The Character of the Beast, Debate 2 · John Smith 5 – Richard Clifton 6
Iohn Smyth.
Your ſourth argument is from 1. Cor. 7.14. thus.
If the Children of beleeving parents be holy: then are they within the covenāt of Abraham, & ſo conſequently have right to the ſeale therof.
But the firſt is true: 1. Cor. 7.14.
Ergo the ſecond.
I answer: Firſt denying your majors conſequent: Seing that al the nation of the Iewes were holy, & yet not within the covenant of Abraham, I meane as you do of the everlaſting covenant in reſpect of Chriſt: that they were not al within that covenant is plaine, Rom. 9.6. al they are not Iſrael which are of Iſrael: vsus. 7. neyther are they al Children bicauſe they are the ſeed of Abraham, vsus. 12. God revealed, that the Elder should ſerve the yonger, Act. 7.51. yee have alwayes reſiſted the holy ghoſt, as your foreFathers have done ſo do you: if it be objected that the place of the Romanes is ſpoken in reſpect of Gods ſecreat election, & not of mans knowledg, I answer, the vsus. 12. is plaine of that which was revealed vntounto the Church, & yet Eſaw was holy & circumcized when he was borne, being not vnderunder the covenant of Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt: & for proof of this point that the whole Church of the Iewes was not vnderunder the poſſeſſion of the everlaſting covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt: but only vnderunder the offer of it, I vſe theſe reaſons.
1. Firſt: The condition or obedience of the matter or members of the New Teſtament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members off the old Teſtament.
Faith & repentance is the condition & obedience of the matter or members of the new Teſtament, Marc. 1.15.
Ergo: Faith & repentance is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Teſtament.
The reaſon of the major is evident, ſeing that as the miniſtery, worship, & government of the Church of the old Teſtament was of another nature then the miniſtery worship, & government of the new Teſtament is, ſo the conſtitution, viz: the matter & Forme of the Church of the old Teſtament was of another nature, then the conſtitution that is the matter & forme of the new Teſtament is: Seing therfor that the miniſtery, worship, & government of the old Teſtament was carnal, the conſtitutiō muſt alſo be carnal: Therfor the matter & forme muſt be carnal: Therfor Faith & repentance was not required to the matter of the old Teſtament, but only a carnal holines, viz: The circumciſion of the foreskinne, whereby the carnal forme, that is the carnal covenant or commaundement was induced vponupon them, & wherto they were tyed in obedience, Heb. 7.16. Gal. 5.3.
2. Secondly. The type, shadow, figure, ſimilitude of a thing is not the truth, the ſubſtance, the thing it ſelf: True is nature & reaſon.
The conſtitution, viz: the matter & forme of the Church of the old Teſtament is the type, &c. The conſtitution or the matter & forme of the church of the new Teſtament is the truth, &c. Heb. 10.1. & 9.19.23.
Ergo: The conſtitution, viz the matter & forme of the Church of the old Teſtament, (that is the members, & covenant) is not the truth: that is the members are not truly holy, but ceremonialy holy, the covenant is not the everlaſting covenant, but the typical carnal covenant or commaundement: & ſo true holines that is Faith & repentance was not required to the mēbers or matter of the Church of the old Teſtament.
3. Thirdly, that which was not nor could not be accomplished, performed, effected or produced by the walking or communion of the Church off the old Teſtament, was not required, or exacted, or preſuppoſed to the conſtitution of the Church of the Old Teſtament.
Iuſtification & Faith, Sanctification & repentance, were not effected, performed, accomplished, or produced by the walking or communion of the Church of the Old Teſtament, Heb. 9.9. Gal. 2.15.16.
Ergo: juſtification & Faith, Sanctification & repentance were not required to the conſtitution of the Church of the old Teſtament: & ſo by conſequent, the members of the Church of the Old Teſtament were not truly holy in their conſtitution.
