The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 1 · Argument 3
Argument III.
Marc. 10. 13. 14. & Mat. 19. 13. 14.
They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging, and may participate of ſo many of them as they are capable to receive.
But the infants of beleeving parēts are of the kingdom of God. Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging, and may participate of ſo many of them as they are capable to receive and conſequently of baptiſme, ſeing they are capable of it.
The major Propoſition I think will not be denyed, it is written, 1 Cor. 3, 21. 22. All things are yours, Rom. 9. 4.
The aſſumption is Mat. 19. 13.—17. For of ſuch is the kingdome of God, meaning that his kingdome ſtood not onelyonly of ſuch as being of yeares that beleeved, but alſo of their infants. And this he declareth not onelyonly in this ſaying, but alſo by his diſpleaſure againſt his Diſciples for hindering their comming unto him: alſo by cōmaunding to ſuffer them to come, and by putting his hands vponupon them, and bleſſing them. Mat. 19. 13. 14. 15. For would Chriſt have bleſſed them that were not of his kingdome? or do not the bleſſings apperteyne onelyonly to the children of the kingdom, even to the ſeed of Abrahā, Gal. 3. 8. 18.
If it be objected that children are not capable of baptiſme, I anſwer, they are as capable thereof, as the infants of Iſrael were of circumciſion, being both partakers of the ſame promiſes with them, and in all reſpects as capable of the outward ſeales of the covenant as they were. And therefore the infants of beleevers are to be baptiſed.
M. Smyth.
To this Argument of yours I make anſwer diverſly: First you have not proved that the viſible Church and all the ordinances thereof perteyne to infants of the faithful: for the infants of the Iewes that were preſented to Chriſt were not infants of beleevers &c.
Rich: Clifton.
You anſwer, (you ſay) diverſly, but yet your anſwer would have been more direct and playne to my underſtanding if you had denyed eyther propoſition or diſtinguiſhed; in ſtead whereof you demannd divers queſtions; deny the ſequele of the concluſion, and pretend abſurdities to follow; notwithſtanding I will anſwer to your particulars.
And firſt, where you ſay, I have not proved that the viſible Church, and all the ordinances thereof perteyned to infants, &c. I have proved that which I vndertook, viz: both the parts of my argument, and you deny neyther, but ſay I have not proved the concluſion, which if the Argument be in mood and figure muſt neceſſarily follow upon true premiſſes,
Next you ſay, the infants that were preſented to Chriſt, were not infants of beleevers for ought that I ſee, &c.
Neyther have you any likelihood to judge thē to be infāts of any others…at. 10. …. Mat. …. 13. 14. that were not either of the Iewes or Proſelytes: for would Chriſt receive the infants of the vnbeleeving Gentiles, and to ſay of them, of ſuch is the kingdome of God? therefore it cannot be that they were the children of unbeleevers, unleſſe we ſhall imagine that Chriſt did practiſe contrary to the courſe … hath ſet downe for the receiving of them, into his covenant that are without, alſo this was in *Mar. … 1.Iudah by the far ſyde of Iorden whether the people reſorted unto him again †Mar… 10. Mat▪ 1.after he was come out of Gallily, And though the text mencion not who they were that brought the infāts to Chriſt, nor …hoſe they were (as it was not needful for vsus to know) yet by the circumſtance of the place and perſons comming then vntounto him, it cannot otherwiſe be thought, but that they were of the children of the Iewes or proſelytes; and as for your likelihood to the contrary, it is no likelihood at all, ſeing the Diſciples fayled in many things: “Luk. 9. 54. 55.they alſo beſought him to ſend the Cananitiſh away, yet he received her. Now the cauſe why the Diſciples would have had the Canaanite ſent away, was for that ſhe cried after* Mat. 1… 22. 23. 2… them, and it may be this was the reaſon why the diſciples rebuked them that brought the infants, becauſe they troubled them, or it may be they thought infants uncapable of knowledge and ſo could not profit by the word preached, but this matters not, for by Chriſts reproving of them, it is manifeſt that they erred in ſo doing: & that they ought not to have forbidden children to have bene brought vntounto him.
You ſay, it may be they were the children of ſome of the Romane ſouldiers or ſome Ca…aniſh perſons.
