The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 10
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 vsus 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 vsus ſee your anſwer & …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 vsus: For ſeing the new Teſtament is more manifeſt then the old, the Goſpel being with open face, the Law being hid vnderunder 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 a… 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 beē 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 prophe… 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 vsus 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 & p…eached obſcurely in the old Teſtament, & the types therof, it was neceſſary that Chriſt should out of the old Teſtament prove the reſurrectiō, & Paul out of the old Teſtamēt 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 vsus 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 vntounto the Prophets as vntounto a light shining in a dark place, yet ſeing the day ſtar is come, & the ſunne of righteouſnes is riſen vppon vsus, let vsus walk in this cleer light, & vſe the other when we want light, as with the Iewes who deny the new Teſtament: & in other like occaſions.
Beſides the trinity of perſons, & vnity of eſſence in the Godhead is proved by playne words, 1. Iohn. 5.7. & hereby the Homoiouſia of Arrius is confuted: as alſo: Phil. 2.6. & for the word perſon it is, Heb. 1.3. & the word Godhead is Roman. 1.20. So that hereby you gett nothing: but I ſay ſtill that whatſoever cannot bee playnly shewed in the New Teſtament, is not needfull for vsus to know in the New Teſtament, if it bee an ordinance of the New Teſtament as baptiſme is: but the trinity & vnity is no part of the New Teſtament more then of the Old Teſtament, & being common to both may be ſought out of both, & ſo any other common truth.
Finally, I ſay shew mee any neceſſary conſequence for baptizing infants, eyther out of the Old Teſtament or New Teſtament, & I yeeld: but I deſire it may wel bee obſerved, firſt, that you are driven to conſequents for this matter, & therein ſimple witted people may eaſily bee miſlead by a Logician: Secondly, that the Goſpel of Chriſt is for babes: Mat. 11.25. & therefore the moſt ſimple perſon is, capable of it: & ſo ther shal need no obſcure conſequents out of it for they are not able to comprehend them: & laſtly, that the conſequents that are brought I avouch to be meer hallucinatious & ſophiſmes, as I have already declared & shal doe hereafter more fully as they shal be produced.
Your ſecond answer & exception is, that if want of Special precept & example, barre infants from baptiſme, it shal alſo barre weomen from the Lords Supper: I deny it, for in playne termes it is ſaid: 1. Corinth. 11.28. Let Anthropos, viz: eyther man or woman eate after examination: & Gal. 3.28. Ther is neither male nor female in Chriſt Ieſus, but al are one, & 1. Corinth. 10.17. wee that a…e many are one bread, & one body, being al pertakers of one bread, & 1. Corinth. 12.13. whee have been al made to drink into one Spirit, & Dorcas is a Diſciple: Act 9.36. & the Diſciples meet together to break bread, Act. 20.7. & the Diſciples continned in breaking bread: Act. 2.41.42. being firſt 3000. then 5000. amongſt whom ther was Sapphyra, & the VVidowes of the Grecians, Act. 2.41. & 5.1. & 6.1. & ſo this exception is nothing to the purpoſe.
Your third answer & exception followeth, wherein you doe affirme that there is both precept & example for baptiſing infants, the Commaundement is, Mat, 18.19. The example is of the infants of Lydra, & the Keper of the priſon: Act. 16.15.33. To theſe I have already given answer in the 6. & 7. reaſons going before, & therefore hold it needles to repeat it heer againe: onelyonly one thing is heer to bee answered that you object. viz: That the Law once given of ſealing the infants aswel as parents, muſt bee retayned, except a repeale can bee shewed: I answer, (beſides that baptiſme is not the ſeale of the New Teſtament, but the Spirit: & that circumciſion was not a ſeale of the everlaſting covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt but of the Old Teſtament) that when Princes & common wealths make Lawes to endure but for a tyme, when the tyme is expired then they are repealed if they be not reeſtablished: So, though it were graunted that infants of the Old Teſtament were by circumciſion ſealed to the covenant made in reſpect of Chr. which I peremptorily deny, yet ſeing the tyme of circumciſion is exſpired therfor infants are not now to be ſealed (as you ſay) by baptiſme: for the exſpiring of the tyme is the repealing of the Law: therfor vntil you can shew that baptiſme of infants male & female is in the new Teſtament eſtablished: I wil deſend that they are not to be baptized eſpecialy the female infants which were never appointed to be circumciſed: but I count theſe but ſlender exceptions.
In the laſt place you require proof that only perſons that confeſſed their ſinnes & their faith were to be baptized: I prove it vntounto you thus.
1. They only were to be baptized that Chriſt commaunded to be baptized.
Perſons made Diſciples by teaching, were only commaunded to bee baptized by Chriſt, Mat. 28.19.
