prove that the state of children under the new Test is alike to the condition of those fathers before Abr. or of the women under the law theÌ„ wil it follow that they shal not be sealed at al for these that you instance were not It is one thing when God hath commaunded the signe and adjoyned it to his covenant to be received another when he coÌ„manded no such thing They are to receive the seal to whom the covenant with the seal is given as it was to Abraham and now is unto us And therefore the signe may not be denyed to whom the covenant belongs But to infringe this truth you say The Lord in chosing the male onely to be circumcised thereby purposed to teach in a type that onely the male that is one that is in Christ should be sealed with the spirit of promise under the new Testament That circumcision so signifieth as you set downe you are to prove in that
of thy seed I deny it utterly God sayd that onely to Abraham Gen. 17. 7. and whethâ—r you expound it literally or spiritually I avouch confidently against you and al men that the meaning of it is not that God made his covenant with the faithful man or faithful woman and their infooâ—â—s begotten of their bodies but that literally the meaning is I wil be God unto thee Abraham and thy seed according to the flesh to give them the land of Canaan Gen. 17. 8. and spiritually the meaning is I will give unto Abraham the father of the faithful and al that are his spiritual seed everlasting life You deny a manifest truth as it is your manner to establish your heresies I have proved already that the spiritual covenant is given to the faithful and their seed as it was to Abraham and his seed and further confirm it thus 1. That promise that was made to Abraham †is the same that belongs Gal. 3. 14. to al the faythful and therefore as God did apply it to AbrahaÌ„ saying I wil be thy God and the God of thy seed so is it to be applyed to every beleever as Gen. 17. 19. God speaking of Isaac sayd of him as before of Abraham that he would establish his covenant with him and with his seed And Act. 2. 39. the same promise was applyed to the Iewes that were present Ex. 39. 45 â—ev 26. 12 Deut. 29. â— 15. Jer. â—1 1. 33. Ps 44. 15. Hos â— 10. 2. â—3 Heb. 8. â— 10. 2 Cor. â— 16. Rev. â—1 3. Gen. â—2 3. at Peters preaching and to their children and this application are the words following to have And to as manie as the Lord God shal cal viz. to so many and their seed Secondly if the covenant was not made to the faythful and their seed then are not the faythful partakers of the same covenant with Abraham for it was to Abraham and his seed and so by your doctrine we have not the same covenant and gospel that was preached to Abraham and consequently no promise of salvation Thirdly that this promise I wil be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to al the faythful and their seed see these †scriptures quoted in the margine Lastly the applying of this promise to Abraham and his seed doth teach us so to apply it to every faythful man and his seed the Apostle thus applies the like promise in Heb. 13. 5. for comfort to al the faythful that God in particuler had made to Ioshuah in Iosh 1. 5. which was this I will not leave thee nor forsake thee And David did so apply it to himself Psalm 118. 6. whose examples teaches how to apply Gods promises Concerning your exposition of this promise I wil be thy God c. applying it onely to Abraham you pervert thereby the Lords meaning he made his everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen 17. â—7 promised also unto him and his seed the land of Canaan Genes 17. 8. adjoyning this promise of Canaan to that everlasting covenant with this copulative and the everlasting covenant being common to Abraham with al the faythful and their seed but this promise of Canaan proper to such of his seed as according to the course of nature should proceed out of his loynes and therefore it cannot be that this covenant and the promise of Canaan should be one and the same as you expound it Besides God made this promise to Abraham concerning Canaan and confirmed the same unto him Gen. 15. 7. 18. therteen yeares at the least before circumcision was commanded Gen. 15. 14. and 16. 2. 3. 4. 16. compared with Gen. 17. 1. 10. 23-26 and that solemne establishing of that everlasting covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. at which tyme indeed this promise of Canaan was agayn renued Also it is further to be noted that Canaan was to Abraham and his seed a type and as it were a sacrament of the promise of the heavenly country which they sought after Heb. 4. 8. 11. and 11. 9. 10. 13. 16. 39. for els had their possessing of it made them in no better estate then the Canaanites before them nay not in so good an estate as divers other peoples which injoyed their countries more quietly then they did Canaan And shew me say you that God said to every faithfull man and woman c. that he wil be God unto them and their seed I have shewed it before that so the promise is to be applyed so did Lidia the gaylor apply it as by the sealing of their families with baptisme together with theÌ„selves appeareth And concerning women the Apostle saith in Ch. * Gal. 3. 