The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 2 · Argument 2
II. Argument.
BAbylon in Chaldea (which was a type of ſpirituall Babylon, Reve. 18. 2.) though ſhe did abuſe and profane the veſſels of the Lord, Dan. 5. 3. yet did not that make a nullitie of them, that they ceaſed any more to be the veſſels of the houſe of the Lord, but were brought with them of the captivitie that came up from Babylon, to Ieruſalem. Ezra. 1. 11. Even ſo although ſpiritual Babylon have profaned the holy things of God, as baptiſme & the reſt, yet remaine they ſtill Gods ordinances to all them that come out of her, Rev. 18. 4. and returne to the celeſtiall Ieruſalem. And as theſe veſſels of the houſe of the Lord need not to be new caſt, becauſe of Babels polluting them: no more is baptiſme to be iterated to the people of God, becauſe it paſſed through the polluted hands of the Papiſts.
If it be objected, that they that adminiſtered baptiſme in Babilon were Idolaters and had no calling therevnto: 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. And that the wanting of a lawfull calling to adminiſter the Sacrament, makes not a nullitie thereof, the circumciſing of Moſes ſonne by his mother Zippora, Exo. 4. 25. doth playnly teach: For as the Lord makes effectuall his word to his people though coming vntounto them by the hands of a falſe Miniſtery: ſo doth he baptiſme to al that be his, though adminiſtered by them that have not a lawful calling therevnto. The ſin of the Miniſter makes not a nullitie eyther of the word or Sacraments, els ſhould the efficacy of the word an… …acraments depend vponupon him that adminiſtreth them; which is no… ſo: for both have their effect from the Lord Eſay. 55. 11:
If agayne it be obiected that baptiſ…e was not adminiſtred in the Apoſtate Church of Antichriſt to a fit ſubiect. I anſwere, that the children in the Apoſtacy were as fit ſubjects to receive baptiſme, as the infants of Iſrael in the tyme of Ieroboam & Ahab were to receave circumciſion: ſeing the covenant of Abraham (after the coming of Chriſt) belonged as properly to the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. as before it did to the Iſraelites.
Mr Smyth.
I anſwere many things. 1. this Argument is an excellent argument for the retayning Anſ.of idol Temples, the worſhip, government, miniſterie of the eccleſiastical aſſemblies of England, &c.
Rich: Clifton
This Argument is not ſo excellent for idol Temples, &c. as you pretend.Re. For how can you reaſon from the ordinances of God to iuſtify the deviſes of men? wil it follow, that becauſe the veſſels of the Lord, his ſacraments and ordinances (though polluted in apoſtaticall Churches, or by the profane Babylonians) may be reſtored to the right uſe, for which God ordeyned them, therefore ſo to reaſon, juſtifies the inventions of men deviſed to religious vſes? you may ſhew your wit in compoſing of your Argument. But with all you anſwer. That baptiſme of theirs was never appointed by God but is the deviſe of Antichriſt.
Antichriſt deviſed no new baptiſme, but polluted the Lords ordinance ordayned by God.
2. I anſwer that the veſsels of the Lords houſe were his owne ordinances, & therfore An.need not to be new cast. But the baptiſme of Antichriſt is not the Lords owne ordinance &c.
Baptiſme reteyned in the Churches of Antichriſt is as much the LordsRe. ordinance, as the veſſels of the Temple were in Babylon, and therefore nedes no more to be new caſt, then they. But you diſtinguiſhe betwene the veſſels of the Lords houſe and baptiſme, thus. That they were ſubſtances framed by art into particular ſhapes at the Lords appointment: but the baptiſme of the Lord is a compound or concreete ordinance limitted in certayn eſſential p… lars, not being a ſubſtance, but an accident in definition. Now if Antichriſt h… reteyned the eſsentiall parts of baptiſme I confeſse it needed not to be repeated, &c but … is ſalſe, … neither …tter nor …e … inven… by An…riſt, but …ng the or …anc… of …d were …uted.ſeing baptiſme in Poperie is not the Lords ordinance but Antichriſts invention, * the matter and forme being invented by Antichrist, the matter being a carnal infant, the forme waſhing one into the covenant and cannot conſent to the covenant or baptiſing, without a contract, and ſealing to the covenant &c.