4. That which brought not perfection & life to the members, preſuppoſed not Fayth & repentance to the members: and ſo not reall or true holynes.
But the Old Teſtament, the Law, & the obedience of the Law brought not perfection & life to the members of the Church of the old Teſtament, Heb. 7.19. Gal. 3.21.
Ergo: The Old Teſtament, or the Law, or the Church of the old Teſtament did not preſuppoſe, Fayth, Repentance, or true Holynes in the members.
5. That which was a Schoolmr. only to teach Chriſt, did not preſuppoſe that the Schollers had already learned Chriſt or put on Chriſt, which is only done by Faith & repentance.
The law or old Teſtament was a Schoolmr. only to teach Chr: Gal. 3.14. Rom. 10.3.4.
Ergo, The Law or Old Teſtament did not preſuppoſe that the Schollers had learned Chriſt or put on Chriſt, which is only done by Fayth and Repentance.
6. That which was hidden, kept ſecreat was a Myſtery, & not revealed the members of the Church of the old Teſtament, in their conſtitution were not indued withal.
Faith, or obedience to the goſpel was a miſtery, & not revealed, but kept ſecreat from the beginning. Gal. 3.23. Rom. 16.25.
Ergo, The members of the Church of the Old Teſtament were not indued with Fayth or obedience to the goſpel in their conſtitution.
7. Ther is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt, Rom. 8.1.
Ther is condemnation to them that are vnderunder the Law, Gal. 3.10. For it is the Miniſtery of death or condemnation, 2. Cor. 3.7.
Ergo: The Law or old Teſtament doth not preſuppoſe Chriſt: or they that are vnderunder the Law are not in Chriſt: & ſo the members of the church of the old Teſtament were not truly holy.
Finally, the whole diſputation of Paul to the Romanes & Galatians concerning juſtification by Faith in Chriſt without the workes of the Law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth. Teaching that ſeing the vtmoſt obedience of the Law did not effect or produce juſtification, therfor of neceſſity it followeth that the Law or old Teſtament did not preſuppoſe it, or true holines in the members therof: For it had been a vanity to have given them a Law which should not or could not preſerve & produce that which was in them in ther firſt conſtitution: wherfor I doe bouldly defend againſt all men, that the Church of the Old Teſtament in the matter or conſtitution of it was not really Holy, but only Typically: & therfor the members therof admitted in by circumciſion were not truly holy or ſanctified, or in actual poſſeſſion of that everlaſting covenant which God made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt: but only vnderunder the offer of it in that typical Teſtament given to Abraham, & afterward aſſumed written & amplified by Moſes, Ioh. 7.19-23. compared with Heb. 8.8.9.
Having ſufficiently confirmed this truth, I returne in particular to answer your objections ſaying ſtil that the nation of the Iewes was holy, not truly but typically & that their holines was this, that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumciſion admitted, they were trayned vp, or Schooled to Chriſt, being by all the ceremonial law & old Teſtament, or carnal commaundement, as it were by ſo many meanes conſecrated or dedicated to that holy cad & purpoſe, which was tiped & shadowed by thoſe figures & ſimilitudes of heavenly things. Therfor as the word ſanctifying or hallowying is vſually taken in the old Teſtamēt for the ſetting of any thing apart to a holy vſe: ſo were the people of Iſrael holy: even an holy natiō above al the nations of the Earth, See: Exod. 19.10.14.15. Iob. 1.5. Deu. 14.1-4. compared with Act. 21.28. & for the place which you aledg, Ex. 19.6. to prove the Iſraelites an holy nation, I ſay, that either the meaning is that they were typically, holy, trayned vp to holines, or that they by attayning the end of the law should attayne true holines in Chriſt: So that this place is nothing to your purpoſe of the holines of the eternal covenant which God made with Abraham: So that though infants be vnderunder offer of the covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt, yet shal not baptiſme be adminiſtred vppon them, as your conſequent doth import, bicauſe that in the old Teſtament none were circumciſed but thoſe that were actually feaſed vppon that external covenant: & therefore none in the New Teſtament shalbe baptized but thoſe that are actually poſſeſſed of the covenant of the New Teſtament: but the actual poſſeſſion of the promiſe is by obedience to the Faith: For by Faith (ſaith the Apoſtle. Gal. 3.14.) we receave the promiſe of the Spirit, & we receave the Spirit by the hearing of Faith preached, Gal. 3.2. & Faith cometh by hearing of the word preached, Rom. 10.17.