So it may be the parents of theſe infants were proſelytes and moſt likely they were Iewes: but what is this to the purpoſe; anſwer to the argugument, for this is but to ſeek ſhifts when you cannot find a ſufficient anſwer. But ſuppoſe (ſay you) they were children of the Jewes how is it prooved that their parents were beleevers, ſeing the Iewes for the moſt part were stiffenecked and uncircumciſed in hart.
Although ſome of the Iewes wer ſtiffenecked, yet how is it proved that theſe were the infants of ſuch? ſeing many of the “Ioh. 7. …people beleeved in him: nay rather the contrary appeares by *Mar… 10. 1. 13.their comming to heare Chriſt and the bringing of their infants unto him, that they were not of thoſe that were ſtiffenecked, for would they have ſought to Chriſt to bleſſe their children if they had diſpiſed him? And although the parents of theſe infants might be ſuch as yet were not fully inſtructed that the Meſſiah was come whom they looked for, (the contrarie is more probable) yet did they profeſſe the Lord to be their God whom they ought to worſhip, & therefore were in externall account, beleevers and members of the Church.
If they had been the children of beleeving Iewes that were baptiſed by John … Christs diſciples▪ &c
Whether theſe Infants or their Parents were baptiſed by Iohn or Chr. diſciples the ſcripture mentioneth not, neither is it greatly material for us to know, els the ſpirit had reveyled it: that they were bleſſed of Chriſt ther is no queſtion. But ſay you, if they were baptiſed what need was there to bring them to Chriſt, except i… were for popiſh confirmation. The Scripture ſets down the end why, viz. that † Chriſt ſhould lay his hands on them, and pray for…uk. 18. …. Mat. …, 13. Gen. 48. …—20. Mar. 7. …. Luk. 4. …. Act. 9. 17. Act. 8. …—19. Act. 19. …6. them, or bleſſe them. The laying hands on the partie bleſſed, was practiſed by the * fathers, when they would pray for, or bleſſe their children. Chriſt uſed it in “working of miracles, for they that brought the deaf man prayed him to put his hands upon him: all they that had ſick of diverſe diſeaſes brought them unto him, and he layed his hands on every of them and healed them. Alſo Chriſts diſciples practiſed this laying on of hands & praying, not onelyonly in † curing the diſeaſed, but alſo * upon them that were baptiſed. And Paul “layed his hands upon thoſe twelve at Epheſus who wer baptiſed with Iohns Baptiſme.
If the Apoſtles might lay their hands upon them that were already baptiſed and pray for them, (and this I hope was no popiſh confirmation) might not our Saviour do this to theſe Infants if they were baptiſed, but it muſt be a needleſſe thing to bring them unto him thus to be bleſſed? And though you ſay, I cannot from hence conclude Baptiſme, yet from hence I do conclude that Chriſt performed that action to Infants, that his diſciples did afterward unto ſuch as were baptiſed, viz. laying on of hands and prayer: & likewiſe I can conclude that Chriſt admitted of Infants to come to him, and that he prayed for them, And “he prayes not for the world.…oh. 17. 9. M…r. 10. And that alſo he pronounceth, that † of ſuch is the kingdome of God. And therfore whether Baptiſme can be denyed to ſuch let the godly reader judge.
I avouch conſtantly againſt you that eyther they were not the children of the Iewes, or they were not the Infants of beleeving Iewes, or if their parents beleeved, yet it followeth not tha… thoſe Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptiſed: for Christ doth not ſay of theſe, but of ſuch is the kingdome of God.
Although you do ſo conſtantly avouch againſt me, yet it is but your ſtout denyal, without any reaſon or probabilitie to the contrary. That theſe Infants which were brought to Chriſt were of the Iewes, I have ſhewed my reaſons before.
But not beleeving (ſay you) I anſwer, how dare you deny them to be profeſſors? (of the hart we are no judge) ſtood they not members of the viſible church? and are they not ſo long to be accounted for beleevers? nay, they came to hear Chriſt, and by preſenting their children unto him, and deſiring him to pray, teſtifyed their fayth in him, and †1 Cor. 1… 7.charitie binds us to eſteem of ſuch in the better part.
If their parents beleeved, yet it followeth not that therefore theſe Infants were of the kingdome of God, or to be baptiſed &c.
It doth follow that theſe infants were of the kingdome of God, in that Chriſt prayed for them Mar. 10. 16. conferred with Mar. 19. 13. but he *Joh. 17, …prayed not for them that are not of his kingdome.
Yea, Chriſt ſayth not of theſe, (ſay you) but of ſuch.
