The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 1 · Argument 2
Argument. II.
Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumciſion belonged to faithful Abraham and his ſeed, yea to ſuch as were but infants, then doth baptiſme alſo appertayne to all beleevers and to their ſeed being infants. But the firſt is true, Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the ſecond.
The conſequent wil follow, ſeing baptiſme cōmeth in place of circumciſion ſealing up unto us and to our ſeed the ſame promiſes that circumciſion did to Abraham and to his ſeed, Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner (if not more ample) then to the Iſraelites, for of them onelyonly were the males circumciſed, but by baptiſme, are both males and females ſealed. And this muſt follow neceſſarily, or els the covenant by the cō ming of Ieſus Chriſt ſhould be more reſtreyned, then it was under the law, who came to ratify and confirm it wholly, as the Apoſtle ſayth, 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promiſes of God are in him, yea and Amen, &c. For God gave it with the ſeale thereof, to Abraham and his infants: and if Chriſt ſhould give it unto us onelyonly and not to our infants, this were to leſſen and infringe the covenant, and not to confirm all, but to take away part of that which God before had given.
Mr Smyth.
I anſwer that this argument is built vponupon the ſame falſe ground with the former a meer miſtaking of the covenant, and ſeale, and ſeed: and there is manifeſt violence cō mitted upon the ſcripture by perverting and wreſting it to falſe conſequents: first therfore I deny the conſequence, and I give reaſons of my denyall. &c.
The former Argument is proved to ſtand upon a true ground and ſo …all it be manifeſted that there is no miſtaking, eyther of the covenant, ſeale or ſeed in this reaſon, nor yet any violence offred to this ſcripture, by wreſting it to falſe conſequences as you affirme. The conſequence you deny, but deſprove it not, to your reaſons I wil anſwer particularly, which in number are three.
Your firſt reaſon becauſe, that circumciſion did not appertaine to Abraham & his infants as a ſeale of the everlaſting covenant but of the externall temporary covenant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moſes. &c. I have already proved the contrary, both out of Gen: 17. 7. 9. where it is added as a ſigne vntounto that everlaſting covenant, and alſo out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith. Furthermore, circumciſion did ſignify the †Deut. … 16. Ier. … Act. 7. 5…inward circumciſion of the hart; which was not required of them in reſpect of the promiſe of Canaā, (the ſame being required vnderunder the Goſpel,) nor yet of the law, (for it admitts of no repentance,) but as a condition of the everlaſting covenant made with Abraham and his ſeede in Chriſt: alſo the proſelites & Iſmael were circumciſed, that had no promiſe of Canaan, nor right to one foot of inheritance in it, for *Ioſ. 14. … 16. 17. 18▪ 19. 21. c▪Canaan was devided by lot to the 12. Tribes, and in every tribe to the ſeveral families: and therefore their circumciſion did eyther ſeale vntounto them the ſpirituall covenant, or none at all, as before is obſerved.
Againe, if by the male circumciſed; Chriſt was typed, as you have affirmed before in your fift reaſon in your anſwere to my former Argument, then circumciſion was a ſigne of the ſpiritual covenant: (For Chriſt is that which was promiſed). And if the infant circumciſed was a type of him, it muſt nedes followe that circumciſion was aſigne of that covenant whereof the child circumciſed was the ſubject, but the infant in becomming a type of Chriſt, became in this reſpect, a ſubiect of the ſpiritual covenant, and therfore his circumciſion a ſeale thereof, for the type and truth muſt have relation to the ſame thing or covenant.
Laſtly, Chriſt was a Miniſter of the circumciſion for the truth of God, to confirm the promiſes unto the fathers. Rom. 15. 8. Alſo I deny that circumciſion was firſt given as a ſeale of obedience to the law of Moſes, ſeing the law was not given when circumciſion was ordeyned, but *Gal. 3. 1…430. yeares after: the thing to be ſealed is to go before the ſeale, or els it is prepoſterous, and the ſeale without fruit. Neyther was it given to be a ſeale of a carnall promiſe: in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace, God togither with it promiſed unto him and his ſeed the Land of Canaan: but he never appointed circumciſion to be the ſeale thereof; els when Iſrael poſſeſſed that land, circumciſion ſhould have ceaſſed, as all Sacraments ſhall do, when the promiſes, whereof they be ſeales, ſhalbe fully accompliſhed: and circumciſion ſhould have bene of no force to them that had no right to Canaan, which yet were circumciſed.