Here you confeſſe that if the eſſentiall partes of baptiſme be reteyned in Popery, it is not to be repeated. But you make queſtion about the parts, affirming that both matter and forme of baptiſme in Popery is invented by Antichriſt: you ſaye ſo, but proves it not. Concerning the matter, it is before ſhewed, that infants are capable of baptiſme, not as they be natural and borne in ſinne, but as they are the ſeed of the faithful, & therefore being the † children of God, and of the “covenant, are not in that reſpect carnal matter, but ſpiritual. As for the forme, which you ſay, is the waſhing of one into the covenant which cannot conſent. I anſwere, that the forme…zech. 16 …. 21. Act. 2. 39 …3. 25. of baptiſme doth not any more ſtand in the Actual conſent of the parties baptiſed, then the forme of circumciſion did conſiſt in the aſſenting of the party circūciſed: for there is alike reaſō of the form of theſe two ſacramēts, and therefore as infants of the Iewes were circumciſed, notwithſtanding by reaſon of their age they could not conſent to that action: So infants of beleevers may be baptiſed, eſpecially ſeing they are but patients in thisMat. 2… Action. This is the Lords ordinance, to † baptiſe the beleever and his ſeed with water, into the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoſt. And of this are infants capable.
As for ſealing to the covenant, it is already proved that the Lord ſealeth his covenant to infants. And for their ſealing to the Lord, they do as much, as at that age is required, or was required of the infants of the Iewes circumciſed. Nether is there baptiſme without a cōtract, for the Lord hath made his covenant with the faithfull and their ſeed. For the Scripture deſcribeth true baptiſme thus: The matter muſt be one, that confeſſeth his faith and his ſinns one that is regenerate and borne againe. The form muſt be a voluntary deliverāce vp of the party baptiſed into the name of the Father, Sonne and holy Ghoſt, by waſhing with water. Mat. 28. 19. and 3. 6. Joh. 4. 1. Act. 2. 14. and 8. 36. 27. with Rom. 6. …-6. where there muſt be a mutual confent of both perſons contracting together. And that this is ſo, the forme of baptiſme retayned in Popery, yet teacheth &c.
That the matter of baptiſme (as you terme it) or ſubject, muſt neceſſarily be one alwayes that confeſſeth his fayth and ſynnes, al that you have ſaidRe. hitherto, hath not proved it: the ſcripture ſayth it not: and the contrary is confirmed before, viz. that infants are to be baptiſed, although they can not make actual profeſſion of their fayth, & to us they are partakers of remiſſion of ſynns and regeneration: ſeing they are in the covenant.
2. Concerning the forme of baptiſme, I confeſſe it is the ſprinkling of a fit ſubject with water into the name of the Father &c. but your voluntarie deliverance up of the partie baptiſed, to make that action a part of the forme of baptiſme, al the ſcriptures you cyte, proves it not. we confeſſe that ſuch as are of yeares muſt voluntarily offer up themſelves to be baptiſed, and ſo were they that were to be circumciſed: notwithſtanding the infants that could not do this, were alſo circūciſed, & ſo muſt our infants be baptiſed. The Lord ſayd to his Miniſters, baptiſe, but ſayd not let every one that is baptiſed offer himſelf voluntarily thereunto, as he doth in the Lords ſupper, ſay, take eat &c. it is otherwiſe in baptiſme, wherein the baptiſed are not agēts, but onelyonly patients: God thus diſpoſing that the infants of the faithful might be capable thereof, & ſealed up for the Lords, as wel as their parēts. And it is to be noted, that the deſiring or offering to receiv baptiſme, is an action differing from the thing deſired, & ſo not a part of the ſame. As for your mutual conſent of both perſons contracting together, it muſt be underſtood, of God with the faythfull & their ſeed, for ſuch was the contract or covenant making with Abraham, which continues ſtil in force to al beleevers & their ſeed: & this precedeth baptiſme, & is no part of the external forme thereof. Gen. 17. 1, 7. &c. Act. 2, 39.