And do you not think in your conſcience that Chriſt in theſe words (of ſuch) included thoſe infants? would he include others like to them & exdude them? As cōcerning that place of Mat. 18. 3. 6. which you alledge to croſſe my interpretatiō of theſe words, it gaynes you nothing: for the diſciples coming to Chriſt and asking who is the greateſt in the kingdome of heaven, he teaching them humblenes, called a little child (not a man of years) and ſet him in the mideſt of them ſaying, except ye be converted & become as little children, ye ſhal not enter into the kingdome of heaven, uſing the ſame word in this place for little children, Mat. 18. 3. that is in Mark. 10. 15. In Mat. 18. 6. for (little ones) is uſed another word, that wil as wel agree to men of yeares, ſo they be humble, as to children. And in verſe the third Chriſt doth not deny children to be of the kingdome of God, but teacheth his diſciples by a ſimile to be humble mynded as little children, or els they could not enter into the kingdome of God, †Eſa, 66. 3… Jam. 4. 6. 10. 1 Pet. …. 5. 6.who regards the lowly, and giveth grace to ſuch. And this doth rather confirm my expoſition, in teaching none can enter into the kingdome, but ſuch as ſhal be like to infants.
Beſides, how can you prove that by the kingdome of God Chriſt underſtandeth the viſible Church of the new Teſtament?
Firſt for anſwer to this queſtion, I wil ſend you to Mr. Smyth in his *printed A. 1609.Paralels, Cenſures and Obſervations, pag. 22. who ſayth, That the true viſible Church is CHRISTS ſheepfold, his kingdome, &c. Alſo pag. 15. of the ſame book, The true Church in the ſcripture is called the howſe of God, the Temple of God the howſehould of faith and the kingdome of heaven, of Chriſt and of God. And in 17. pag. of the ſame book theſe are your words they that are not of a conſtituted Church are no ſubiects of Chriſts kingdome, and pag. 16. you ſay, that the viſible Church is the onelyonly kingdome of Chriſt, & that therefore they who are not members of Chriſts true viſible Church are no ſubiects of Chriſts kingdome, the like is affirmed in pag. 18. 19. conſidering therefore what you have written, I marvel you demaund this queſtion, for by your owne words you inſinuate that the kingdome of Chriſt or of God, is the onelyonly viſible Church, in that you ſay, they are not of Chriſts kingdome that are not members of a true constituted Church, and then muſt it needs follow that by kingdome of God in this place, is underſtood the viſible ChurchRev. 18. 4 Luk. 19. …. 12. Act. 3. Mat. 5. …. Gen. 17. …. Pſal. 73. …. Pſal. 147 …. Rom. 9. Eſa. 28. …6. & 51. 3 …. chap. 54 …ſ. 132. 13 …—17. Pſ. 128. 1- …. Pſ. 1-3 … 112. 1. 2 & 119. 1 …. 92. 13 & 4. 4. 5. …at. 5. 1—…. Eph. 5. 25 of the new Teſtament, ſeing you ſay, it is the onelyonly kingdome of Christ. but I do not conſent unto you herein, for there be many of the kingdome of God, that are no members of a true cōſtituted viſible Church, as * Gods people in Babylon, and thoſe ſeven thouſand in Iſrael that never bowed their knee to Baall. The kingdome of God extends more largely, (though inviſibly) then to the viſible Church.
2. To your queſtion, I anſwer, that the viſible † Church of the new Teſtament is the kingdome of God: and ſo to underſtand it in this place of Ma…k 10. 14. 15. is nothing repugnant to the circumſtance and ſcope thereof, although the kingdome of glorie is alſo intended, both which are but one, yet diverſly conſidered. And he that hath right to the one part hath right alſo to the other: and therefore Chriſt ſaying, of ſuch is the kindome of God he meaneth his whol kingdome of grace and glorie.
Or how can you prove that Chriſt bleſsed none but members of the viſible Church?
Firſt, I never did affirme that Chriſt bleſſeth none but the members of the viſible Church, and therefore you have no reaſon to require the proof thereof at my hands. 2. If your queſtion be of Gods general bleſſings, then I anſwer, that the Lord cauſeth “the ſunne to ſhine upon the iuſt and uniust, and the rayne to fall vponupon the good and evil; all nations and people are partakers of many temporall bleſsings. But if you ſpeak of ſpirituall bleſsings and of thoſe that are purchaſed by Chriſts death then I ſay, * ſuch bleſsings apperteyne to the Church, and to the † true members thereof whether viſible or inviſible, becauſe “Chriſt is given onelyonly to his Church, … *1 Cor. … 2 Cor. 1. … 21. 22.whom all the promiſes of God are yea and in him, Amen.