2â— ye are al one there is neither Iew nor Grecian there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female wherby it appears that God in giving his cov hath no respect of sex be they male or female al is one in C. therfore P. administred the seal to Lidia being a womaÌ„ to her familie as wel as to Stephanus the gaylor You say It is false doctrine to saie that the covenant doth passe unto the infants of the faithful because of their fathers faith c. How the covenant passeth to the infants of the faythful by the free gift of God is shewed before pag. 77. one mans fayth cannot conveigh the covenant of iustification to another nor one 〈◊〉 sinne cut off another from the covenant but the soul that sinneth shal die Although that one mans fayth caÌ„not by any natural operation or qualitie as a medicine doth health to the bodie conveigh the covenant to an other nor actually apply justification to the sowl of an other in that sense as the Apostle speaketh thereof Gal. 2. 20. yet according to the Lords dispensation of his covenant the promise is received by the fayth of the Parents to themselves and their seed as it was by Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 23. Heb. 11. 17. Rom. 4. 11. And this would be no mysterie unto you if you did distinguish between the outward manner of Gods dispensation of his covenant under which al the faythfull and their seed are comprehended and accounted Gods people and the inward and hidden application of the things promised whereof none yong nor old are partakers save †the Mat. 3 11 â—â— 3. 5. 7. 8 â—â— 11. 7. elect no not the aged though they be held for saincts in the sight of men As for one mans sinne to cut off another we hold it not in that sense as you mean yet in some sense it is not altogether untrue for did not such of Corahs children as departed not from their fathers synne perish with him Numb 16. 27. 32. and God sayth I wil visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children of them that hate him in justice withdrawing his grace from the seed of the wicked but that the personal synne of one shall cutt off an other as the prophet
3. 10. intendeth not this against children no â—ore doth our Saviour Christ when he sayth if you were Abrahams chilâ—ren ye would do the works of Abraham Ioh. 8. 39. but both places are to â—e understood of such as be of yeres not of infants which are not come â—o that strengâ—h to work good or evil Againe I reason thus They that are not under the everlasting covenant made â—â—th Abraham shall not be baptised infants are not under the everlasting covenant â— Abraham Ergo c. The minor is false Infants are under the everlasting covenant as beâ—ore is proved and therefore to be baptised This your reason implies â—e condemnation of infants for if they be not under the covenant of Abraham there is for them no promise of salvation Argument V. 1. Cor. 10. 1. 2. If the infants of the Israelites were baptised in the cloud and in the sea as well as their parents what letteth the infants of beleeving pareÌ„ts vnder the Gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme as well as they The former the Apostle affirmes 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. and therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from this priveledge that the Iewes children had And if the former baptisme of the Iewes was a type of our baptisme theÌ„ must there be an agreement between the type and the thing typed which is not if our children be not baptised aswell as theirs The depriving of our children of the Sacrament is to shorten the Lords bountie towards his people of the new Testament that being denyed to their children which God gave to his people and to their infants under the law is to â—eny them in regard of their seed the like assurance and comfort which the Israelites had of theirs And so to make our estate worse and more uncomfortable then theirs was And yet the Prophets prophecied of the grace that should come to us and did inquire search after the same 1 Pet. 1. 10. Glad tydings were preached to Abraham and his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3. 8. And this before Christ came in the flesh and therefore much more he being come is joyful tydings brought unto us our infants And so are we to beleeve that the grace of God is not lessened eyther towards us or our children but inlarged by his comming M. Smyth To this Argument I make answer by framing the like Argument If their infants did eat the same spiritual meat and drink which the parents eat then why may not our infants being able to eat and drink eat drink the Lords Supper the former the Apostle affermeth 1 Cor. 1. 2. Therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from that priviledge c. R. Clyfton This is not to answer the Arg for first our infants must come to such abilitie as that they can * 1 Cor. 11. â—6 25. 