And for that forme of baptiſing in poperie, with credis & credo, &c. which others ſpeak for the Infant, declaring (as you ſay) that there muſt needs be a mutual cōtract &c. You know very wel how it is cōtinued upō a blynd cuſtome & imitation, becauſe ſuch as were to be received into the church in the primitive tymes, and to be baptiſed, being of yeares, did make confeſſion of their fayth, & anſwered to ſuch interrogatories as were demanded of them concerning the ſame. This the papiſts apply to infants, the queſtions being anſwered by the godfathers who ar ſayd to be brought in by Higinus before whoſe time, the parents preſented their children to be baptiſed. This corrupt cuſtome & apiſh imitation, your ſelf hath condemned. Yet now having caſt off baptiſme it ſelf, you ſcrape in the filthye Dungehill of Poperie to advantage your ſelfe againſt the truth, whoſe practiſe you know condemnes your opinion of not baptiſing of infants. If Yf therefore you wil crave their teſtimony for your forme of baptiſme, why diſpiſe you theire witnes of baptiſing of infants, which is the matter. And thus much for anſwer to your deſcription of baptiſme.
Now concerning the outward ceremony of baptiſme, the ScriptureMat. 3. 11. 16. …ar. 1. 10 Act. 8. 38 Mat 28. …. …. Jo. 1. 7 Act. 2. 38 …. 3. 19. Gal. 3. 27 Rom 6. 3 … Col. 2. 12 …. 3. 5. 6. thus teacheth, that the element in this ſacrament is * water onelyonly, the forme of adminiſtring thereof, Chriſt commaunded thus, † baptiſe them into the name of the father and of the ſonne & of the holy ghost. This is that which the Lord hath inſtituted, whereby he would ſignify and ſeale unto his people “the remiſſion of their ſinnes, * and the ingraffing into Chriſt, † the mortification of the old man and renuing of the ſpirit. This is the ſubſtance of this ceremony, and is found to be ſtil retayned in the Apoſtate Churches. And therefore, although it hath bene polluted by the hands of Apoſtates, as the veſſels of the Temple were by the Babylonians, and by adding of humane inventions, yet is it in ſubſtance that which Chriſt ordeyned in his Church, neither the element nor forme of adminiſtration changed, and therefore not to be iterated. Your third anſwer.
3. I anſwer that if the Antichriſtians had baptiſed perſons confeſſing their ſinnes & their faith into the name of the ſonne of God and the Trinitie, it had been true baptiſme, though in the hands of the Antichriſtians, &c.
Firſt, you confeſſe then, that the apoſtaſie of Antichriſt is not ſo great, but that in the papal Churches there may be true baptiſme, not to be iterated. That they baptiſed with water into the name of the father and of the ſonne and of the holy ghoſt, can not be denyed, all that you except againſt, is the adminiſtring of it to infants; & ſo this ſecond queſtion is anſwered in the former: for if the infants are to be baptiſed, then ſtands their baptiſme good without repeating which they have in Apoſtate Churches.
Laſtly, where I ſayd, that the wanting of a lawful calling to adminiſter the Sacrament made not a nullitie thereof, inſtancing the circumciſion of the Iſraelites by Apoſtats, and of Zippora her circumciſing of her ſonne, you anſwere ſaying.
1 What ſay you to Cyprian and al that counſel of learned Biſhops who concluded that baptiſme of Heretiks was a nullitie and decreed rebaptiſing.
This I anſwer, that if Cyprian and thoſe learned Biſhops did erre what is that to this purpoſe; for thoſe examples that I have alledged are ſuch as are recorded by the holy ghoſt to be done, not by ſuch as had lawful calling, and yet ſtood without recircumciſing. But ſuppoſe Cyprian & thoſe Biſhops foūd that ſome were baptiſed by Hereticks and not in the name of the Trinitie, (for ſeing ſome denyed the Deitie of Chriſt, ſome his humanitie, others held other errors about the Trinitie: It is not like that they would obſerve the true forme of baptiſme, but ſome ſtrange forme of their owne deviſe; as ſome report (how truly I know not) that you baptiſe your ſelves into the fayth of the new Teſtament.) And ſo decreed not rebaptiſing, but baptiſing of them that were not before baptiſed with Chriſts baptiſme. Indeed it is recorded by ſome, that the Novatians, Arrians, Aetians & Donatiſts, did as you do, rebaptiſe thoſe that fell to their errors, which had been baptiſed before into the name of the Trinitie. Laſtly, if Cyprian & thoſe Biſhops did erre about this poynt of rebaptiſing, as in ſome others they did, I am no patron of their errors.
