The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 11
Iohn Smyth.
Next followeth your Anſwere to my ſecond reaſon: which reaſon of myne is framed thus.
They that cannot by Teaching bee made Chriſts Ciſciples, ought to be baptized.
Infants by teaching cannot be made Chr. Diſciples, Mat. 28.19. Ioh. 4.1.
Ergo infants ought not to be baptized.
Your anſwer to this argument of myne conſiſteth in 4. particulars.
Firſt, you ſay, that as Abraham firſt beleeved, & then was circumciſed, & then al his houshold receaved circumciſion with him: So al the beleving gentils muſt firſt be baptized, & then through ther faith al ther howshold muſt bee baptized as in the example of Lydia, & the Gaylors family: of whoſe faith ther is no mention made, as neither of the faith of Abrahams family.
To this firſt particular of your anſwer 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 vntounto 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 shalbe) 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 cō maundement 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 vntounto 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 vponupon 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 vnderunder 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 faith by hearing the word, then they shal alſo be excluded from ſalvation by that reaſon: Marc. 16.16. I deny it vtterly: For Chriſt ſpeaketh only of ſuch as to whom the goſpel may be preached, which only are men of yeeres For when he ſaith go preach the Goſpel to every creature, he doth not bid them preach to beaſts, byrds, Fishes, or infants, which have no eares to heare, but he biddeth them preach the Goſpe… to every creature that hath an care to heare, that is, to al that are of a docible age & nature: & then he addeth, whoſoever (o… them that have eares to heare) do beleeve, & vppon their faith be baptized shalbe ſaved, whoſoever (of mē that have eares to heare) do not beleve (though they be baptized) shalbe damned: now I pray you Sir, how doth this ſentence include infants to baptiſme, or exclude them from Salvation …or how doth your conſequent follow: & for infants I ſay that either they are al ſaved, though they cannot come to faith by hearing, or that they are one of the L. ſecrets, & ſo not to be ſearched into: & that the Scripture doth ſpeak only to & o… thē that have eares to heare, & o… things viſible & known, & not of things inviſible & ſecreat: therfor this particular of your answer is vaine.
Your laſt particular in the answer to my arg. is, that general rules muſt bee taken with ther ſence: as 2. Theſ. 3.10. that as infāts or impotent perſons though they cā not work yet may eate, bicauſe that ſpeech is not directed to infants, &c. ſo Mat. ….19. though infants cannot be made Diſciples, yet they may be baptized, ſeing that ſpeech is not directed for infants: & ſuch an expoſition of that place muſt bee given as doth not contradict other Scriptures or neceſſary conſequents from Scriptures.
Wel Sir: I answer you, that firſt you confeſſe heer that this place of Mat. 28.19. is not vttered of Chriſt in reſpect of infants that they should be taught, & then I ſay he never intended that by this place you should gather that they should be baptized as you have done in your 6. arg. & heer you do evidently contradict your ſelf as you ſee: & let that be remembred of you wel.
Next I ſay, that general rules shalbe expounded with ther ſences: & as impotent perſons & infants shal eate though they cannot work ſeing that is ſpoken of theſe that are able to work: ſo infants shalbe ſaved though they cannot be baptized, ſeing they cannot by teaching be made diſciples: & this is not to diminish the comaundement of Chriſt o… wreſt it frō the ſence: but to make the cōmaundemēt of baptiſing larger then the cōmaundement of teaching (as you do that wil have the infants baptized that cannot be taught) is to ſeperate thoſe things that Chr. hath joyned, & to wrack the cōmaund: of Chr. out of joynt, & to break thē in peeces: & woe be to thē that ſo do without repētāce. Finally, I confeſſe that it is not the true ſence of a place that contradicteth either Scriptupe or true conſequēt: but this truth of the L. which you blaſpheme with your title of Anabaptiſtry, doth not contradict either Scripture or ſound concluſion frō Scripture: but is agreable to the conſtant & moſt evidēt practiſe of Ioh. Chr. & the Apo. (for you cannot produce an inſtāce of an infant baptiſed by any of them, & moſt agreable to al the precepts of the Ap Chr. & Ioh. for baptiſing perſons confeſſing their faith & their ſinns: & you are driven to moſt miſerable shifts, & moſt narrow ſtraights for your pedobaptiſtry, which you ſee cannot ſtand without ſcraping together all the wreſtings & pervertings of Scriptures which you have heaped together in your answ: your principal foundation being a ſandy molehil fetcht from the old Teſt: even a falſe ground, that circumciſion was a ſeale of the new Teſtament, & that the covenant made with Abrah. in reſpect of Chr. was made with al his carnal infants, who were al in Chr. Ieſus viſibly in their byrth & conception by vertue of the covenant: which I have proved to bee manifeſt vntruths, & ſo you ſee your building tottereth & wil never be able to endure the ſtorme.