28. â—9 shew forth the Lords death do it in remembrance of him and can examine themselves and discerne the Lords body before they receive the Lords Supper which conditions were not required of all that did eat Man and drink of the rock 2. The proportion holdes not for Man and water were not onely given to Israel to be to them a sacrament but also served for their ordinarie corporal food and so is not the bread and wyne in the Lords supper 3. If things be compared alike our sacraments to their ordinarie sacraments no such consequence can be gathered as you intend for the infants of Israel were circumcised but did not eat the passeover until they were able to go to that place which God had appointed for the eating thereof and to eat it according to the Lords ordinance and so much we wil graunt for the Lords supper that they are to eat it that can eat it according to Christs institution 4. If infants in partaking of those former Sacraments were in them partakers of Chr why shal not our infants also in the use of the sacrament of baptisme be held partakers of the things signified seeing as you say those sacraments were types of ours the truth must be answerable to the type Againe I answer more properly thus that there shal be a proportion between the type and the truth that baptisme of the cloud and the sea and our baptisme viz that as yong and old carnal Israelites were baptised in the cloud and sea so yong and â—â—l spiritual Israelites shal be baptised by the baptisme of repentance c. First I deny that the Israelites considered as they were accounted worthy to partake of the sacraments were carnal but †Ex. 19. 1. Pet. 2. spiritual and holy 2. Vnder the type you have yong and old in yeares so if you would keep Proportion must be the like under the truth But this you deny and make two sorts of beleevers yong and old Now I ask you whom you cal yong and old Israelites and if any that beleeves may defer his baptisme until he be old in fayth And if this be * Act. 8. 12. 36. 37 9. 18. 10. 47. 4. 16. 15. 33. not lawful and none but young beleevers be baptised how wil your proportion stand between the type the thing signified 3. Their baptisme in the cloud and sea did preach unto them repentance as wel as our baptisme doth unto us and in this there is a similitude between them but that our outward baptisme is the truth of that former baptisme in the sea and cloud to the Israelites I desire it may be proved Lastly I would know whom you mean by spiritual fathers and their spiritual children Before you called Abraham the father of the faythful and al beleevers his children But thus to make up a proportion between your type and truth you are driven to acknowledge other spiritual fathers besides Abraham which being so you must grant that they are then so called in respect of their children to whom the covenant is conveighed by Gods free grace together with them For if the children come into the covenant by their own fayth and enter as did their parents then are they Abrahams children not theirs according as the scripture speaketh Rom. 4. 11. that he shal be the father of them that beleev Further I say that our infants shal have a priviledge far greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that tipical baptisme For they by it were onely baptised into Moses and the law that by it they might learn Moses and in Moses the truth in Christ as it were under a vaile but our infants under the Gospel shal have the daylie institution and education of faithful parents c. The Apostle sayth in 1. Cor. 10. 2. that al the Israelites were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea But sayth not as you say into the law those sacraments were seales unto them of the covenant of salvation not of the law which then was not given Secondly
and worshipped him though corruptly professed also many of his truthes which neither the Sodomites Egyptians Babylonians or Gentiles did And therefore are not comparable with the heathen in all respects much lesse to be held the worst kind of Paganisme For in Paganisme it was never heard that God had his people yet in Antichristian Babylon the spirit witnesseth that he hath his people amongst them and so many truthes of God are therein taught as thereby Gods elect do come to some knowledge of God and to faith so can none do in Paganisme by any doctrine there taught 2. I declare playnly the difference between the Apostasie of Antichrist and Israel Aâ—â— in this that Israels apostasie did not destroy the true constitution of the Church but Antichrists apostasie did rase the true Apostolike constitution For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or proselytes circumcised and so long as they reteyned circumcision in the Land of Canaan they reieyned a true constitution though there apostasie was never so great c. This which you say is a playne difference is none at all it is your false Re. ground that deceaves you The reason of your difference wil not hold for if reteyning of circumcisioÌ„ preserved the constitution of the Church of the old Testament though their apostasie was never so great as you say it did then should the reteyning of baptisme in the greatest apostasie preserve the Churches constitution under the new testament but this you deny ergo the other can not stand