Or how can you prove that the bleſsing of Abraham, apperteyneth onelyonly to the members of the viſible Church, &c.
And I ask you, why you put me to the proof of it, ſeing I never held any ſuch thing. Nay, I deny that the bleſsing of God reacheth no further then to the members of the viſible Church, for the Churches †King. 18. Rev. 4.members are many inviſible, but that the bleſſing of Abraham perteyneth to the viſible Church, I hope you wil not deny, ſee Ephe. 2. 11-22. & 3. 6- 19. & 4. 8.-14. 2 Cor. 4. 9. Col. 1. 3-6. 1 Theſ. 1. 2. - 10. in all which places & in divers others, it doth appeare that theſe viſible Churches had received the bleſſing of Abraham.
Or that from this particular of Chriſts praying for infants, Mar. 10. 13. baptiſing of infants to follow.
My argument from this place of Mat. 10. 13. 14. to prove that baptiſme belongs to the infants of beleevers, you have already, and have not anſwered it, why require you it againe. I have proved that infants are of the Kingdome of God, as alſo that the holy things of God, as baptiſme, &c. belong to all the members of this kingdome: But further to ſatiſfie your deſire, thus I prove baptiſme to belong to infants, from this particular of Chriſts praying for them:
For whom Chriſt prayed, they were of his everlaſting covenant, for he prayed for them ¶Ioh. 17. 10. 20.which were given him, and not for the world.
But Chriſt prayed for theſe infants, Mat. 19. 13.
Therefore theſe infants were of his everlaſting covenant, and ſo conſequently baptiſme the ſigne thereof belonged vntounto them, ſeing God both in making “‘Gen. 17 7.-10.this covenant with Abraham, gave to him and to his ſeed together with it circumciſion the ſeale thereof. And alſo in commanding the †Mat. 2… 19.publiſhing of the ſame covenant to all nations did withall command baptiſme to be adminiſtred.
Againe, thoſe whom Chriſt bleſſeth, he bleſſeth with the bleſſing of Abraham, Gal. 3. 14. conferd with verſ. 8. 16. 9.
But Chriſt bleſſeth theſe infants: Mar. 10. 16.
Therefore Chriſt bleſſeth them with the bleſſing of Abraham, and ſo conſequently theſe infants were capable of baptiſme, becauſe the Lord hath ioyned together the bleſſing or covenant, and the ſigne or ſeale thereof, as before hath bene ſhewed.
Or how cā you prove that Chriſt obtayned for thē, & prayed for remiſſiō of ſinnes, the holy Ghoſt, fayth, everlaſting life, for many were brought to Christ for releife of bodily infirmities.
And I demande of you againe, for what other things ſhould Chriſt pray for theſe Infants, but for ſpirituall graces; there is no mention that they were brought for the curing of any bodily infirmitie in them, and if they had been diſeaſed it is like the Apoſtles would not have hindered theirMat: 19. …. comming to Chriſt, & the end of their † bringing of their infants to him was to put his hands vponupon them and to pray. The reaſon that Chriſt yeeldeth why they ſhould ſuffer little children to come to him, (becauſe of ſuch is the kingdome of God) doth argue of what nature the things were he prayed for. Againe, where Chriſt prayed for the curing of any corporall diſeaſe,Mat: 8. 4. 15. & …. 28. 29. …. Mat: 8. …6. it is recorded with what * infirmitie they that he prayed for, were troubled; that ſo the miracle might be knowen, which was the end of his doing of great works. The “Centurion requiring Chriſt for his ſervant, ſhewed his diſeaſe: but thoſe that brought the infants, mention no corporall infirmity, for which they ſhould deſire him to pray for them.
Thus you having made all theſe queſtions, you proceed to a ſecond anſwer ſaying,
I deny that it followeth becauſe Chriſt bleſſed ſome of the infants of the Iewes or Gentiles vponupon ſpeciall intreatie, therefore that it may hence be concluded, that generally the covenant and the ſeal of the covenant (as you call baptiſme) doth apperteyne to them, for there is not the ſame reaſon of all infants as of ſome ſpecially bleſsed, as Iohn Baptist, Ieremy, Sampſon.
