I say that you erre mistaking the Scriptures For Abrahams faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament but as a necessary president example type or paterne of justification circumcision in Abraham was not a seale of his justification or of the everlasting covenant God made with him in respect of Christ therby to establish him into Christ for he was in Christ sealed in Christ many yeres before by the seale of the Spirit but Abrahams justification in vncircumcision was a type of the justification of the Gentils who are vncircumcised Abrahams circumcision alter his justification sealed him vp to bee the Father of all the beleevers circumcised so circumcision had a triple vse in Abraham one generall two speciall particular the two speciall are these First circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to be a paterne to al the beleevers in vncircumcision that the beleeving gentils should be al justified by actual faith as he was Secondly circumcision sealed vp Abrah forme of justification to bee a paterne to al the beleevers in circumcision that the beleving Iewes should be al justified by actual faith as he was The general vse of Abrah circumcision was common with him to Ismael al the persons of his family al the carnal Israelites viz to seale him vp to the old Testament to the observation of the whole Law wherby Chr. in that vele of the old Testament was preached vnto the Iewes it being ther Schoolmr to teach them Christ Now for the place Rom. 4.11 which I am assured you wil ground your assertiō vppon I say it is both falsely translated expounded for tes en te acrobustia is vsually translated which Abrah had when he was vncircumcized this I say is a false translation For this is the true translation viz which is or was or shal be in the vncircumcision meaning that circumcision vppon Abrah the Father of al the beleving Gentils was a seale of justification to al the vncircumcision that beleeve the end of his circumcision is his Fatherhood of the Faithful the righteousnes of faith is not sealed vp to Abrah particular person but to the vncircumcised that beleve that which was sealed vp in special to Abrah was his Fatherhood or presidentship of justification So that circumcision in Abrah was to establish him the Father of the Faithful Gentils his circumcision doth teach the Gentils that if they wil partake Chr. they must by their actual faith apprehend Christs righteousnes as Abrah their Father did otherwise they cannot be justified so Pauls intent is plainly proved namely that al men must be justified by faith without the works of the law this do I confidently affirme to be the true translation exposition that the common acceptation translation of the place is the mother of this heresy of pedobapistry Againe al the persons of Abrah Family were not circumcised bicause of Abrah saith but the males al only the males were circumcised bicause of the special cōmaundement of God Gen. 17.10 the males being assumed as types for to teach thē figuratively the male Ch. circumcision of the hart by him the females were vncircumcised as they were also put out from being the matter of the burnt-offring for the males only were offered in burnt-offring to signifie that those that had not the male Chr. in them were not fit eyther to be members of the church of the new Testament or to be sacrificed vnto the L. Mal. 1.14 but if Ch. the male were in thē whither male or female in Chr. it was nothing they were accepted Gal. 3.28 Further you say that as it was with Abrah his family in circumcision so was it with Lydia the Gaylor their familyes in baptisme that is not so I shew the difference in divers particular 1. They of Abrahams Family were circuncised vppon particular precept in obedience of the Commaundement Genes 17.23 you cannot prove that the infants of Lydias the Gaylors family were baptized vpon particular precept but only you say it indevour to justifie it by the example of Abra. family but if Abra. family be an example then you must bring a particular precept as he had for baptising infants 2. They that were males only were circumcised but you wil have both males females baptized this is another difference 3. They that were circumcised of Abrah Family were al the males being of yeres though they were never so lewd wicked persons So were not al the persons of Lydias the Gaylors family but only the beleevers being of yeeres according to your opinion 4. As Faith did not intitle the female to circumcision as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision in Abrahams Family So faith did intitle the female to baptisme in the Family of the Gaylor Lydia infidelity in the male did exclude him from baptisme you see therfor that the proportion is not alike betwixt baptisme circumcision The second particular in your Answer to this Arg. is that the same order is kept in Chr. comission Mat. 18.19 in bringing the gentils into Gods covenant as was kept with Abtah he al his Family were brought in by circūcision after the gospel preached to him Genes 17 1-8 so Lydia the Gaylor were brought into the covenant with all ther Family were baptized after the Gospell preached to them I answer that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abrah