The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 4 – Richard Clifton 5
Iohn Smyth.
Your third argument followeth, from Marc. 10.13.14. Mat. 19.13.14.
They that are of the Kingdome of God, have right & title to al the holy things the…to belonging, & may participate of ſo many of them as they are capable to receave.
But the infants of beleeving parents are of the Kingdom of God.
Ergo, the infants of beleeving parents have right & title to al the holy things therto belonging, & may participate of ſo many of them &c. & conſequētly of baptiſme, ſeing they are capable of it.
The major you ſay is written, 1. Cor, 3.21.22. Rom. 9.4.
The aſſumption is proved Mat. 19.13.14,
To this argument of yours I make answer diverſly: firſt you have not proved that the viſible Chur. & al the ordinances therof perteyne to infants of the faithful: For the infants of the Iewes that were preſented to Chr. were not infants of belevers for ought that I ſee: neither can it be proved that they were infants of the Iewes, but their is ſome likelyhood to the cōtrary: ſeing the diſciples repelled thē that brought thē: it may be they were the children of ſome of the Romane ſoldiers, or ſome Cananitish perſons: but ſuppoſe they were children of the Iewes, how is it proved that their parēts were belevers? ſeing that the people of the Iewes were for the moſt part ſtifnecked & vncircumciſed in hart. & if they had beē the childrē of beleving Iewes that were baptized by Ioh. or Chr. diſciples- (by your doctryne the infants were already baptized) what need was ther to bring thē to Chr. except it were for popish confirmation? & ſo hence you cannot conclude baptiſme. I avouch conſtātly againſt you that either they were not the children of Iewes: or that they were not the infants of beleving Iewes or if their pare…ts beleved, yet it followeth not that therfor theſe infants were of the Kingdom of God, or to be baptized: for Chr… doth not ſay, of theſe, but, of ſuch is the Kingdom of God: & ſo he doth expound himſelf Mat. 18 3-6. beſides how can you prove that by the Kingdome of God Chr. vnderſtandeth the viſible church of the new Teſt. or how can you prove that Chr. bleſſeth none but members of the viſible Chur? or how can you prove that the bleſſing of Abraham aperteyneth only to the members of the viſible church? or that from this particular of Chr. praying for infants Mat. 18.13. baptiſing of infants followeth? or how cā you prove that Chriſt obteyned for them, & prayed for remiſſion of ſinnes, the H, ghoſt, faith, everlaſting life? for many were brought to Chr. for releef of bodily infirmityes.
Secondly: I deny that, bicauſe Chriſt bleſſed ſome of the infants of the Iewes or Gentils vppon ſpecial intreaty, therefore it may hence be concluded that generaly the covenant & ſeales of the covenant (as you cal baptiſme) doth aperteyne to them: for ther is not the ſame reaſon of al infants, as of ſome ſpecialy bleſſed: as of Iohn Baptiſt, Ieremy, Sampſon.
Thirdly if baptiſme doth aperteyne to infants bicauſe Chr. bleſſeth ſome particular infants, & bicauſe Chr. ſaith the Kingdom of God doth aperteyne to ſuch, then the L. ſupper alſo: for if you ſay, they are not capable of the L. ſupper in two reſpects: 1. for that they cannot eate it, 2. for that they cannot examine themſelves: I answer they muſt have it aſſoone as they can eate it: & they cannot confeſſe their ſinnes & faith, & ſo cannot be baptized.
Fourthly: I would know why the Apo. put infants back, & why Chr. did not commaund them to be baptized: Surely, if they had been the infants of belevers, or if the Apo. had known Chr. mynd for baptiſme of infants he having ſo fit an opportunity would have put it in practiſe: but the deep ſilence of baptiſme in this place where ther is ſo juſt an occaſion doth inſtruct vsus evidently that Chr. either did not deale faithfully which to ſay were blaſphemy, or th… he never purpoſed the baptiſme of infants.
You ſee therfor by that which hath beē anſwered that both your major & minor are weak & the Scriptutes alledged by you do not confirme them: for the place 1. Cor. 3.21.22. declareth that al things are yours: that is theirs that actually beleeve & are baptized: & al the ordinances of the viſible church are theirs both in title vſe & poſſeſſion: So that hence you muſt nedes prove if your arg be good that infants muſt have the vſe of al: only your caution helpeth you, viz: that they may pertake ſo many meanes as they are capable of: but wher is this caution expreſſed in al the ſcriptures do you think that the members of the Church are not capable of al the meanes of ſalvation? but I avouch vntounto you that this place perteyneth only to baptiſed perſons not to perſons vnbaptized, & therfor it fitteth not your purpoſe.
Rom. 9.4. The covenants & promiſes perteyne to the Iſraelites: I deny the word aperteyneth, it is put into the Text, & perverteth the meaning of the Apo. For Paull intendeth not to prove that the carnal Iſraelites were al actually within the covenāt of grace & ſalvation by Chr. being really poſſeſſed of it, but that vnderunder the outward covenant & promiſe wherof they were really ſeaſed, the Spiritual covenant & promiſe was offered & preſented vntounto them, the one preaching the other, the law being a ſcholemr. to Chriſt.