Your ſecond reaſon, becauſe the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the new Testament, &c.
I anſwer, they do thus occupy the place of Abraham, that as he did, ſoAct. 2. 39 do * they receive the covenant to them, and their children, who through the free promiſe of God received by the faith of the parents, have entrance into the covenant together with them: and in this regard parents are, & ſo may be called “fathers of their children, being the meanes whereby theyAct. 2. 39 come to this prerogative, And this is not to ſupply that particular of Abrahams fatherhood, which was extraordinarie.
Your third reaſon is, becauſe the infants of the faithful doe not poſseſſe the place of the true children of Abraham, but poſseſse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the fleſh, &c.
Firſt, how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham, I have ſhewed, & here, deny that the children of Abraham according to the fleſh onelyonly as you mean, were types of the infants of the faithfull; ſeing the children of the Proſelytes were the children of 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 circū 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. … 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 infāts of the faithful, then were they types of thēſelves.
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. … 16. 17. 19▪ 20. 23. … cōferd w… Gen. 17. … 9. 13. Jo… 44.ſonnes of the promiſe of life, ſo to be reputed, as the like we are to eſteeme of all the children of belee…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. 1… 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 convincedRom. 2… 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 onelyonly 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…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 vntounto them, need not the uſe of outward circumciſion. And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apoſtle having before taught…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 onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 ſucceedesRō. 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…om. 4. …. 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 te…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 there teacheth. This viſible ſeale of the new teſtament is confeſſion, as in the …d testament circumciſion was their confeſſion, and baptiſme is not a ſeale, but a manifeſtation of the ſeale.
Firſt, you deny a principle of religion, and that which formerly you held, for in your book of Difference, &c. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptiſme ſeales of the covenant: theſe are your words. The publiſhing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the ſeales is onelyonly one concrete action &c. for the publiſhing of the covenant giveth being to the ſeales, otherwiſe breaking of bread and baptiſing are but putting of ſeales to a blank. And thus unſtable are you in your wayes.
2. What if baptiſme be not called a ſeale? yet if it can be proved by ſcripture that it is a ſeale, we ought ſo to receive it. The ſacraments given of God unto the Iſraelites were called ſeales, as †Rom. 4. & 15. 8.circumciſion by the Apoſtle is called, a ſeale of the righteouſnes of faith. And when God made with Abraham his covenant to be his God and the God of his ſeed, he gave him *Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1…circumciſion a ſigne thereof, which did confirme unto him and to his ſeed that which God did promiſe, as before the Lord had done to Noah to whō he gave the “Gen. 9. 9-17.rayn-bowe as a ſigne of his promiſe, that the world ſhould be no more deſtroyed with water: ſo the Paſſeover is called a ſigne, Exod. 13. 9. Now if circumciſion be a ſigne and ſeale of Gods covenant, as the Apoſtle teſtifieth, then it muſt needs be granted that baptiſme ſucceeding circumciſion is alſo a ſeale of the Lords covenant, though the very word (ſeale) be not expreſſely ſet downe in the ſcripture. And this the Apoſtle intimates, Act. 2. 39. where he exhorteth the beleevers to be baptiſed every one in the name of Ieſus Chriſt for the remiſſion of ſinnes, for the promiſe is to you and to your children. The Lord commanding his “Mat. 2. 19.Goſpel to be preached to all nations, commanded them alſo to be baptiſed, confirming by this outward ſigne, his covenant to all the beleeving Gentiles and their ſeed, as he had done to Abraham and his ſeed the ſame covenant by circumciſion. * Paul, † Cornelius, “Lydia and the Gaylor, after they beleeved and had…ct. 9. 17 received the covenant were baptiſed, which confirmed unto them the free * forgivenes of all their ſynnes by the death of Chriſt. And this is plainlyAct. 10. taught us by Peter 1. Epiſtle 3, 21. where he ſayth, that baptiſme now alſo ſaveth us: Baptiſme cannot be ſayd to ſave, as any cauſe thereof,Act. 16. … 31. …k. 3. 3. …ct. 2. 38. …. 6. 3. …al. 3. 16 …om. 7. 11 Mar. 16. but in this reſpect, that it witneſſeth and ſealeth unto us from God, our ſalvation, that which circumciſion did type out to come, the ſame doth baptiſme now ſignifie to be fulfilled in Chriſt the true † ſeed, of Abraham. And as by “circumciſiion the righteouſnes of faith was ſealed: ſo by Baptiſme ſalvation is ſealed, as Chriſt ſayth * he that beleeveth and is baptiſed ſhalbe ſaved.