the other of Lydia the Gaylor according to the commission of Chr. Mat. 28.19 First Abrah al his family by the Lords commaundement came vnder the covenant of the Old Testament actually the males only were circumcised but Chr. doth not commaund all persons of a Family in the New Testament to be baptized but only such as are made Disciples al them though they bee weomen as Lydia was Secondly The gospel was only preached to Abrah owne person by the L. but in the Gaylors case Paul preached the gospel to al that were in his howse Act. 16.32 so Chr. commaundeth to make them Disciples by preaching So were not Abrah Family who being first circumcised afterward were taught the Law being a School 〈◊〉 to teach Christ Thirdly the gospel was not preached to Abrah therby to prepare him to circumcision as if therby it should follow that circumcision was a seale of the Gospel or New Testament for it is not so as I have already manifested but Chr. in the new Testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every creature that is to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme 〈◊〉 so Paul did to the Gaylors Family this is another difference The third particular in your answer to this argument is ◠if infants be excluded from baptisme for want of
so true holines that is Faith repentance was not required to the mēbers or matter of the Church of the old Testament 3. Thirdly that which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected or produced by the walking or communion of the Church off the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the Church of the Old Testament Iustification Faith Sanctification repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the Church of the Old Testament Heb. 9.9 Gal. 2.15.16 Ergo justification Faith Sanctification repentance were not required to the constitution of the Church of the old Testament so by consequent the members of the Church of the Old Testament were not truly holy in their constitution 4. That which brought not perfection life to the members presupposed not Fayth repentance to the members and so not reall or true holynes But the Old Testament the Law the obedience of the Law brought not perfection life to the members of the Church of the old Testament Heb. 7.19 Gal. 3.21 Ergo The Old Testament or the Law or the Church of the old Testament did not presuppose Fayth Repentance or true Holynes in the members 5. That which was a Schoolmr only to teach Christ did not presuppose that the Schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Faith repentance The law or old Testament was a Schoolmr only to teach Chr Gal. 3.14 Rom. 10.3.4 Ergo The Law or Old Testament did not presuppose that the Schollers had learned Christ or put on Christ which is only done by Fayth and Repentance 6. That which was hidden kept secreat was a Mystery not revealed the members of the Church of the old Testament in their constitution were not indued withal Faith or obedience to the gospel was a mistery not revealed but kept secreat from the beginning Gal. 3.23 Rom. 16.25 Ergo The members of the Church of the Old Testament were not indued with Fayth or obedience to the gospel in their constitution 7. Ther is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Rom. 8.1 Ther is condemnation to them that are vnder the Law Gal. 3.10 For it is the Ministery of death or condemnation 2. Cor. 3.7 Ergo The Law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ or they that are vnder the Law are not in Christ so the members of the church of the old Testament were not truly holy Finally the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes Galatians concerning justification by Faith in Christ without the workes of the Law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth Teaching that seing the vtmost obedience of the Law did not effect or produce justification therfor of necessity it followeth that the Law or old Testament did not presuppose it or true holines in the members therof For it had been a vanity to have given them a Law which should not or could not preserve produce that which was in them in ther first constitution wherfor I doe bouldly defend against all men that the Church of the Old Testament in the matter or constitution of it was not really Holy but only Typically therfor the members therof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or sanctified or in actual possession of that everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham in respect of Christ but only vnder the offer of it in that typical Testament given to Abraham afterward assumed written amplified by Moses Ioh. 7 19-23 compared with Heb. 8.8.9 Having sufficiently confirmed this truth I returne in particular to answer your objections saying stil that the nation of the Iewes was holy not truly but typically that their holines was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trayned vp or Schooled to Christ being by all the ceremonial law old Testament or carnal commaundement as it were by so many meanes consecrated or dedicated to that holy cad purpose which was tiped shadowed by those figures similitudes of heavenly things Therfor as the word sanctifying or hallowying is vsually