Laſtly, wheras in the answer of an objection you intimate that infants now are as capable of baptiſme as infants were of circumciſion, being both equaly capable of the covenant & ſeales, I answer: that baptiſme is not the ſeale of the covenant of the new Teſt. as circumciſion was the ſeale of the old Teſt. & that infants of the old Teſta. were capable of circumciſion abſolutely ſeing that to be circumciſed ther was nothing required but a foreskinne apt to be cut of: but to baptiſme in the new Teſt. ther is required actual ſaith & repentance confeſſed by the mouth, Mat. 3.6. Act. 4.37. & 10.47.
From this answer I collect arguments againſt pedobaptiſtry thus.
1. They that are not members of the viſible Church, have no title to the holy things of God, & therfor are vncapable of them: & ſo of baptisme.
Infants of the Faythful are not actually members of the viſible Church: For theſe places. Marc. 10.13.14. Mat. 19.13.14. do not prove that the parents of theſe infants were beleeving Iewes, or if they were beleevers their infants were already baptized with their parents according to your doctryne, & ſo Chriſt cannot intend baptisme to aperteyne to them, but the reſt of the ordinances.
Ergo: Infants of the Faythfull have no title to the Holy things of God, & ſo are vncapable of them, and by conſequent vncapable off Baptisme.
2. If the Apoſtles by putting back infants preſented to Chriſt declare plainly that infants were not to bee brought to bee baptized of Chriſt: then infants were not baptized by Chriſt, nor commaunded to bee baptized by him.
But the firſt is true: that the Diſciples put back infants preſented to Chr. &c.
Ergo: The latter is true: that infants were not baptized or commaunded to be baptized by Chriſt.
3. If the perſons preſenting infants to Chriſt to be bleſſed & prayed for: do not deſire baptisme for them: then they knew no ſuch cuſtome vſed by Chriſt to baptize them.
But the firſt is true: that perſons preſenting infants to Chriſt to be bleſſed & prayed for, do not deſire baptisme for them.
Ergo: they knew no ſuch cuſtome vſed by Chr. of baptiſing infants.
4. If Chriſt receaving infants, praying for them, bleſſing them, doth neither baptize them, nor commaund his Diſciples to baptize them: then eyther Chriſts pleaſure was they should not be baptized, or els hee forgatt his duty, in not Teaching baptisme off infants vppon ſo juſt an occaſion.
But Chriſt receaving infants, praying for them, bleſſing them, doth neyther baptize them, nor commaund his Diſciples to baptize them: neyther did forgett his duty in not teaching baptisme of infants occaſioned.
Ergo: Chriſts pleaſure was (and is) that infants should not be baptized.
5. They that are not actualy poſſeſſed of the promiſes or covenant, are not actually to be inveſted with baptisme.
Infants are not actually poſſeſſed with the covenant: Seing they performe not the condition, viz: confeſſion of their ſinnes & their Fayth actually.
Ergo: infants are not to be inveſted with baptisme.
This shal ſuffice for answer of your third argument.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
1. Corinth. 7.14.
Iff the children of beleeving parents be holy, then are they with in the covenant off Abraham, and ſo conſequently have ryght to the ſeale thereoff.
But the firſt is true, 1. Cor. 7.14.
Ergo the ſecond.
Touching the former propoſition. I take it, that none wil affirme holines in any that are not of the covenant, for in that reſpect, Iſrael was called a holy nation. Exo. 19.6.1. Pet. 2.9. & al others vncleane, Act. 11.3. & 10.15. that were without. Iff infants be within the covenant, then can not the ſeal be denyed to ſuch, ſeing the Lo. hath joyned the promiſe & ſeale together, Gen. 17.10. which no man may or ought to Seperate, Mat. 19.6.
What can be objected againſt the aſſumption, I ſee not, ſeing the Apoſtle plainly affirmes, but now are your children holy. Vnleſſe it may be ſaid, as of ſome I have heard, that as the vnbeleeving wyfe is ſanctified to the husband, ſo are the children viz: to the vſe of their Father: but this to affirme is a great abuſing of the Scripture. For the Apoſtle in that place answering an objection that the Faithful is defiled by the ſociety of the vnfaithful: proveth that the faithful husbād may with good conſcience vſe the veſſel of his vnfaithful wife, by an argument from the effects, namely bicauſe their children, which are borne of them, are accounted holy or within the promiſe, God having ſaid to al the Faithful, I wil be thy God, & the God of thy ſeed. As for that other ſtraunge expoſition, that the Children of a beleeving Father are no otherwiſe ſanctified then the vnbeleeving wife is vntounto her husband, viz: to their Fathers vſe only, that cannot ſtand with the meaning & purpoſe of the Apoſt. For ſo much may be ſaid of an vnbeleeving ſervāt, that he is for the vſe of his maſter to do him ſervice: if children be no more holy then ſo, then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father, neither is the objection removed by this answer.
If it bee further preſſed that the vnbeleving wife is ſaid to be holy, as wel as the children, yet is she not within the covenant. I answer, that she indeed is not holy, as be her children, for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant, & therfor she is ſaid to be ſanctified in her husband, the Apoſtle reſpecting their mariage, which though it was contracted before either party beleeved, yet ſtands firme & not diſſolved when either of them is called to the Faith, ſo that the beleeving husband may lawfully vſe her as his wife, if she be content to dwel with him, 1. Cor. 7.12. Now the children cannot be ſanctified or Seperate to ſuch vſe to their Father, as the wiſe is to her husband. And therfor are the children called holy, bicauſe they are the ſeed of a beleeving Father.