Againe, Rom. 6. 3. Paul ſayth, all we that have been baptized into Ieſus Chriſt have beene baptized into his death. In which words the Apoſtle giveth vsus to underſtand, that by baptiſme, the benefits of the death of Chriſt, are on the Lords behalf confirmed unto us. And if this be not the ſignification of baptiſme, let it be ſhewed out of the word what els is minded by theſe phraſes, baptiſed into the death of Chriſt, and buried with him, by baptiſme into his death?
Thus have I ſhewed that baptiſme is a ſeal of the new Teſtament, which you deny, affirming a new kind of ſeale thereof, viz: Confeſſion, & ſay, the ſeale of the spirit, muſt go before baptiſme. Which two in my underſtanding differ farre one from another, for confeeſsion, is the act of man, as the Apoſtle ſayth, * with the mouth man confeſseth unto ſalvation, & proveth ſometime to beRom. 10. … Act. 8. 13 hypocriticall, as that of Symon Magus was: But the baptiſme of the holy Ghoſt is an action of God, and is eyther an internall work of the ſpirit, as Mat. 3. 11. or els external, by ſome viſible ſignes and extraordinary guifts, Act. 1. 8. & 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44. - 47. This latter now ceaſſeth; being then given of God, for the further confirming of the Goſpel in the Churches newly planted, until the faith of Chriſt was fully eſtabliſhed amongſt the Gentiles, and therefore is no ordinary ſeale of the new Teſtament given by Chriſt to be continued unto the end of the world, though I confeſſe thoſe extraordinary giftes of the ſpirit, miracles & works done by the Apoſtles and other of the ſervants of Chriſt, have ſtill their uſe in the Church to confirme the truth of God by them publiſhed.
And as for mens confeſsion of the faith, that can be no ſeale of the …ew Teſtament; becauſe it is imperfect, and oftentimes hypocriticall, many falling away from the truth which formerly they profeſſed, as Demas, Nicholas the Deacon, and thoſe mentioned in the firſt epiſtle of Iohn, chap. 2. 19. Now that which muſt ſeale Gods covenant unto us, for the confirmation of our faith muſt be certayne and perfect, and that from God, becauſe it is he that promiſeth ſalvation to all that beleeve, therefore it is he that onelyonly can give aſſurance of his owne covenant, And as …or our confeſſion, it is but an outward teſtification of the grace of God beſtowed upon us, it can no more be a ſeale of the new Teſtament, then the profeſſion of the Iewes was of the old. And as you require of me …here in all the ſcripture baptiſme is called a ſeale? ſo more juſtly may I demand of you where in all the new Teſtament that confeſſion is called a ſeale. Beſides if confeſſion be a ſeale of the new Teſtament, then a man may be par taker of the ſcale, that is not of the Church, as they that confeſſe their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints.
3. That the ſeale of the ſpirit muſt go before the baptiſme of water, &c. Vnderſtanding it as you do (of confeſsion) then I graunt, that ſuch as were never of the Church, ar firſt to make cōfeſſiō of their faith, & to teſtify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptiſed. Act. 8. 37. 38. but neyther is ſuch confeſſion required of their infants, neyther is it a ſeale of the new Teſtament, as before I have proved. Otherwiſe underſtanding the ſeale of the ſpirit, as the Apoſtle doth, Rom. 8, 15. 16. & Ephe. 1, 13. 14. ſo goeth it before and together with Baptiſme in all the elect of God whether infants or of yeares.
As for that ſealing with the ſpirit, of Cornelius company, which you inſtance, Act. 10. 47. whereby you ſeeme to underſtand, confeſſion, you cannot but know, that the ſpirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words, was the extraordinary geving of the ſpirit, wherewith he and the reſt were indued, and not onelyonly that ordinary confeſſion of the faith required of each true beleever, as by the text is plainly to be ſeen, which ſayth, that they of the circumciſion were astonied as many as came with Peter, becauſe on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghoſt, For they heard them ſpeak with tongues. And chapter 11. 15. Peter ſayth, as I beganne to ſpeak the holy Ghoſt fell on them, even as upon us at the beginning. Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apoſtles how the holy Ghoſt came upon them, viz: there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre, and it ſat vponupon each of them, and they were filled with the holy Ghoſt, and began to ſpeak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance. This deſcending of the ſpirit upon the Apoſtles was extraordinarie, (for he came not ſo upon all that were baptiſed. Act. 8. 36, 37. & 16. 14. 15. 33,) ſeing * the multitude was aſtoniſhed…ct. 2. 6. ….—12. wondred all and marveyled. Therefore that comming of the ſpirit upō Cornelius and his company, was extraordinary: for Peter ſayth, The holy Ghoſt fel on them as on us at the beginning: alſo Peter diſtinguiſheth between the holy Ghoſt that fel on them, & baptiſme; for he ſeing them partakers of the ſpirit, ſayth, can any man forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptiſed that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we?