Seing baptisme by your owne confession * Char 〈…〉 in the prâ—fâ— is the constition of the Church under the Gospel as circumcision was of the old Church Now if this be true doctrine which you teach I pray you shew us some reason why Apostasie more raseth the constitution of the Church now then it did under the law for circumcision was as corruptly administred by the apostate Israelites as baptisme is by the Antichristians But your iudgement of the Churches constitutioÌ„ fayles you in holding the Sacraments to be the constitution thereof 〈◊〉 them appertayne vnto it yet can they not be counted the whole constitution of the Church And if this should be granted you it would follow that if Israels constitution was carnal for circumcision you say was carnal so should the constitution of the Church of the new testament be carnal also seing baptisme is an external ordinance as well as circumcision was and both alike carnal in that respect And therefore you must eyther renounce this opinioÌ„ or els grant that the constitution of the Church of the old Testament was spiritual then all your building is overthrown But to prove that Israel reteyned a true constitution in their apostacie you alledge Hosea the fourth saying Though their apostasy was never so great thâ— their worship ministerie and government as it is to be seen in Hosea 4. 6. 8. 12. yet they reteyned a true constitution so long as they reteyned circumcision in the land of Canaan I answer although the Lord call Israel his people he doth it in regard of his covenant formerly made to their forefathers not in respect of their present outward estate The Prophet sayth There shall be like people like Preist And in verse 12. they are charged to go a whoring from under their God How can this people be sayd to stand in a true constitution or covenant with God that went a whoring from under their God Hath Rome done any more then this the people * perished for want of knowledge Hose 4. 6 and the Lord reiected their Ministers from being his because they refused Hose 4. 12 knowledge The Israelites did †ask counsel at their stocks and the spirit of fornication caused them to erre they sacrificed to strange Gods c. â—hroÌ„ 13 â— King â— 31. â—hr 11. 14 â— Chron. â—â— â—ers 8. â—rse 9. “ Ieroboam drove away the true Prophets placed Preists after his own devise Israel set up an other governement and * refused the governement of the Lord †had a false ministerie and worship What more can be sayd of Rome then is here sayd of Apostate Israel And what though the Prophet Abijah did not charge Israel with a false coÌ„stitutioÌ„ but with the other particulars before meÌ„tioned yet that sufficeth to declare that they had broken covenaÌ„t with God which what is it els but to depart froÌ„ their primitive constitutioÌ„ Needs a man to say any more to prove that a wise hath violated the bond of mariage but that she hath played the whore and foloweth other lovers and so much have the Prophets testifyed of Israel â— Chro. 15 Azariah beareth witnes against Israel thus †now for a long season Israel hath bene without the true God without Preist to teach and without law And this was â—n the tyme of Asa king of Iuda Also Eliah complayneth †◠〈◊〉 10. that the children of Israel have forsaken the covenant of the Lord and this was in the dayes of Ahab now it cannot be that they that had forsaken Gods covenant could be a true constituted Church so continuing also which were without God and without his Law c. Câ—n you say more agaynst the Antichristians and them you deny to be a true Church and yet you iustify Israel withal her abhominations but let vs consider furder of the difference you make between Israel and Antichristianisme you saye That Antichrist hath not onely set vp a false government c. but also a false constitution Ans of the Church for whereas the true Apostolike constitution was of baptised Disciples that confessed theire sins and their fayth he hath foysted in a false matter of â— Church viz. infants and persons vnbaptised and so a false forme c. I answere 1. that the Apostolike constitution did not shut out the children Re. of beleevers as I have formerly proved 2. I iustify neither the matter nor forme of Antichrists Church neither their ministerie worship nor government they have in all these corrupted the wayes of God But the falshood you tax them of in their matter form is the baptising of infants otherwise if they had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. theire constitution had bene with you Apostolike such a deadly feud have you against infants that to admit them to baptisme makes a false Church For the lawfulnes of baptising children you may be satisfyed before if the eye sight of your soule be not quite put out Your saying that infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole or mad-man or pagan Argues in you the want of spirituall wisdome but that which you drive at in this your bitternes against infants is to prove That the Church of Antichrist is constituted of a false matter viz infants uncapable of baptisme and a false forme viz. infants vnable to enter into the new Testament