Ergo: perſons made Diſciples by teaching, were only to be baptized.
The minor of this argument is evident, Mat. 28.10. wher this being the affirmative you shal make then Diſciples by teaching them, & then baptiſe thē: this muſt needes be the negative, you shal not baptiſe them til you have made them Diſcip…es by teaching: & ſo perſons taught were baptized & they only.
2. Againe: conſidering that in every affirmative ther is included a negative: therfor wherſoever an example is that perſons cōfeſſing the r ſinnes & their faith were bapti…ed, the… is ſignified that thoſe that did not confeſſe their ſins & their Faith, were … baptized: For wee muſt know that the body is one: & the Fayth is one, & the Spirit one, & the baptiſme one, & the ſeed one: & that there is not two in Chriſt but one: For in the new Teſtament they know God from the leaſt vntounto the greateſt, Heb. 8.11. & they are al taugit of God, Ioh. 6.45. & the leaſt in the Kingdom of heaven is greater then Iohn. Mat. 11.11. & this do I take to be a plaine proof of the point which you deſire.
You ſay further that the reaſon why Iohn baptized no children, is for that they offered them not. wel: I ſay that his preaching was ſuch as peremptorily excluded infants: For it was the baptiſme of repentance for the remiſſion of ſinnes: Marc. 1.4. & he required confeſſion of ſinnes, & repentance of them that he baptized, Mat. 3.6-11 compared with Luk. 7.29.30. otherwiſe he would not baptiſe them: & therfor Chr doctryne is the ſame with Iohns, Mar. 1.15. both therby ſignified vntounto their hearers. that whoſoever would be baptized & enter into the Kingdome of God, muſt repent & beleeve the goſpel: For being not regenerate (though they were Iewes, & begotten of Faithful parents) yet they could not enter into the Kingdome of God, Ioh. 3.3.5. & heer it would bee conſidered vntounto whome Chriſt & Iohn Baptiſt preached: did he not preach vntounto the Iewes the Lords owne holy people: & yet he ſaid repent & beleeve: & required of them amendement of life: Now if they had been truly regenerate in their comunion as is pleaded, Iohn needed not thus have preached, nor Chriſt have required ſuch conditions of them, but onelyonly they might in few words have ſaid: come you Faithful & beleeving Iewes, you & all your infants be baptized at once: For baptiſme is for circumciſion: but Iohn ſaith, think not to ſay you have Abraham to your Father: & Chriſt ſaith, you are of your Father the Devil: & Iohn ſaith, the Lord wil purge his floore: wherby it is evident that the Iewes were not Faithful in their communion: & that they perceaved plainly that ſeing repentance & Faith were required by Iohn & Chriſt particularly, which muſt bee declared by confeſſion, therefore it was in vayne for them to offer their infants whom they knew Iohn & Chriſt would not baptiſe, but excluded from baptiſme by their doctryne.
Againe, wheras you ſay ther is no mention made that Chriſts Diſciples were baptized, & yet it were boldnes to affirme they were not baptized: & ſo al Chriſts & Iohns actions are not written but only the ſumme: & therfor though it be not mentioned that infants were baptized, yet in the ſumme it may be collected they were: I anſwere, for the Diſciples of Chriſt it is plaine they were baptized, Ioh. 4.1. & Ioh. 1.35.40. & for the ſumming & particularizing of al Iohn Baptiſts or Chriſts actions, I ſay it was not needfull to ſet downe the particulars but the kinds: & if ther had been any commaundement or example of baptizing any one infant, it had been ſufficient, though it had not been mentioned how many particular infants: but as it fel out in circumciſion that one particular precept was ſufficient, though it were not written how many thowſand were circumciſed, ſo likewiſe of baptiſme.
Finaly, for that you ſay of the Evnuch, though I intend it not as you answere i… me thinks that ſome mention should bee made of Philip to the Evnuch, or of the Evnuch to Philip, his infants or children being at home far of concerning infants: or at leaſt of ſome other that had infants, or did baptiſ… perſons that had infants, & that after this manner: What have you any infants? Let them bee brought to baptiſme aswel as your ſelvs: For they have title to it through your Faith, or thus, I have infants I pray you let them be baptized aswel as my ſelf: or thus, do you repent & you shalbe baptized & your infants: but the deep ſilence of infants baptiſme, yea the excluſive condition of beleeving & repenting neceſſary to the Kingdom of God, yea & the confeſſion of ſinnes & confeſſion of Faith performed by perſons baptized, yea & Chriſts commaundement of making Diſciples before baptiſme, all theſe & many mo are ſtrong profes vnanſwerable againſt baptiſme of infants.