This viſible ſeale ſeale of the new Teſtament, (ſay you) is confeſſion, as in the old Teſtament, circumciſion was their confeſſion.
That confeſſion, is not the ſeale of the new Teſtament I have already proved. And as for circumciſion to be their confeſſion in the old Teſtamēt, thus farre may be granted, that it was a ſigne ſeparating them from the Gentiles, and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance, and ſo is baptiſme now to us, a ſigne diſtinguiſhing us from Iewes and Pagans, but as we do not only confeſſe the Lord to be our God by our baptiſme;Act. 19. …. Rom. 10 10. King. 18 …. Exo. 19. …. Pſa. 107. …. 21. 31. Eſa. 29. 13. …e Dā. ch. 9 Exo. 12. …8. Act. …. 27. &c. Ezr. 6. 21. but alſo by * profeſſing of his name and truth: even ſo did the Iewes confeſſe the Lord to be their God, and his truth not onelyonly by circumciſiſion, but alſo † with words to his praiſe. And I make no queſtion, but the Proſelytes before they were “circūciſed made confeſſion of their faith.
Baptiſme is not a ſeale, but a manifeſtation of the ſeale.
I pray you Sir, of what ſeale is baptiſme the manifeſtation? Confeſſion you ſay, is the viſible ſeale of the new teſtament. Doth it manifeſt our confeſſion? it needs not, for that is viſible. If you meane that it ſignifyeth the inward grace, it is true, but thereby we are aſſured of Gods promiſe, and ſo is the viſible ſeale thereof.
Next you proceed to anſwer unto the ſcriptures which I alledged to cō firme the conſequence of my Argument: the firſt whereof is, Colloſ. 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptiſme cōmeth in the rome of circumciſion, this you deny ſo to be conſtrued, and ſay:
That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Chriſts circumciſion and baptiſme which is mortifying and burying of ſyn and reſurrection from ſinne, and not to teach that in the new Teſtament baptiſme ſucceedeth circumciſion, &c.
That baptiſme ſucceedeth circumciſion as a ſeale to the ſame covenant of grace wherof circumciſiō was the ſeale, I wil further manifeſt & prove both out of this place of the Colloſsians, and alſo by other reaſons. Firſt asColl. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apoſtle reaſoning againſt ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Goſpel, proveth that the Church ſtands no need therof, ſeing they are fully furniſhed with all things in Chriſt: and becauſe the adverſaries did eſpecially urge circumciſion as neceſarie to ſalvatiō, he anſwereth, that neyther needed they to be circumciſed, becauſe they were ſpiritually circumciſed. And whereas the Colloſsions might have objected, that they that were under the law were inwardly circumciſed, yet had they withall outward circumciſion the ſeale thereof, which if we want, our ſtate is not ſo good as their was: yea ſayth Paul that it is, for in ſtead of outward circumciſion, you have baptiſme ordayned of God to ſeale vntounto you and your children, under the Goſpel, the ſame things that circumciſion did ſeale unto the Iewes and their ſeed: this is the meaning of the Apoſtle, and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptiſme ſucceedeth circumciſion: Now I vvil prove alſo by other reaſons that Baptiſm ſucceedeth Circumciſion as a ſeale of the ſame covenant.