2, I ſay, that the Iſraelites circumciſion was in a true church and Antichrists Anſ.baptiſme was in a falſe, and that is a diſſimilitude.
That Iſrael in her Apoſtaſie was not a true church, I have ſhewed before: how you in this diſagree with your ſelf, here I wil ſet down your ownRe. words in your book of Paralels &c. againſt M. Barnard. pag. 14. thus you write. A church falſely conſtituted (as in the old Testament was the apostate church of the 10. Tribes, and in the new Teſtament is the Church of Antichriſt) is ſuch a communion of men, where to God hath not given the covenant, the holy things, the promiſes, Chriſt for King, Prieſt and Prophet. &c.
Alſo in pag. 26. of the ſame book, you anſwering ſuch as plead that they have the Word, Sacraments, & converſion in the Engliſh Aſſemblies, have theſe words. I ſay it is but as a thief hath the true manns purſe, and as the falſe church of Ieroboam had, and as the Samaritanes, Edomites &c. had circumciſion & the ſacrifices by uſurpation. Here you have teſtified to the world that Ieroboams church was a falſe church, falſly conſtituted &c. And now ſeeing a diſadvantage thereby to your new erroneous opinion, you doubt not to cal it a true church. This inconſtancie befitts not him that wil be a leader of others.
3. I know nothing to the contrarie but Zippora might circumciſe her ſonne, her An.husband commanding her. For where is it ſayd in the old Testament, that a woman ſhal not circumciſes for Moſes did circumciſe though Zippora was the hand of Moſes in that action &c.
When you deal againſt us about baptiſing of infants, you wil have cō mandementRe. or example, or els you reiect it as Antichriſtian, now y… being preſſed with this Act of Zippora you ſhew nether, nor any reaſon for the lawfullnes of the fact and yet you defend it, anſwering, that you know nothing to the contrary, but Zippora might circumciſe her ſon &c. What nedes the Scripture to forbid women to circumciſe, when for the adminiſſtring of that ceremony God gave cōmaundement that Abrahā the *Gen. 17. 7. …om p. with …erſ. 10-13 …oſuah. 5. 2 … 4,maſter of the family ſhould circumciſe al his males, as baptiſme is now †Mat. 28. 19.injoyned to the Apoſtles and Miniſters of Chriſt; the which commaundements diſable all others, whether women or men that have not ſuch calling from God for the adminiſteration therof. That Zippora did circumciſe her ſonne by Moſes commaundement appeares not in the Scripture, but that “Exo. 4. 24 …5.ſhe being greeved at her huſbands neglect, did it: But if Moſes ought to do it himſelfe, the queſtion is whether he might commaund his wife to do it. The non-reſidents in England are condemned for preaching by their ſubſtitutes, and you deſe…d that a woman may be a ſubſtitute to adminiſter a ſacramēt. If Zipporah may circumciſe in caſe of neceſſitie at the appointment of her husband, why may not the midvvives in caſe of neceſſitie baptiſe, by the appointment of the Preiſts? You pretend rule, but in this you practiſ… it not.
4. I yeeld that the Miniſter ſhall not preiudice baptiſme, if the baptiſme be the Anſ.Lords owne ordinance, &c.
In this we agree that the Miniſter, if he be not lawfully called, doth notRep. ſo farre preiudice baptiſme, as to make a nullitie of it, what is further here to be anſwered, is done els where.
The 2 obiection you anſwer, is, that although baptiſme be adminiſtred in a falſe Church of Antichrist upon an unfit ſubiect, yet it ſhall not be repeated, no more then circumciſion in the dayes of Jeroboam, &c. My words were theſe That …epl.the children in that apoſtaſie, are as fit ſubiects to receive baptiſme, as the infants of Iſrael in the dayes of Jeroboam were to receive circumciſion. And you pervert my wordes and ſay, that I affirme, that although baptiſme be adminiſtred in a falſe Church vponupon an vnfit ſubiect. Is this to confeſſe that infants are vnfit ſubiects? to ſay, they were as fit as the infants of Iſrael? Your ſelf doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apoſtaſie were capable of circumciſion. I ſayd that the infants of the Antichriſtians were as capable as they, not approving of the ſtate of eyther, but arguing that if the former might ſtand for circumciſion, then alſo the other without iterating: the ſtate of the Antichriſtians, being alike to the apoſtate Iſraelites: but I will come to your further anſwer, which is this.
