The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 12 – Richard Clifton 13
Iohn Smyth.
In the next place followeth your anſwer to my third Argum: which Argum: of myne may be framed into this forme.
The carnal ſeed is not to bee baptized: For the covenant, perteyneth not to them.
Infants are the carnal ſeed, Rom. 9.8.
Ergo infants are not to be baptized.
To this Argument you make Anſwer alſo in 4. particulars.
Firſt, you expound my meaning, but I can expound myne owne words beſt: & therfor by the carnal ſeed? I vnderſtand al children borne by carnal generatiō, whatſoever though they afterward do beleeve: For they are carnal viſibly to mee whoſoever they bee that doe not shew their Fayth by their workes, that doe not the workes of Abrah. yea though they dye in their infancy, & are ſaved with the Lord: For I muſt judg according to that which I ſee, & which is manifeſted: & I call them carnall as Paul calleth himſelf carnal, Rom, 7.14. & the Corinthians carnal, 1. Cor. 3.1.3. & as in oppoſition to the Spiritual ſeed, that one ſeed of Abrah. vntounto whome the promiſe was made: Gal. 3.16. & the Phraſe is taken from Rom. 9.8. where the children of the Iewes are called the children of the Flesh: & Gal. ….23. wher Iſmael is ſaid to bee borne after the Flesh, & Heb. 7.16. the commaundement is called carnal: So children borne of their parents naturally are carnal, ſuch were al the Iewes infants who were after the manner of Iſmael. Gal. 4.23. Such are al our infants, for our infants are in no better eſtate then the infants of the Iewes: They were al borne according to the Flesh (except Iſaac who was in type burne after the Spirit) Gal. 4.24.25.28. & I ſay that the covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt did not actually feaſe vppon any infant of the Iewes in deed & truth: & the place Act. 2.39 doth not prove that it did: For that place is to be vnderſtood of the offer: of Chriſt & the New Teſtament to all he carnal Iewes & their children, but of the real exhibiting …t to al that are called only: & therefore I ſay that to baptiſe infants is to baptize the carnal ſeed, for al infants are carnal, being conceaved … borne in ſince, being the Children or wrath, vntill the Lord work his work in them, which when he doth I know not: when I ſee it wrought in them by the fruites according as it is written, s…ew mee thy Faith by thy workes, then dare I pronounce them the Spirituall ſeed of Abrah, for they that are of Faith, are bleſſed with Faythfull Abraham: Therefore I affirme that infants are not to bee eſteemed actually vnderunder the poſſeſſion of the new Teſtament, which new Teſtament is viſible in the viſible ordinances the of: why then they are damned you wil ſay: God forbid: doe you condemne al the men that are not of your Faith: & yet they are neerer condemnation in …e judgment of the Scripture to you then infants: for Chr. ſaith that he that beleveth … (ſpeaking of them that heare the goſpel & do not beleve) shalbe condem… but the Scripture teacheth vsus nothing concerning the final eſtate of infants, except it, b… the ſal…ation of them al: This is my expoſition.
Now according to your expoſition, I should intend that bicauſe it is not diſcerned which children are Spiritual ſeed which the carnal, therefor both of them muſt be deprived of baptiſme, leſt by giving baptiſme (which you falſely cal a ſeale, & I therin ſpeak according to your opinion) to al, it should bee profaned by the carnall ſeed wel ſuppoſe that this were my meaning what then you except againſt this expoſition two things: one that the Spiritual ſeed should be injuried by denying baptiſme to it for the carnal ſeeds ſake … & I reply by giving baptiſme to all indifferently, wee should injury baptiſme that is to bee adminiſtred only vppon them that confeſſe their Faith & ſinnes, & that are made Diſciples by teaching: another thing you except is that this reaſon should avayle againſt circumciſion ſeing the m…es of 8. dayes could not be diſcerned to be the Spiritual ſeed: & I inſiſt that it was not then needful that they should be diſcerned to be the Spiritual ſeed for that carnal ſeale of the carnal covenant: it was enough for inveſting of them with that carnal & typical ſeale, that they were the carnal & typical ſeed, & that they were male Iſraelites or Proſelytes: & shew me in al the old Teſtament, but eſpecially in the inſtitution of circumciſion that the Lord required any thing of any perſon to be circumciſed, but to be a male: but now in the new Teſtament we having the truths of thoſe types, it is plainly taught vntounto vsus, firſt that Chriſt the male muſt bee in vsus, & …. that the…r muſt bee circumciſion of the hart, & mortification of the Flesh, & 3. wee muſt attayne to & learne all that the Schoolm. of the Old Teſtament could teach vsus before wee can bee baptized, for Iohn & Chr. expreſly require Faith & repentance in them that are to be baptized: & I do infinitely wonder at you & at my … & at the whoſe Earth, that wee should not ſee ſo evident a truth all this tyme.