I marvel greatly, that you will thus ſhift off: doth not my reaſon prove, that the covenant and ſeal therof apperteyneth to the infants of the faithfull, ſeing of ſuch is the kingdome of God? Doth Chriſt ſay theſe infants are bleſſed onelyonly, becauſe they alone are of the kingdom of God? Nay, ſayth he not of ſuch (including other infants alſo) is the kingdome of God? And dooth not the reaſon which our Saviour uſeth here, why theſe infants ſhould come to him inferre ſo much? for they that brought them, being ſtayed, he reaſons thus againſt his diſciples why they ought not to hinder them, becauſe of ſuch (as theſe are,) is the Kingdome of God, meaning, not all infants, but the infants of beleevers as theſe were.
But in that you ſay, there is not the ſame reaſon of all infants, as of ſome ſpe…lly bleſsed, &c.
Neyther doo we reaſon for ſuch ſpeciall bleſſings or callings, as were …iven to John Baptist, Jeremy or Sampſon, but for the right of the covenant …o appertayne to all the ſeed of the faithfull: for although God do out of …he ſeede of beleevers choſe ſome whome he wil imploy to ſpeciall ſervice a…ove others, and therefore doth beſtowe on them more then ordinary …iftes, yet this hinders not the reſt of the infants of the faythfull from …heir right to Gods covenant or cōmon ſalvation.
Neyther indeed can you prove, that theſe infants which were bleſſed of Chriſt, were bleſſed with any extraordinary bleſſings or callings, for no …ch things is recorded of them, therefore to compare them & their bleſ…nge with theſe three extraordinarie ſervants of God, John Baptiſt Ieremy …d Sampſon, is not to make an equall compariſon.
Thirdly, If Baptiſme doth appertaine to infants becauſe Chriſt bleſſeth ſome parti…ular infants, and becauſe Chriſt ſaith the Kingdome of God appertaines to ſuch, then the lords ſupper alſo.
I anſwer, that doth not follow; the ordinances of Chriſt belong to the members of the Church and they are to partake of them as they are capable.
The infantes of the Iewes could receive circumciſion at eight dayes of age, but could not eat the paſſeover: ſo likewiſe the children of Chriſtians are capable of Baptiſme the firſt day of their birth, but not of the Lords …pper becauſe the Lord Ieſus, of ſuch as participates therof, requires †1. Cor. 11 26-31.to examine themſelves, to ſhew forth the Lords death &c. which children cannot performe in regard of their yeares. And therefore it wil not follow that if infants are to be baptiſed, therefore to receive the Lords ſupper. And though you would prevent this anſwer, by ſaying. They muſt have it (meaning the Lords ſupper) as ſone as they can eat it; I grant as much, as ſone as they can eate it, as the Lord hath *1. Cor. 11 27.commanded,
They cannot confeſse their ſinnes and faith, and ſo cannot be baptiſed.
To this objection ſufficient anſwer is given already, and further occaſion of anſwer wil follow.
4. I would know, why the Apoſtles put infants back, and why Christ did not command them to be baptiſed, &c.
Why would you know that which is not written? that the Apoſtles did not well in putting them back, Chriſt his rebuking of them, doth manifeſt: What may be coniectured hath bene noted before. And as fo… Chriſt his not commanding them to be baptiſed, I anſwer, Chriſt performed that which they required of him, the text doth not mention that they came to deſire baptiſme, and therefore there was no cauſe that he ſhould command them to be baptiſed.
Next you labour to weaken ſuch proves as I brought from the ſcriptures to confirme my Argument withall, ſaying.
You ſee by that which hath bene anſwered, that both your maior and minor ar weak, and the ſcriptures alledged by you do not confirme them, for the place, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours, that is theirs that actually beleeve and are baptized, &c.
My major and minor are ſo weak, that you can diſprove neyther of thē. As touching your anſwer to this ſcripture, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply itCor. 3. 21 …2. onelyonly to them that actually beleeve, which the text ſayth not, the Apoſtles meaning in this place is, that all ſuch helpes as the Lord Ieſus hath appointed for the benefit of his people are theirs, whether they be men of yeares, or infants for he ſpeakes to the whol Church incluſively whereof the children are members, † as hath bene proved. But you ſay, I muſt proveMat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 … that infants have the uſe of all. I have anſwered that they are to have the uſe of ſo many of Gods ordinances, as they in regard of their yeares and knowledge are able to partake of. But not ſatisfyed herewith, you demand further ſaying,
Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of ſalvation, &c.
