The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 1 · Argument 5
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 parēts vnderunder 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, thē 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 …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. …6. 25. 28. …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 onelyonly 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 …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. VnderUnder 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 onelyonly 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, to be baptiſed unto Moſes may thus be underſtood, viz. that they were baptiſed, Moſes being their guid, or miniſter by whom they were inſtructed in the wayes of God. Thirdly, the baptiſme of the Iſraelites howſoever it might be typicall in ſome reſpect, yet did it ſignifie unto them true things, whereof they were partakers.Deu. 6. 6. & 11. 18. …. Gen. 18. Laſtly, the infants under the law and before, † had their dayly education by faythful parents, as wel as ours have under the Goſpel: ſo that in this reſpect, there is no ſuch material difference, as you pretend.
Moreover I deny that the baptiſme of the cloud and ſea, was a type of the external baptiſme of the new Testament in the abſtract: but it was a type of our baptiſme in the concrete, that is, the baptiſme of the cloud did type out our baptiſme in the three partes thereof, viz. 1. the baptiſme of the spirit, 2. the declaration of fayth and repentance, the antecedent of the baptiſme with water, 3. the outward waſhing with water, a manifestation of the foreſaid particulers &c.
Here you ſet us down types & things typed, but no proofs thereof, I know that the Sacraments of the new Teſtament, did ſucceed the Sacraments of the old, confirming to us the ſame ſpirituall thinges that theirs did to them. But how theſe did type forth ours in the concrete (as you ſpeak) I conceive not: our ſacraments are external as wel as theirs, and adminiſtred by * man, who neither doth nor can adminiſter the ſpirit. 1. ForMat. 3. …1. the baptiſme of the ſpirit, “Deu. 10. …. & 30. 6. … Cor. 10. 4. Heb. 11. …9. 30. 39. …ſa. 1. 16.they were partakers thereof, and † manifeſted their fayth and repentance as we do. 2. concerning the declaration of fayth and repentance to be a part of the ſacrament of baptiſme, I ſee no warrant; ſeeing it is more general then the ſacrament it ſelf, and is an imperfect work in man, and ſometymes hypocritical, and therefore cannot be a part of the ſeal of Gods covenant that ſhal confirme fayth. Alſo this were to teach, that the aſſurance and pledge of mans ſalvation depends upon himſelf, if the declaration of his fayth and repentance, be held a part of the ſacrament. Again, fayth and repentance is that condition of the covenant that is required on our part, and therefore not a part of the ſeal thereof. Beſides, that which is often to be repeated cannot be a part of baptiſme, confeſsion of ſynne and fayth is ſo often to be repeated as there ſhal be occaſion. Ergo &c. 3. The outward waſhing with water, being adminiſtred to the faythfull or their …ed in the name of the Father &c. is that ſacrament of baptiſme which was “Mat. 3. …adminiſtred by Iohn, and is adminiſtred by the miniſters of the Goſpel.
Furthermore, whereas I ſayd that to deprive children of baptiſme … to ſhorten the Lords bounty towards his people, you anſwer.
That Gods bounty is as large everie way to our infants as to theirs, for Gods …tie of actual exhibiting and ſealing the everlaſting covenant to Abraham & … his carnal infants, was never extant in the old Teſtament: neither were their parents in circumciſing their infants comforted in the aſſured conferring of it up… their infants.
You confeſſe the Lord to be as bountiful towards our infants as to…ards the infants of the Iewes, indeed, neither comfortable to theirs or ours. Not to theirs, becauſe (ſay you) the everlaſting covenant was never exhibited and ſealed to Abraham, and al his carnal ſeed. I have †pag. 12. 13.before ſhewed that the covenant was ſealed up to Abraham and his infants. And that it was exhibited and ſealed to him and to al the faithful: ſee Gen. 17. 7. - 13. Rom. 4. 11. Hebr. 11. 13. - 39. but not to al, (ſay you,) externally, it was given to all and ſealed by circumciſion, though internally it was not, no more is it to all that ſtand members of the viſible church of the new Teſtament. Secondly, if the parents had …o comfort in circumciſing of their infants in reſpect of the promiſe in Chriſt to be unto their infants, they had none at al in that action, for out of Chriſt is no true comfort: and ſo you make circumciſion an idle ſigne, which indeed did preach unto them, (howſoever you think therof,) Chriſt the promiſed ſeed, *Col. 2. 11.in whom they were circumciſed.
And circumciſion did not ſo plainly preach Chriſt then, as he is preached …w to infants. Your doctrine caſteth infants out of Gods everlaſting covenant, both under the old and new Teſtament, and ſo Chriſt to them is not preached at al. But what is it that now preacheth Chriſt to infants more plainely then circumciſion did to the Iewes infants, if not baptiſme? How be it you make a queſtion, how the preaching of Chriſt could profit infants eyther then in types or now in truth. And you ſay, neither do I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infants any thing at that inſtant, but afterward to learn that which circumciſion taught him viz. the circumciſion of the hart. And if you ſay, that infants baptiſed are to be inſtructed. I anſwer, that in the new Testament by baptiſme we manifeſt what we have, namelie, the inward baptiſme, whereas in the old Teſtament by circumciſion they learned what they had not, but ought to have viz. the inward circumciſion of the ha… &c.
Firſt, the preaching of Chriſt by circumciſing and baptiſing of infants did then and doth now profite their parents by ſeeing the covenant confirmed to their ſeed. And although the infants themſelves know not the uſe thereof, til afterward, yet it makes not the Lords ordinance, to be any more unlawful, then † Chriſts waſhing Peters feet, becauſe Peter underſtood…oh. 13. 7. it not. Yt ſufficeth that the Lord commandeth the thing to be done, and that children be * taught the uſe thereof, as they ſhal be capable.Deu. 6. 20.
Secondly, concerning that difference you make between baptiſme and circumciſion, afferming that by the former, wee manifeſt what we have &c. and by the other, they learned what they had not. It is not true that you ſay of the circumciſed, that they had not inward circumciſion, for God did promiſe it to them and their children. Deut. 30. 6. as wel as to us. And here let it be minded, that you confeſſe, that the Iſraelites ought to have had inward circumciſion, if they ought to have had it, it was by their conſtitution or everlaſting cov. of God made with them. For otherwiſe how ought they have had it? then how wil you prove that their covenant was carnal which required inward circumciſion? the truth agrees with it ſelf.