I ſay that the Iſraelites infants in there defection were the ſubiect that God commaunded Anſ.to be circumciſed: ſo are not the infants in Antichristianiſme, both for that they are 1. infants. 2. members of a falſe Church. 3. the ſeede of vnbeleevers.
That the Iſraelites infants in their defectiō were cōmaūded to be circūciſed,Repl. can not be proved, God is no approver of apoſtaſie. When he gave to Abraham and his ſeed circumciſion, he did intend that it ſhould ſeale his covenant unto them, and that they ſhould continue therein, and not apoſtate: and therefore (to ſpeak properly) the Iſraelites in their apoſtaſie could be no fit ſubiects, although upon their repentance the Lord let ſtand their circumciſion. And ſo if the ſtate of this people be rightly cō ſidered, the diſſimilitude between their circumciſion, and baptiſme in Antichriſtian aſſemblies, wil not prove ſuch as you pretend. Your reaſons to prove infants in Antichriſtianiſme to be no fit ſubiects of baptiſme, are of no weight. The firſt of them is anſwered in the former part of this writing, where is proved that infants are fit ſubiects of baptiſme. Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichriſts Church, and deny them to be members of true Churches? but to let this paſſe, I anſwere, that this reaſon is of no force, ſeing your ſelf confeſseth, that if Antichrist had baptiſed perſons confeſſing their ſinnes, &c. it had bene true baptiſme. To the third I anſwer, that the infants in Antichriſtianiſme are no more the ſeed of unbeleevers, then the infants in Ieroboams Church were the ſeed of unbeleevers: both were the ſeed of apoſtates, and that is all you can ſay of them. Their parents, (although apoſtating from many truthes, and polluted with mens inventions,) yet were not fallen from all profeſsion of Ieſus Chriſt, but ſtil did and do acknowledge ſalvation by him; retayne and beleeve many mayne grounds of faith, & excellent truthes, & ſo many, as the Lord hath his people in *Rev. 18.Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by thoſe doctrines there taught. And, therefore thus I think of ſuch apoſtates, that in reſpect of their outward ſtanding they remaine in apoſtaſie, having forſaken many truthes, pollute Gods ordinances, practiſe the curſed inventions of men: yet profeſsing faith in God & in Ieſus Chriſt (though corruptly) I can not hold them as infidels ſimply, but as the Iſraelites in their apoſtaſie: and their ſeed may rather be termed the ſeed of Apoſtates, then of infidels or vnbeleevers.
And whereas you ſay that the covenant of Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt did … truely belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Iſraelits though both in defection: I deny it: for the carnal covenant belonged to the Iſraelits the carnal ſeed of Abraham even in their parents Apoſtacy, and the ſpiritual covenant did never appertayne to the Apoſtate parents. 2. much les to the infants of them &c. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved. and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be vnderunder stode of the bleſſing of Abraham to come vppon any of the Gentiles in their Apoſtacy, but onelyonly being in Christ as the words are, alſo. ver. 7. and 9. &c.
I ſpeak comparatively of the ſeeds of the apoſtate Iſraelites and Antichriſtians, affirming the one as fit ſubiects for baptiſme, as the other for circumciſion, becauſe the Gentiles ſince Chriſt, have as much title to the covenant with Abraham, as the Iſraelites had. This you deny, ſhifting off with your deviſed carnal covenant. It is not for the ſpirituall covenant or Sacrament, to belong to Apoſtates, that I contend: I know it belongs to the faithful and their ſeed, though you ſay no. But this was the end wherefore I did alledge Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is inlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as iuſt clayme to it for them ſelves and their ſeed, as Iſrael could do. And therefore did reaſon thus: If the children of Iſrael could chalendg right to the covenant and circumciſiō, their parents being in Apoſtacy: then might the infants of Apoſtats in Antichriſtianiſme do ſo: and this is all that I ſayd, not iuſtifying the ſtanding of the one or of the other.