The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 2 · Argument 1
I. Argument.
If the Apoſtacie of Iſrael did not ſo pollute circumciſion that that it ceaſed to be the ſeal of Gods covenant to ſo many of thē as repented: no more doth the Apoſtaſie of our fore-Elders ſo polute baptiſme, that it ceaſeth to be a ſacrament to ſo many of them that turne unto God from their ſinnes.
But the firſt is true. 2 Chron. 30. 11. 18. 21. els could not ſo many of Iſrael as came to Ieruſalem have eaten the Paſſeover, ſeing no uncircumciſed might eat thereof. Ergo the ſecond.
If it be obiected that the apoſtaſie is not alike thē let it be ſhewed that the apoſtaſie under Antichriſt did make a nullitie of baptiſm, & not the apoſtaſie of Iſrael of circumciſion: for Iſrael played the harlot ſo deeply, that the Lord denyed her to be his wife, or himſelf to be her husband. Hoſe. 2. 2.
Mr Smyth.
And thus having ſhewed the vanitie of your anſweres to my reaſons againſt …ſwer.paedobaptiſtrie, let us come to your anſwere made to my 2. Poſition.
2. That Antichristians converted, &c. Your first Argument is framed thus. If the apoſtaſie of Iſrael, &c. I anſwer that the apoſtaſie of Antichrist is deeper then the apoſtaſie of Iſrael, for firſt Antichristians are not called Iſraelites, but Babylonias, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles, in the Revelation, whereby the holy ſpirit of wiſedome giveth vsus to conceive, that he doth account the apostaſie of Antichriſt equ… to Paganiſme it ſelf, &c.
Rich: Clifton.
Whether my anſwers be vaine, or your reaſons haeretical, let the reader…ply. judge. For your anſwer to this my firſt Argument againſt your ſecond Poſition, if it be graunted that the Apoſtaſie of Antichriſt be worſe then of Iſrael, yet this difference is but according to the leſſe & the greater, both are Apoſtaſie. But as concerning theſe names of Sodomites, &c. they do not prove that Antichriſtianiſme is equalled to Paganiſme: rather they ſhew that the Antichriſtians were in ſome things like to the Sodomites, Aegyptians, &c. Was Iuda her circumciſion voyd becauſe the Prophet calles…a. 1. 10. their Princes, * the Princes of Sodome, & the people the people of Gomorah? If this had bene ſo, they muſt hauehave bene new circumciſed. Know you not that the holy Ghoſt by theſe ſimilitudes would manifeſt ſome abhominable ſinne that he ſaw in his people wherein they became like unto the profane Gē tiles? And the more to cauſe them to deteſt their ſinne, likeneth them to ſuch notorious ſinners, as had taſted of the hand of God againſt them for their ſinnes. Wherefore as Iudah for her uniuſt ſhedding of blood and other filthy ſinnes is called Sodome and Gomorah: So the Antichriſtians are called Sodome, for their filthy ſinne of Sodomitrie, and ſuch like, wherein they become like to the Sodomites: and Egypt and Babylon, becauſe they keep Gods people under a ſpirituall ſervitude, as formerly Egypt and Babylon had done the Iſraelites and Iewes under a corporal bō dage. And the Antichriſtians, if they be compared to the Gentiles (which I do not remember) it is in reſpect of their profanenes and ſtrange Gods: for as the Gentiles had many Gods, to whom they gave ſpiritual worſhip: ſo the Antichriſtians have their Gods, Saincts of both ſexes, and the Angels to whom they do worſhip and ſervice. Notwithſtanding all this their profaneſſe, yet did they confeſſe God and Ieſus Chriſt to be their ſaviour, 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 A….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 falſeRe. ground that deceaves you. The reaſon of your difference wil not hold, for if reteyning of circumciſiō 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 pr…f…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 conſtitutiō fayles you, in holding the Sacraments to be the conſtitution thereof, … them appertayne vntounto 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 opiniō, 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 th… 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 refuſedHoſe. 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.…hrō. 13 … King. … 31. …hr. 11. 14 … Chron. …. …erſ. 8. & …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 cōſtitutiō, but with the other particulars before mētioned: yet that ſufficeth to declare that they had broken covenāt with God, which, what is it els, but to depart frō their primitive conſtitutiō. 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.… 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 …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.
C…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 vsus conſider furder of the difference you make between Iſrael and Antichriſtianiſme: you ſaye.
That Antichriſt hath not onelyonly 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 … Church, viz. infants and perſons vnbaptiſed, and ſo a falſe forme, &c.