I anſwer, that all the members of the Church are capable and partakersEph. 5. 25 …6. 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12. of all the meanes of their * ſalvation, which is Ieſus Chriſt, yea children, † els can they not be ſaved. But as concerning the outward ordinances of the Church, as the miniſterie of the word, Sacraments and ſuch like, though they be neceſſarie in their due place, yet the uſe of them is not at all tymes and of all perſons required; the Iſraelites borne in the wildernes were not circumciſed by the ſpace of fortye yeares, neyther was the Paſſeover commanded to infantes, to offer ſacrifice or the like, (though †D…. 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. …. Mar. 10.theſe were neceſſarily required of them that were growne to yeares;) ſo that tyme and age doth priveledge ſome from the practiſe of thoſe things which otherwiſe they are bound to obſerve;
The next Scripture is, Rom. 9. 4. wherein you except againſt theKom. 9. word (appertayneth) and ſay. It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning …f the Apoſtle. For your excepting againſt the word, (appertayneth) ſaying, it is … into the text, you ſeeme to contend, before you be provoked, I onelyonly quo…ed that place of Rom. 9. 4. and did not ſet downe the wordes. And therefore to ſtrive about a word added in the tranſlation, is to ſtrive againſt your owne ſhadow, I defend no words added, whereby the text is miſconſtrued. But although no verbe be expreſſed in the original, yet gramatical cōſtruction requires ſome verbe to be vnderſtood▪ as this verbe (is,) or appertain…th, or ſome ſuch like, and if (is) be vnderſtood, it is the ſame, in ſenſe with (appertayneth).
But you ſay, Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnall Iſraelites were actually within the covenent of grace &c.
Paul intends to ſet downe the dignitie and prerogative of the people which he had choſen to him ſelfe to be his inheritance, and to ſhew that Gods word is true, although Iſrael be caſt of, he performeth his promiſe to ſo many of them as he had choſen in his ſecrete counſel. And this is all that the Apoſtle intendeth. To your carnal covenant, and to the offer of the ſpiritual, I have anſwered before.
Laſtly, whereas I did affirme that infants vnderunder the Goſpel were as capable of baptiſme, as children vnderunder the lawe, you anſwer. That baptiſme is not the ſeale of the covenant of the new Teſtament, as Circumciſion was the ſeale of the old Teſtament, and that infantes of the old Testament were capable abſolutely, ſeing that to be circumciſed, there was nothing requyred, but a foreſkin apt to be cut of: but to baptiſme in the new Testament, there is required actual fayth, repentance confeſsed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47.
That †pag. 37.Baptiſme is the ſeale of the new Teſtament is proved before, & alſo that circumciſiō was *pag. 12.a ſeale of the ſame ſpiritual covenāt to the Iſraelites, and that our infants are as capable of baptiſme, as the Iewes were of circumciſion, your reaſons alledged to the contrary are of no force for the difference you put between the two ſacraments of circumciſion and baptiſme, is but a floriſh, for as the profeſſion of actual fayth, and repentance is…zra. 6. 21. …ter 8. 17. required of all them that are of yeares to baptiſme, ſo † was it of the proſelytes, to circumciſion. And if you would compare Infants with Infants, and men of yeares with ſuch like, then ſhall you ſee, that there is no more required of our infantes that are to be baptiſed, then of the children of the Iewes and proſelites; nor leſſe looked for of men of yeares vnderunder the old Teſtament, then now vnderunder the new. As for the ſcriptures that you alledg, they witnes what is required of the elder ſort to be received into the viſible Church, and not of infants. Out of this your anſwer you collect 5 arguments againſt Paedobaptiſtry, the firſt is this.
They that are not members of the viſible Church, have no title to the holy things of God, and therefore are vncapable of them: and ſo of baptiſme.
Infantes of the faythful are not actually members of the viſible Church: for theſe places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of theſe infantes were beleeving Iewes, or if they were beleevers their infantes were already baptized with their parents according to your doctrine, and ſo Chriſt cannot intend baptiſme to appertayne to them, but the reſt of the ordinances. Ergo &c.