Firſt, the ſacraments of the nevv Teſtament have the ſame end & ſcope in reſpect of the thing ſignified, with the ſacraments under the law. For as Paul attributed the ſame vertue, efficacy, and effect of our baptiſme & the Lords ſupper *1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4.to the fathers: ſo doth he aſcribe to the beleevers under the goſpel, the efficacy of the †Cor. …Paſcall lambe, “Col. 2. 1… 12.and circumciſion; therfore in reſpect of the thing ſigned, there is no difference, the ſame Chriſt, was the Lambe *Rev. 13.ſlaine from the beginning of the world. Alſo the ſame inſtrument and meanes of application, the ſame †Rom. 4, 16. &c.faith, end and effect, one and the ſame righteouſnes of faith, the ſame “Gal. 3. 9bleſsing with faithful Abraham, the ſame ſpirituall circumciſion of the hart, both of the fathers under der the law and of vsus vnderunder the goſpel: ſo that in all theſe things there is no difference; which plainely argues, that our ſacraments ſucceed in place of the former ſacraments.
2, This may be further ſhewed by comparing circumciſion and baptiſme together in their ſpecial vſes and ends. There is the ſame principal uſe and end of circumciſion and baptiſme, viz: to * be ſignes of the covenant…o. 4. 11. …. &c. Gal …6. Mar. …. 16. con…d with …om. 4. 11 Deut. 10. …. & 30. 6 …it. 3. 5. …er. 4. 4. …l. 2. 11. …uk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 …. 6. 4. 6. …om. 2. 29. …hil. 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 …. Exo. 12. …. Act. 8. …. & 16. …. 33. …at. 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 …2. 1 Cor. …2. 13. of the righteouſnes of faith in Chriſt: both of the ſacraments of † regeneration, “requiring repentance and mortification, both ſignifying that we are corrupt, and by the ¶ blood of Chriſt, to be clenſed, by both of them ſuch as were * without, were received into the communion of the Church. And by both of them Gods people were † diſcerned from other prophane companies: And neither of them might be iterated. By which proportion and agrement we may ſee, that the one followes the other.
Laſtly, as circumciſion was given as a ſigne of the covenant, when the Lord choſe Abraham and his ſeed to be his people: ſo baptiſme was givē together with the publiſhing of this covenant to the Gentiles, when circumciſion was to ceaſſe, the partition wall removed, and both Iewes and Gentiles were made alike partakers of the covenant and of baptiſme the ſigne thereof. Which argueth that the mind of the Lord was to give to his Church, Baptiſme, to confirme unto it, thoſe things which before he had witneſſed to Abraham by circumciſion. And thus I have proved Baptiſme to ſucceed Circumciſion, and ſo anſwered your miſtaking of that place of the Colloſ. 2. 11. 12.
Againe you ſay that I would inſinuate a reſtraint in the new Teſtament if baptiſme be not due to infants; ſeing circumciſion was due to infants in the old teſtament, whereunto you anſwer many wayes, ſaying,
1. Seing Baptiſme doth not ſucceed Circumciſion, this allegation is nothing to the purpoſe. 2. ſeing baptiſme is both to male and female it is larger then circumciſion which was onelyonly vponupon the male 3. Seing baptiſme is both to Jew and Gentile, therfore more large then circumciſion, but theſe things are almost nothing to the purpoſe: but now I ſay more pertinently, that the covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt, is now as large as ever it was, for it was never made with Abrahā and all his carnall children, but onelyonly with Abraham and the faithful, and ſo that continueth in the ſame tenure ſtil, and it is inlarged now ſince Chriſts comming onelyonly in respect of the clearer and more vniverſall publication of it, &c.
Concerning the firſt particular of your anſwer, I have already proved Baptiſme to ſucceed circumciſion, & then my allegation is to purpoſe you …nnot deny. To the ſecond, I anſwer, that though baptiſme be both to …ale and female, and circumciſion onelyonly to the male, yet is not the ſeal…g of the covenant ſo large under the goſpel as under the law, if infants …e excluded from it: for though women were not circumciſed, yet were …hey comprehended in the covenant with the males, and their ſtate was as … they had been circumciſed. Gen. 34. 14. And though baptiſme be …o women, yet denying it to children, it makes a reſtraynt: for to place …omen in the ſtead of children is not an inlarging, but a change.
To the third particular of your anſwer, that baptiſme is both of Iewe and …entile, and therefore more large. I anſwer, ſo was circumciſion to Iewe and Gentile, for all the Gentiles might have been circumciſed, if they had pro…ſſed the faith: therefore it wil folow that you do reſtrayn the ſeale of Gods covenant by denying it to infants. But theſe things, you ſay, are almoſt …thing to the purpoſe: therefore to your ſecond anſwer, that you ſay, is more …rtinent, viz: that God never made the ſpiritual covenant with Abraham and al …is carnall ſeed, but onelyonly with Abraham and the faithful. It is certaine that God made his covenant with Abraham and his ſeed, Gen. 17. 7. and to that ſeed of his to whom was promiſed and given the land of Canaan, to that *Gen. 17 8.ſeed did God promiſe to be their God: but to Abrahams natural ſeed was promiſed and given the land of Canaan, Ergo to them did God promiſe to be their God & ſo made with them his covenant of grace in Chriſt then to come. The ſame may be ſeen by the †Deut. … 10.—15;renuing of this covenant, as formerly hath bene ſhewed.