taken in the old Testamēt for the setting of any thing apart to a holy vse so were the people of Israel holy even an holy natiō above al the nations of the Earth See Exod. 19.10.14.15 Iob. 1.5 Deu. 14 1-4 compared with Act. 21.28 for the place which you aledg Ex. 19.6 to prove the Israelites an holy nation I say that either the meaning is that they were typically holy trayned vp to holines or that they by attayning the end of the law should attayne true holines in Christ So that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holines of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham So that though infants be vnder offer of the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ yet shal not baptisme be administred vppon them as your consequent doth import bicause that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually feased vppon that external covenant therefore none in the New Testament shal be baptized but those that are actually possessed of the covenant of the New Testament but the actual possession of the promise is by obedience to the Faith For by Faith saith the Apostle Gal. 3.14 we receave the promise of the Spirit we receave the Spirit by the hearing of Faith preached Gal. 3.2 Faith cometh by hearing of the word preached Rom. 10.17 Secondly I answer concerning the consequent of your Majors consequent that it shal not follow that bicause children are vnder the covenant as you suppose but we deny that therfor they thal have the outward signe or seale therof for you know vnder the law the females were actually vnder the covenant of the old Testamēt yet were not signed with the seale before the law was given al that were actualy vnder the covenant vntil the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seale therof if you say in opposition to the circumcision of the female that she was vncapable of it I answer the L. had abundance of Spirit if it had been his wil that al vnder the covenant should be pertakers of the signe or the seale therof he could in wisdom would vndoubtedly have appointed such an external signe or seale that might have bene administred vppon al vnder the covenant but seing the L. chose out the male only for circumcision the by he purposed to teach in a type that only the male that is one that is in Christ shal be sealed with the Spirit of promise vnder the new Test But if you say in oposition to that before the Law that ther was no seale or signe appointed by God for them vnder the covenant bicause the L. thought it not meet or needful I say that herby it apeareth that to be vnder the covenāt was not
the Fathers to prove any thing wel then you confesse they prove nothing remember that let al men take notice that you produce testimonyes that you say prove nothing but why do you produce testimonyes of the Fathers Forsooth to shew the practise of auncient Churches but al those Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession what doth antiquity Antichristian or vniversality antichristian help you against the truth Therfor I say The truth needeth not the testimony of Antichrist old vniversal antichristian errors shal not prevayle against the truth I have shewed you that from the beginning it was not thus go baptisme of infants is a Novelty but let vs shew you some footsteps of the bringing in of baptising infants that out of the Fathers Henricus Pantaleon Chronolog fol. 16. saith Victor Apher in the yeer 193. ordeyned that at Easter baptisme should be indifferently administred to al hence then it followeth that before his tyme only such as were Catechised in the Faith were baptized For he would not decree that heathen should be baptized Eusebius Eccles Histor Lib. 7 Chap. 8. saith that Novatus rejected the Holy baptisme overthrew the Fayth confession which was accustomed before baptisme whereby it appeareth that Fayth confession were required before baptisme and therefore the rudiments thereof still remayne that in baptising of infants a confession of sinne and Fayth is required of the suretyes or parents The same Euseb Lib. 10. Chap. 15. reporteth the story of Athanasius baptising children in sport which baptisme was approved though done in sport by Alexander Bb of Alexandria after that he by examination had found that the children had questioned answered according to the manner of the Catechumeni in baptisme wherby it appeareth that then only persons by confession of their Faith sins were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria Hosius Petricoviensi confess de fide chap. 27. saith that these two are Aposticall traditioÌ„s which the Scripture teacheth not viz that ther are persons one God that Dionisius Origen doe testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostical tradition Now you know that their Aposticall traditions were antichristian inventions Polydor. Virg. Lib. 4. Chap. 4 de inventoribus reruÌ„ saith thus It was in vse with the auncients that persons of yeeres sere in a manner should be baptized clad with whyte garments Lactantius Candidus egreditâ—â— nitidis exercitus vndis Atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo And this was performed at Easter whitsontide except in necessity in the meane tyme til the Feasts of