I deny the minor, the reaſon proves it not, & do affirm, that the infants of the faythful are mēbers of the ſame Church with their parēts, & have right to the holy things therof; as may thus be ſhewed: firſt Abrahās houſe was a viſible Church of God, the infantes of Abraham and of his ſervantes areGen. 17. …2. ſayd to “be born in his houſe: wherevpon I conclude that they were part of Abrahams family: for in that very place the holy Ghoſt diſtinguiſheth between ſuch as were borne in the houſe and bought with mony, as between them that were by their birth of the family; & of thoſe that being bought, were received into his houſe.
Secondly; the children of belevers be eyther members of the ChurchEphe. 2. 12. and within the covenant, or els without, if without, then are † they aliants from the comon welth of Iſrael, strangers from the covenants of promiſe, without Chriſt, without hope, and without God in this world: for this the Apoſtle ſets downe to be the ſtate of them that are without: but thus Chriſt did not eſteme of infantes, (who ſayd “ſuffer litle children to come to me, for of ſuch is the kingdome “Marc. 10 13. 14.of God, nor Pau, †1 Cor. 7. …4.that ſayd, but now are they holy, ſpeaking of the children of belevers. Concerning the parēts of theſe childrē that were brought to Chriſt, which you ſay, cannot be proved belevers by theſe places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. I have ſhewed before what I thought of them. But if they …re baptiſed, ſay you, Christ cannot intend baptiſme vntounto them.
Who labours to prove that Chriſt in bleſſing them did intend Baptiſme vntounto them. This I ſayd that ſuch as are of the Kingdome of God, and capable of the bleſſing of Chriſt are not to be denyed baptiſme. And that infantes are ſuch, I have proved from theſe ſcriptures. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. And therefore baptiſme not to be denyed them.
2. If the Apoſtles by putting back infantes preſented to Chriſt declare playnely that infants were not to be brought to be baptiſed by Christ the infantes were not to be baptiſed by Chriſt nor cōmanded to be baptiſed by him. But the firſt is true, Ergo &c.
The aſſumption is denyed, for if the children were not brought to be baptiſed, how can the Apoſtles putting them back ſignifie that infants are not to be baptized? the bringers of them did expreſſe their mind wherefore they brought them. Agayne if the Apoſtles by putting the infants back did erre, and by Chriſt are thereof rebuked, what can you conclude from their example, but this, not to judge them vnworthy of Chriſt and of his ordinances, whome he approveth & receiveth. The Scripture ſpeakes not one word, that they did put them back, as judging them vnfit for baptiſme.
3. If the perſons preſenting Infants to be bleſsed and prayed for, do not deſire baptiſme for them, then they knew no ſuch cuſtome uſed by Christ to baptiſe them. But the firſt is true, Ergo &c.
Whether they knew any ſuch cuſtome or not, it is not to the purpoſe, Chriſt did as occaſion was offerred, he ſatisfyed them according to their deſire.
4. If Chriſt receiving infants, praying for them, bl…ſſing them, doth neyther baptiſe them, nor cōmaund his diſciples to baptiſe them, then eyther Chriſts pleaſure was they ſhould not be baptiſed, or els he forgat his duetie, in not teaching baptiſme of Infants upon ſo iuſt an occaſion. But Chriſt did neyther baptiſe them, nor command his diſciples to baptiſe them, neyther did he forget his dutie, &c. Ergo.
I anſwer, the conſequent followes not. Chriſt his pleaſure was not againſt that †Gē. 17. 1…general commandement given firſt to Abraham for the ſetting of the ſeale unto his covenant, to all the faithful and their ſeed. Alſo, Chriſt performed as much as they intreated for at his hands, and though he taught not all things at one time, yet was it no forgetting of his dutie, …eing in due time he taught all things.
5. They that are not actually poſſeſſed of the promiſes or covenant, are not actually to be inveſted with baptiſme. Infants are not actually poſſeſsed in the co… nant ſeing they performe not the condition, viz. confeſſion of their ſinnes and their faith actually, Ergo, &c.
If you mean (by actually poſſeſſed) ſuch a ſtate, right or poſſeſsion, as the Lord of his free grace hath infeoffed his people withall, by vertue of the…en. 17. 9. …1. Act. 39. 1 Cor. 14. graunt of his covenant to Abraham, I deny the minor, and ſay, that infants of beleevers are † children of the covenant and of the kingdome, and actually poſſeſſed thereof. As concerning the reaſon annexed to the minor it is anſwered before, that the Lord requires the actuall vſe of faith and repentance of them that are of yeares, and not of infants. And thus much for confirmation of my third reaſon.