I affirme, that circumciſion was never a ſeale of Gods covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Christ, &c.
I have proved the contrarie before, and have alſo ſhewed that the confeſſion “pag. 12.of beleevers under the Goſpel is not the ſeale of the new Teſtament, then is it not ſo large as circūciſiō: for that infants were circūciſed, but Confeſſiō is onelyonly of them that are growne to yeares. As for your oppoſing of true beleevers, to the carnal Iſraelites circumciſed, it is not a iuſt and equall oppoſition, for actuall beleevers are onelyonly of perſons growne to yeares, but the circumciſed were not onelyonly of ſuch, but alſo their infants. And thus you leſſen both the covenant and ſeale thereof, if things be taken in their due proportion, though you pretend the contrary, deceived by your owne deviſed definitions and diſtinctions.
Laſtly, to 2 Cor. 1. 20. you anſwer, ſaying, this place is ſtrayned to the …or. 1. 20proving thereof; for the meaning of it is that unto the faithful, all the Lords promiſes are verified, but his promiſe was never, that all their carnall ſeed ſhould have baptiſme as a ſeale of life and ſalvation, but that all beleevers ſhould have the ſpirit of promiſe which is the new Testaments ſeale.
You grant that the meaning of this ſcripture is that all the Lords promiſes are verified to the faithfull, and further then this I do not ſtreyne it: but do affirme, that this promiſe of life in Chriſt, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed * was made to faithful Abraham and his ſeed: which promiſeGen. 17. 7. he received that he ſhould be the father of circumciſion, and the father of all that beleeve, not being circumciſed, Rom. 4. 12. 11. But where you ſay the promiſe was never that their carnal ſeed ſhould have baptiſme as a ſeale of life. I anſwer, that thoſe whom you call carnal ſeed, being the infants of the faithful, are a † holy ſeed, in reſpect of that title and right which they haveCor. 7. 14 Pet. 2. 9. …. 11. 16 to the covenant received by their parents, though they be carnall, inaſmuch as they are begotten and born of them after the common courſe of nature. And therefore being holy, and children of the covenant, have alſo a right to Baptiſme, as hath beene, and ſhalbe further proved in the reſidew of the arguments following. Here alſo out of your anſwer you ſet downe five arguments againſt Poedobaptiſtrie.
1. If all the carnall infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlaſting covenant in respect of the actuall poſſeſsion of it, then they never had title to the ſeale of the everlaſting covenant. But all the carnall infants were never actually vnderunder the everlaſting covenant in reſpect of the actuall poſſeſſion of it, ſeing Abrahams children according to his actuall faith were onelyonly under it. Rom. 4. 11. Ergo, &c.
I anſwer, unto the major, that to be under the everlaſting covenant, is to be conſidered two wayes, 1. according to the Lords externall diſpenſation, thereof, who of his free grace “maketh his everlaſting covenantAct. 2. 39 with the faithful and their ſeed. 2. according to Gods ſecret election; in the former ſenſe, all the carnall infants of Abraham were, and all the infants of the faithful are, under the covenant. * For if the root be holy, ſoRom. 11. …. Gen. 17. 7 … 11. 12. …at. 28. 19 are the branches: And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant, through the free grace and large promiſe of God: ſo have they † to the ſeal thereof, which is adminiſtred by the commandement of God, according to the outward diſpenſation of his covenant, and not after his ſecret election, according to which election, neyther all the carnall infants of Abraham, or all the ſeed of the faithfull, or yet all that make *1 Io. …viſible profeſſion of their faith and ſtand members of true Churches, are under the covenant, ſave onelyonly the elect. But thus to vnderſtand, to be vnderunder the actuall poſſeſsion of it, as it is proper onelyonly to the true children of Abraham, ſo the certaine knowledge thereof †2 Tim▪ 19.belongs onelyonly to God. And thus you ſee the majors conſequent, in a right underſtanding of the covenant doth not follow.