I anſwere, 1. that the Apoſtolike conſtitution did not ſhut out the childrenRe. 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 madman 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 &c. And therefore to be as Pagans or Gentiles in the Lords account; and to iuſtifie Apoſtate Iſrael reteyning circumciſion to be a true Church. For your pleading againſt the adulteries of Rome I diſlike not: but by theſe your Arguments, & manner of pleading, you ſhall never convince her, or ever be able to juſtifie that adulterous Church of Iſrael: neither wil this your reaſon ſtand good. That circumciſion in the Iſraelites Apoſtaſie was true, becauſe it was performed vponupon carnal Iſraelites or proſelytes the 8. day. And that baptiſme in Popery is falſe and in the Lords account no better then Pagan waſhing, &c. for as much may be ſayd for baptiſme adminiſtred to the apoſtate Church of Antichriſt, as yo… can ſay for circumciſion in the Apoſtaſie of Iſrael. And all that can be ſayd is this, that neither of them both is in deed capable, in that ſtanding: For the ſacraments belong to the members of a true Church, not to apoſtates. But if to be circumciſed the 8. day prove that Iſraels circumciſion was true in her Apoſtacy; what letteth the circumciſion of the Edomites and Iſmaelites to be true alſo, they keeping the 8. day, ſeing they were of the ſeed of Abraham. The right of circumciſion belonged to the children of the promiſe which was made to Abraham in Chriſt: And therfore when any ofRom. 2. 5. 2 Chro. 30 …-11. Abrahās ſeed did cut off themſelves by infidelitie, their † circūciſiō became vncircumciſion: on the contrary, circumciſion, though adminiſtred in Apoſtacy vntounto infants, yea * thoſe coming to yeares and ſeeking the Lord, their circumciſion was then profitable to them. And ſo is baptiſme in like manner to them that receive it in apoſtate Churches, when they by repentance ſhall returne to God. But you drive all to this yſſue, that not the profanes of the apoſtaſie, but the fittines of the ſubiect makes the ſacrament true or falſe. That infants are as fit ſubiects for baptiſme, as the infants under the law, for circumciſion, I hauehave proved in the former part of this writing.
Your third anſwer. 3. I declare that Iſrael was the true church of God, or a mēber Anſw.of a true Church, though infinitely corrupt as wel as Iuda in the dayes of her apostaſie, &c. and therefore if Iudah reteyned true circumciſion in her apostaſie &c. ſurely the circumciſion of Iſrael was alſo true.
This is ſtrange that Iſrael can be a true Church, & yet infinitely corrupt, cā …l.a wife be a true wife & alſo a harlot? thus you may as wel iuſtify Rome & all Antichriſtian aſſemblies. The holy ghoſt calleth both * Aholah and AholibahEzech. 23 harlots: and you in their infinite corruptions inſtifye them to be true Churches, and particularly of Iſrael the Lord ſayth, † plead with your Hoſe. 2. 2.mother for ſhe is not my wife. And you ſay, ſhe was a true Church, that is, a true wife, directly contradicting the holy Ghoſt. But you reaſon, If Iudah retayned true circumciſion in her apostaſie, then Iſraell, &c.
Then if eyther Iuda her circumciſion was falſe, or that your compariſon is not equall, your argument is of no forse. The ſacraments ſeale up Gods covenant to his people walking in his wayes, and not to them when they fall from the faith. That of Hoſea. 2. 2. alledged by ſome is you ſay, to Prove Iſrael a falſe Church you thus anſwer unto.Hoſea. …
I ſay it was after the Paſſeover of Ezechias which was in the firſt yeare of his reigne. 2 Chron. 29. 3. 14. and 30. 2. and the bill of divorce was given the ſixt …re of his reigne, 2 King. 17. 23. compared with 2 King. 18. 10. yet notwithstanding Hoſea calleth Iſrael the Lords people after he had prophecied of the bill of divorce … be given her. Hoſe. 4. 6. 8. 12. &c.
Concerning the time of Hoſea his propheſie, when he ſayd, plead with … mother, &c. I take it was in the dayes of Vzziah king of Iuda and about the *Perki… Specimen … &c. pag. 3 † 2. Kin… 17. 23.23. yeare of his reigne, which was almoſt 60. yeres before Ezechias began to reigne, and before the Lord † put Iſrael out of his ſight. Now ſo long before the prophet was bidden to tel Iſrael that ſhe was not the Lords wife. This being ſo, I would know how you or any can iuſtify Iſrael to be a true church, when the Lord denyes her? ſhe had broken covenant, & her divorcement (as you call it) argues as much: for men put from them wives that had broken the band of mariage, and not true wives.
To that of Hoſea, 4. 6. 8. 12. I have anſwered, pag. 152. Furthermore you ſay, when the bil of divorce was given, divers of Iſ…ael kept themſelves pure from Samaritaniſme and went yeerly to Ieruſalem.
I doubt thereof no more then you, according to theſe ſcriptures, 2. Chron. 34. 6. 7. 31. 32. 33. and 35. 18. and 30. 11. but we reaſon of the face of that Church, as it ſtood in apoſtaſie and ſo continued, and not of particular perſons. In Babylon god hath his; yet the face of that Church of ANTICHRIST is apoſtate and falſe to the LORD. And ſo we ſay of Iſrael, that if we reſpect the outward face of it, it was a falſe Church to God long before Samaritaniſme began▪ And here I obſerve that you agree not with your ſelf, for here you ſay, no manner of ſinne made the Church of the old teſtament, a falſe Church: and yet you call it apoſtate, as alſo you do the like in your Paralels. pag. 14. and 26. And it is as much as we ſay of it: for that people that are fallen into▪ apoſtaſie have broken faith and covenant with God. And if in any place we call Iſrael or Antichriſts, a falſe Church, we meane no other, but a Church that hath unfaithfully departed from the LORD, and ſo continues in Apoſtaſie.