The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 7 – Richard Clifton 8
Iohn Smyth.
Your 6. Argument from Mat. 28.1… is framed thus.
If Chriſt gave a commaundement for the publishing of his covenant & adminiſtring of baptiſme the ſeale thereof to al nations: then are the beleeving gentils & then infants to receave the ſame.
But the firſt is true. Mat. 28.19.
Ergo the latter alſo is true, Act. 13.48. & 16.14.15.32.33.
The errors of this argument I wil diſcover in order: Firſt I deny that baptiſme is the ſeale of the covenant of the new Teſtament. Secondly I deny that circumciſion was the ſeale of that everlaſting covenant that was made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt: Thirdly, baptiſme therfor doth not ſucceed in the place of circumciſion, ther being only a chandg of the ceremony (as you pretend) the covenant being the ſame, theſe thre particulars are already proved. Fourthly I deny, that though Abraham who had a ſpecial commaundement, did circumciſe his male infants, therefore Chriſtians vppon this general commaundement, Mat. 28.19. shall baptiſe their infants Fifthly, I ſay rather the contrary is hence proved, bicauſe Chriſt commaundeth to baptiſe only thoſe that are by teaching made Diſciples (for ſo the word matheteuſate ſignifieth) therfor infants are by expreſſe prohibition excluded, & it is as if Chr. should ſay, I wil have you make them Diſciples & baptiſe them that are made Diſciples by teaching & no other: & ſo Chriſt expreſly excludeth infants. Laſtly, I deny that infants are capable of baptiſme, for they cannot confeſſe their faith & their ſinnes, neither declare that they are baptized inwardly with the Spirit, & ſo cannot outwardly by the baptiſme with water declare the ſame, but are in every reſpect vnable therto, & vncapable thereof.
Hence therfor I reaſon againſt baptiſing infants.
1. They only are to be baptized that are made Diſciples by teaching.
Infants cannot be made Diſciples by teaching.
Ergo, Infants are not to be baptized. Secondly I reaſon thus.
2. Every precept affirmative contevneth a negative vnderunder it.
Make Diſciples by teaching & baptiſe them, is an affirmative conteyning vnderunder it, baptize not thoſe that are not made Diſciples by teaching.
Ergo, thoſe that are not by teaching made Diſciples, are by Chriſt forbidden to be baptized: & ſo infants are not to be baptized.
3. Thirdly I reaſon thus.
They that are vncapable of baptiſme are not to be baptized.
Infants are vncapable of baptiſme: Seing baptiſme confiſting of the inward baptiſme of the Spirit, expreſſed by confeſſion in word, & washing with water in action: infants are vncapable of the two former parts of baptiſme.
Ergo infants are not to be baptized with water which is the latter.
4. If the new Teſtament be as cleer & perſpicuous as the old, & Chriſt the Mediator of the new Teſtament as faithfull as Moſes the Mediator of the old Teſtament: then the perſons to be baptized, & the conditiō of baptiſme, & the tyme of baptiſme are as cleerly & faithfully deſcribed in the inſtitutiō of baptiſme, as the perſon, condition & tyme of circumciſion.
But for pedobaptiſme ther is no expreſſe deſcription of the perſon, condition, or …y…e of their baptiſme … for true baptiſme: ther is moſt evidently, & faithfully ſet downe the perſons, condition, & tyme of adminiſtring it, viz: perſons confeſting their ſinnes, Mat. 3.6. wheras perſons impenitent were put by, Mat. 3.7-12. compared with Luk. 7. vſus. 29-30. Perſons beleeving. Act. 8.12.13. & vſus. 36-38. perſons that had receaved the holy Ghoſt, & expreſſed the ſame by prophecying, Act. 10.46-4… perſons penitent, Act. 2.38. perſons that are by teaching made Diſciples, Mat. 28.19. Ioh. 4.1. perſons borne againe Ioh. 3.3.
Therfor ſuch perſons are to bee baptized who are thus particularly deſcribed, wherein the new Teſtament is as cleer as the Old, & Chriſt the Mediator as Faythfull as Moſes: & no other but theſe: For if others bee, then is not the New Teſtament ſo cleer as the Old, nor Chriſt as Faithful as Moſes, which to ſay is to blaſpheme.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
Laſtly, the Apoſtles practiſe is our inſtruction, but they baptized not onelyonly the maſter of the family which beleeved, but al his howſehold. Act. 16.15.33. Therefore now alſo the like is to be done: & ſo conſequently the infants are to be baptized, for they are 2 part of the family. & that infants are of the family, ſee Gen. 45.18. where Ioſeph bad his brethren, take their Father, & their howſehoolds, & come to him, now in chap. 46.5.7. it is ſaid they caried their Children & wives in charets, nothing hereby, that children were of the howſehold, els had they no commaundement to have caried them into Egypt, ſee alſo vſus. 27. & Exo. 1.21. it is ſaid, bicauſe the Midwyves feared God, therefore he made them howſes, in 1. Tim. 5.…. the Apoſtle ſaith, he that provideth not for his owne, & namely for them of his houshold, he denyeth the faith, &c. Now I would aske if childrē be exempted from the howſhold in any of theſe places, or in any other where is mention made of a particular howshold. Therefore this argument wil prove that children were baptized, vnles it can bee shewed that they were ſpecially exempted. & if the holy ghoſt have not exempted them, who dare do it againſt a general commaundement of baptiſing al nations.