Your ſecond is this, If Baptiſme doth not ſucceed circumciſion, then Baptiſme doth not perteyne to carnall infants. But Baptiſme doth not ſucceed Circumciſion, becauſe the ſeale of the ſpirit is correſpondent to the typicall ſeale of the fleſh, and Baptiſme with water is onelyonly the manifeſtation of the ſeale. Ergo, &c.
The conſequent of the major of this argument is not neceſſarily true, for though baptiſme ſhould not ſucceed circumciſion, yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God. But I deny the minor, and do affirme that Baptiſme doth ſucceed circumciſion, as I have formerly proved. The reaſon of your aſſumption is alſo before diſproved, for the ſpirit as you vnderſtand it, for our confeſſion, is not correſpondent to circumciſion, ſeing infants are excluded.
Your third is this, If circumciſion did not ſeale vp the everlaſting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants (then by your proportion) baptiſme doth not ſeale up the everlaſting covenant to the faithful & their carnal infants. But circumciſiō did not ſeale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants. Ergo, &c.
The Aſſumption is falſe being rightly vnderſtood, viz: in reſpect of their outward ſtanding; and the contrarie is proved before, to wit, that circumciſion did ſeale up viſibly the everlaſting covenant to Abraham and all his ſeed. Gen. 17. 7. &c.
Your fourth is this, If beleeving Parents do not ſtand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants, then though they be baptiſed themſelves yet their children ſhall not. But the beleevers do not ſtand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants, for no man is the father of the faithfull, as Abraham was, and he did never conveigh the everlaſting covenant to his carnall infants▪ Ergo, &c.
For conveighing of the everlaſting covenant, this is that which we ſay, that it is conveighed to the children, by the free grace and diſpoſing of the Lord, who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their ſeed,
And although the beleeving parents ſtand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations; yet ſtand they in Abrahams rowme in this, that as * God did conveigh his everlaſting covenant by Abraham beleeving…. 17. 7 …. 2. 39 …. 7. 14 …. 11. 9.▪ to his ſeed: ſo dooth the Lord conveigh † his covenant, to the children of beleevers: for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull, To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their ſeed; and thus entred Abrahams carnall ſeed, (as you call them) into the everlaſting covenat, as before is proved. And be it that all their ſeed are not within Gods election, (yet leaving ſecret things to the Lord) we are to beleeve the promiſe to be eſtabliſhed to all our ſeed indefinitely, and not to put difference, before the time, that they by their works do manifeſt that they are not the true ſeed of Abraham. Amongeſt them that confeſſe Ieſus Chriſt, and “are members…oh. 2. of the viſible Church many depart away, yet we account them childrē of the covenant vntill their hypocriſie be diſcovered: and ſo in like manner are we to eſteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy, vntill the cō trary…or. 7. appeare.
Your fift argument is this: If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham: but onelyonly occupy the place of carnal children, then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized, yet the infants ſhall not which cannot beleeve actually.
But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of Abraham: ſeing the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham, Joh. …. 39. which infants cannot do. Ergo, &c.
Firſt, it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onelyonly occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderſtand it; for they are alſo the † children…ct. 3. 32 …at. …. of the covenant, and of the “kingdome. Secondly, the conſequent of the major (according to the true meaning of the termes therein uſed) is alſo denyed, the contrary is proved before, viz: that infants are to be baptiſed though they have not the actuall uſe of fayth. To the minor I anſwer, that children ſo far as we can ſee do occupy the place of theAct. 2. 29 …t. 29. … 15. true children of Abraham, for to * them is the promiſe, and in that reſpect children of Abraham, as hath been ſayd.
Your reaſon drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not occupy the place of true children, is not truely gathered from that ſcripture, for Chriſt there proveth, that the Iewes living wickedly were not the children of Abraham as they pretended to be, ſeing they did not the deeds of Abraham: and he ſpeaketh to men of yeares, of whom the practiſe of …ith is required. Now to apply this againſt infants of whom God requires …o ſuch works, is like as if one ſhould reaſon from 2. Theſ. 3. 6. that becauſe children cannot work, therefore they muſt not eat. And ſuch is …our abſurd reaſoning from this place. Now when children of beleevers do come to yeares to manifeſt their infidelitie by their works, we are accordingly to iudge of them, after the example of Chriſt, and not before. Thus much to your five reaſons, whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptiſed.