The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · Richard Clifton 10
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
Now let vsus 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, onelyonly 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 Ch… Diſciples, for the baptiſing of infants, yet may it notwithſtanding be lawful to baptize them, namely, if by ſome conſequēce 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. 3…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 onelyonly 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 on… 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 onelyonly 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 vntounto 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 natiōs, 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 chā 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 b…nd vsus & 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 vntounto him, vſus. 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. Cōcerning Iohn, indeed he was ſent to cal the people to repētance, & 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 mentiō made that he did baptiſe thē, no more ſay I, is ther that they were offered vntounto 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 frō 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 childrē, when he baptized the Evnuch) is of no waight, to prove that therfor childrē ought not to be baptized. Was not the Evnuch a ſtrāger 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.