The ſecond particular you bring in answer to my reaſon is a diſtinction of the reſpects of the ſeed of the Faithful: For you ſay as they are borne of their parents they are carnal & ſinful: Pſal. 51.5. as they are vnderunder the covenant they are Spiritual, Gen. 17.7. & are called Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. & ſo are not the carnal ſeed: & ſo they may be baptized aswel as the Iewes infants were circumciſed though ſome of them prove wicked afterward, as Iſmael & Eſaw, &c. I answer: Firſt, your diſtinction is witho… warrant of Scripture: & I deny that infants of the Faithful are to be conſidered in theſe two reſpects: & whereas you bring two places Gen. 17.7. & 1. Cor. 7.14. to prove the latter part of the diſtinction I have answered theſe two places already shewing your falſe expoſition of them, & that the infants of Abraham were not in their byrth vnderunder the actual poſſeſſion of the everlaſting covenant made in reſpect of Chr. but only vnderunder the offer of it, & that the infants & al the childrē of the faithful are holy only as the wife that is an vnbeleever is holy: & ſo this exception of yours is frivolous.
The third particular you bring in answer to my reaſon, is, that it is not ſimply a profaning of the covenant to adminiſter the ſeale of it to them to whom it belongeth not as to Simon Magus, Act. 8.13. but it is then profaned when it is adminiſtred to them that are wicked, &c: I answer, the Sacrament of baptiſme is profaned when it is adminiſtred vppon a wrong ſubject whatſoever it bee: as to give the Lords Supper to an infant of two yeer old So to baptiſe an infant is a profanation. For as profeſſion & confeſſion of Fayth shall intitle any man to all the ordinances of the Chur. & firſt to baptiſme: So abſence of confeſſion of Faith shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the Church in communion: & although I will not ſay that Children are damned, yet I dare ſay that they are borne & dead in treſpaſſes & ſinnes, & that they doe not nor cannot shew any ſparke of grace to mee, & therfor although I dare not ſay this or that infant is not vnderunder the election of God, yet I dare ſay that never an infant in the Earth is actually ſeaſed of the New Teſtament which is onelyonly atteyned by confeſſion of ſinne & Faith: For ſo ſaith Chriſt: the tyme is fulfilled, the Kingdome of God is at hand: repent & beleeve the goſpel: Marc. 1.15. & except a man bee borne againe hee cannot ſee the Kingdome of God. Iohn, 3.3. & Chriſt dwelleth in our harts by Fayth, Eph. 3.17. & as I cannot deny but that many infants are elected, yet I cannot ſay which infants shal beleeve & confeſſe their ſinnes & Fayth, & ſo I know not vppon which to adminiſter baptiſme & I muſt be aſſured that they do beleve before I can baptiſe them, for whatſoever is not of Faith is ſinne, & to know nothing to the contrary, but that they do bele…ve is not ſufficient warrant for baptiſme: yea & I doe know certainly that …eing Faith cōmeth by hearing, therfor they do not beleve to me, yea though they could heer & did beleeve that is nothing to mee except they can shew mee their Faith by their confeſſion. I ſay therfor that al infants are carnal to me. Rom. 9.8. For the Apoſt. v…: 5 ſaith plainly that to be borne of Abrah. acording to the Flesh is not to be borne according to promiſe, or to be as you ſay Spiritual, for your diſtinction before was that every infant of Abrah. & ſo of the faithful was borne Spiritual as wel as carnal: but heer the Apoſtle ſaith directly contrary to your aſſertion that they are not all Children of the promiſe & covenant, bicauſe they are the Children that lineally deſcend of Abrah. & you ſay peremptorily that al that lineally deſcend of Abrah. & the Faithful man are children of the promiſe & covenant, & ſo to be baptized: I deſire you with al your knowledg reconcile theſe contradictions: & whereas you ſay the Children of the Flesh are ſo oppoſed, that they can never bee the Children of the promiſe, & that therfor the Children of the Faithful cannot bee ſo called carnal: I answer that al the children of the Iewes Church were borne according to the Flesh, Gal. 4.23-25. & ſo were carnal, & ſo are the Children of the faithful: & yet as many of the Iewes were afterward regenerate, & children of the promiſe though al at the firſt children of the Flesh, ſo many of the infants of the Faithful may prove Children of the promiſe by Faith; though at the firſt al are the children of the Flesh that is carnal: but I confeſſe indeed that Eſaw can never be Iacob: & one ſo carnal can never be Spiritual: & whereas you ſay, that carnal corruption doth not hinder infants from baptiſme, no more then men of yeeres that make confeſſion of their Faith, I answer yes: For men of yeeres confeſſing their ſinnes & their Faith, declare the mortification of ſinne & regeneration by the Spirit, infants being borne in ſinne, cannot nor doe not declare their regeneration at al to vsus: & ſo with them wee have nothing to doe: & whereas you ſay natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men beleeving, let it bee ſo, & yet you cannot defend that without the opinion of vniverſal redemption, & then I ſay, that if the infants of the Faithful being delivered from their natural corruption may therfore bee baptized, then al infants shal be baptized who are pertakers of the ſame benefit, evē the infants of Turkes: if you ſay no: Seing the infants of the Faithful are only redeemed & vnderunder the covenant, then you condemne al the infants that dye who are not borne of Faithful parents: & yet you cannot prove that the infants of the Faithfull are vnderunder the actual poſſeſſion of the covenant, which is only by Faith, & ſo the ſcruple ſtil remaineth vnloſed.
The fourth particular you bring in answer to my reaſon, is, that Abrah. circumciſed Iſmael, & Iſaac circumciſed Eſaw, & yet they knew that the Lord would eſtablish his covenant with neither of them: much more may infants bee baptized to whom the covenant belongeth, Act. 2.39. I answer: that the external ſeale of that external covenant was particularly injoyned by God to every male, & the knowledg of the reprobation of Eſaw & Iſmael did not hinder that carnal ſeale: nor diſanul the precedent expreſſe commaundement of circumciſing every male of 8, dayes old: but now ſeing wee have no expreſſe commaundement for baptiſing infants, but an expreſſe commaundement & many examples to the contrary, that only perſons made Diſciples by teaching, confeſſing their Faith & their ſinnes, are to be baptized: & conſidering that infants borne of Faithful parents are the children of the Flesh, Rom. 9.7. Gal. 4.23. & are not actually vnderunder the poſſeſſion of the everlaſting New Teſtament, therefore baptiſme which you call the ſeale, can not bee adminiſtred vppon them, & the place Act. 2.39. hath o… tymes receeved Anſwere.
Mr. Rich. Clifton
The Second Poſition.
1. That Antichriſtians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptiſme.
Anſwere.
As the former poſition denyed the baptiſing of infants, ſo doth this annihillate that baptiſme which wee have received in the Apoſtate Church, & eſtablisheth rebaptiſation & this alſo I wil shew to be an error by proving the contrary, & then answere the reaſons herevnto annexed.
That the baptiſme adminiſtred in the Apoſtate Churches of Antichriſt, is baptiſme not to be reiterated, thus I prove it.
If the Apoſtacy of Iſrael did not ſo pollute circumciſion that it ceaſed to bee the ſeale of Gods covenant to ſo many of them as repented: no more doth the Apoſtacy of our fore Elders, ſo pollute baptiſme that it ceaſeth to be a Sacrament to ſo many of them as repented.
But the firſt is true, 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21. els could not ſo many of Iſrael as came to Ierushalem have eaten the Paſſeover, ſeing no vncircumciſed might eate therof.
Ergo, the ſecond.
If it be objected that the Apoſtacy is not alike, then let it be shewed, that the Apoſtacy vnderunder Antichriſt did make a nullity of baptiſme, & not the Apoſtacy of Iſraell of circumciſion: For Iſraell played the harlot ſoo deepely, that the Lord denyed her to bee his wiſe, or him ſelfe to bee her Huſband: Hoſ. 2.2.