Easter whitsontyde came they were catechised this testimony is of good instruction Ludovicus Vives writing vppon the first book of August de Civitate dei chap. 27. saith that in auncient tymes no man was baptized but persons of yeeres who could vnderstand what the mystical water signified required baptisme ofter then once therfor now the infant to be baptized is demaunded three tymes if hee wil be baptized for whome the suertyes answer yea Erasmus Rotrodamus in his annotations vppon the fifth of the Roman saith that in Paulls tyme it was not receaved that infants should bee Baptized Thus have I thought good to shew you testimonyes of men so by setting maÌ„ against man to lead you vs al from mâ—n to the holy Scriptures which is the rock wherevppon we may safely build which as you have heard flatly forbiddeth the baptising of infants who cannot bee made Disciples by teaching Mat 28.19 Iohn 4.1 Mr. Rich. Clifton Now let vs come to considet of the reasons alledged to the contrary the first of them is this 2. Bicause there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any infants that were Baptized by Iohn or Christs Disciples onely they that did confesse theire sinnes confesse theire Faith were baptized Marc. 1.4.5 Act. 8.37 Answere First this reason being brought into forme wil be wray the weakenes of it For suppose that should be graunted that there were nether a special commaundement or example in the practise of Iohn or Châ—â— Disciples for the baptising of infants yet may it notwithstanding be lawful to baptize them namely if by some consequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22.31.32 wher reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by an argument necessarily drawen from Exo. 3â—6 where no such thing was expressely mentioned And thus he taught vsually refuted his adversaries as the History of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his Epist to the Romanes Gal. prove justification by Faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in al the old Testament in plaine termes affirming so much but by conclusions of necessary consequence from the Scriptures to this purpose might divers other instances be aledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the Old New Testament though we cannot shew any playne precept or example yet may we vppon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason him selfe cannot deny that both he we must beleve diverse things which wee gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that wee shall not find in expresse words As that there bee three persons in onâ— Godhead that the sonne is Homousios that is of the same substance with the Father Now such expresse words cannot bee shewed in the Scripture many such like 2. Secondly also if this argument be sufficient to barre children from the Sacrament of baptisme then is it as sufficient to kepe back women from the Lords Supper for there is no speciall precept nor yet example that VVomen should pertake of the Lords Supper but the Lawfullnes there of is onely proved by consequence bicause they are within the covenant are pertakers of the Sacrament of baptisme thus the weakenes of this reason being manifested I will thirdly answere vnto it 3. Thirdly that ther is both precept by Christ example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the Lawfullnes of baptising of infants Commaundement I say Mat. 28.19 Goe teach al natioÌ„s baptising them where is no exception of the children of faithful parents therfor ther being a Law once given that the covenant should be sealed to the infants aswel as to the beleeving parents the same Law of sealiug the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be chaÌ„ged except the Law maker do repeale it or have set downe some ground for the repeale therof which must be shewed or els this commaundement doth bâ—nd vs our infants to receave this seale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptized Lydia her howshold Act. 16.15
the Keper al that belonged vnto him vs 33. both which seming to be great Families it is not likely that they were without children though the Evang mention them not But the exception is that only such as did confesse their sinnes confesse their Faith were baptized I desire that to be proved that only such no others were to be baptized CoÌ„cerning Iohn indeed he was sent to cal the people to repeÌ„tance so to prepare the way of the L. Mat. 3.3 so many as did repent confesse their sinnes he baptized but did Iohn refuse their children if they brought them to him but it wil be said ther is no mentioÌ„ made that he did baptise theÌ„ no more say I is ther that they were offered vnto him Ther is no mention that the Disciples of Chr. were baptized yet it were to bold a part no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptized Not al things that Iohn did not yet that Chr. did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20.30 but the sume therof therfor to gather an argument froÌ„ hence bicause ther is no mention that children were baptized by Iohn therfor they ought not to be baptized is a larger conclusion then the premisse wil beare so the reason taken from the baptising of the Evnuch Philip baptized no childreÌ„ when he baptized the Evnuch is of no waight to prove that therfor childreÌ„ ought not to be baptized Was not the Evnuch a straÌ„ger far from his country now in jorney homeward therfor not likely that he should have children with him specially in such a tedious jorney not knowing of this accident Iohn Smvth. Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants In answer to the first argument you say that if it bee brought into forme it will bewray the weakenes of it Wel I will bring it into forme then let vs streng then it where it is weake as thus That which hath neither precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neither precept nor example Ergo baptisme of infants is not to be done Againe another part of my Argument may bee brought into forme thus That which hath precept example must be practized Baptising of persons confessing ther sinnes their Faith is commaunded was practised by Christ Iohn the Apostles Ergo those persons are the persons to be baptized My Argument therefore consisting of an affirmative which includeth a negative is as I take it a forcible Argument Let vs see your answer â—ceptions First you say that a consequence necessarily drawne from the Scripture is sufficient to prove the baptising of infants though ther were no special commaundement or example as Christ proveth the resurrection Mat. 22.31.32 out of Exod. 3.6 by necessary consequent as Paul in the Epistles to the Rom. Gal. proveth justification by Faith only without workes by necessary consequents wee beleeve many things that are not expressed in words as 3. persons in one Godhead that Christ is coessential or consubstantial to the Father this is your answer or exception wher to I reply thus Although a necessary consequence in al cases shal prevayle yet I say the Lord cannot leave 〈◊〉 in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainly Faythfully with vs For seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old the Gospel being with open face the Law being hid vnder the vele seing Christ is as Faithful yea much more faithful then al men therfor is called Amen the Faythful true witnesse so hath as faithfully prescribed al the ordinances of the new Testament as Moses did the ordinances of the old Testament seing Moses hath set downe distinctly most plainly the persons with their qualifications to bee circumcised the circumstance of the tyme when circumcision was to be administred either Christ hath as plainly fully set downe these particulars in the new Testament or els the new Testament is not so plaine as the old Christ is not as Faythful aâ— Moses For it had been easily said goe teach make Disciples baptise them if they have any infants baptise them without teaching them or thus baptise me of yeeres when they confesse their sinnes their faith but baptise al the infants of the faithful though they cannot confesse at al their sins saith or it had beeÌ„ easily said Iohn baptized them that confesse their sinnes ther yong children also but to say that Christ Iohn the Apostles leaveth direction for this maine mater only by darke obscure far fetcht probable conjectures consequents from the old Testament which was only typical is abolished in respect of the Types that 〈◊〉 hath not left evident vndeniable ground for it distinctly expresly in al the foresaid particulars is to say that Christ is not so plaine Faithful in his office propheâ—â—cal as Moses was who hath taught al these particulars so distinctly as nothing is more plaine therfor though I must needes yeeld that necessary consequents are true yet I deny that in this case the Lord hath left vs to consequents it is against his truth his Faythfulnes the evidence of the new Testament so to do More over seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp pâ—eached obscurely in the old Testament the types therof it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrectioÌ„ Paul out of the old TestameÌ„t prove justification by faith without work for the Iewes would not beleeve any thing contrary to the law or without warrant of the law the Gentils namely the Galatians especially being seduced by them of the circumcision Act. 15.1 must needes have their mouths stept by the law ther were no Scriptures but the old Testament the ordinances of the new Testament could not be so plainly drawne out of the old Testament without consequents but new the new Testament being written al the ordinances therof plainly taught by Christ his Apostles why shal wee bee sent to obscurityes conjectural consequents seing that wee may with open face look into the glory of Christ as it were into a glasse therein see al the beauty of the new Ierusalem as cleer as Christal Revel 21.11 2. Cor. 3.18 whereas you would fetch arguments from the old Testament to prove the baptisme of infants we having the cleer light of the new Testament you therin set vs to Schoole to the rudiments of the world put aside the light of the sunne at noone set vp a candle as the Papists do in their funerals for although it be meet that we attend vnto the Prophets as vnto a light shining in a dark place yet seing the day star is come the sunne of righteousnes is risen vppon vs let vs walk in this cleer light vse the