Secondly, I anſwer concerning the conſequent of your Majors conſequent that it shal not follow that bicauſe children are vnderunder the covenant (as you ſuppoſe, but we deny) that therfor they thal have the outward ſigne or ſeale therof: for you know vnderunder the law the females were actually vnderunder the covenant of the old Teſtamēt, & yet were not ſigned with the ſeale: & before the law was given al that were actualy vnderunder the covenant vntil the tyme of Abraham had no external ſigne or ſeale therof. if you ſay in oppoſition to the circumciſion of the female that she was vncapable of it: I anſwer the L. had abundance of Spirit, & if it had been his wil that al vnderunder the covenant should be pertakers of the ſigne or the ſeale therof, he could in wiſdom & would vndoubtedly have appointed ſuch an external ſigne or ſeale that might have bene adminiſtred vppon al vnderunder the covenant, but ſeing the L. choſe out the male only for circumciſion, the by he purpoſed to teach in a type that only the male (that is, one that is in Chriſt) shalbe ſealed with the Spirit of promiſe vnderunder the new Teſt. But if you ſay in opoſition to that before the Law, that ther was no ſeale or ſigne appointed by God for them vnderunder the covenant, bicauſe the L. thought it not meet or needful. I ſay that herby it apeareth that, to be vnderunder the covenāt, was not the cauſe of title to the ſeale, but the particular expreſſe commaundement or wil of God: & ſo the inſufficiency of your conſequent appeareth, which importeth that to bee vnderunder the covenant is reaſon ſufficient to prove a partie to be intitled to the ſeale or ſigne of the covenant: & this excellent truth herby is manifeſted, that if it should be granted that infants were actualy vnderunder the covenant yet it could not follow thervppon that therfor they should have the ſigne of ſeale of the covenāt, which you ſay is baptiſme, except it could be proved by expreſſe commaundement otherwiſe: for this argument you ſee proveth it not: Hence therfor apeareth the weaknes of your argument, viz: that if infants were holy, & ſo vnderunder the covenant, yet it doth not follow that therefor they shall have the ſigne or ſeale of the covenant which (you ſay, but we deny) is baptiſme.
But I paſſe vntounto your aſſumption: which you ſay is evidēt, 1. cor. 7.14. but now are your children holy: you affirme that infants of one of the parents Faithful are holy: I except many things here firſt: I deſire that you expound vntounto me what this holines is which the Ap. here mentioneth: happily you wil ſay it is to be vnderunder the covenant, then I demaund what it is to be vnderunder the covenant? prehaps you wil ſay (though this be to runne in a circle) it is to be juſtified by imputation of Chr. righteoſnes. Thē I demaund which of theſe three, viz. to be holy, to be vnderunder the covenāt, to have Ch. righteouſnes imputed, is firſt in nature? happily you wil ſay: Firſt, they are vnderunder the covenant. Secondly, they are juſtified by the imputed righteouſnes of Chr. Thirdly they are ſanctified or holy. Then I proceed, & demaund when do infants come vnderunder the covenant: when they are conceaved: or when they are borne? or when the parēts are converted being already borne? It wilbe anſwered: That theſe infants that are begotten of Faithful parents come vnderunder the covenant in their conception: & theſe infants that are already borne come vnderunder the covenant when their parents are regenerate: hereby then it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children from the parents by generation, & by filial relation: herevnto add that if it be true that ſome ſay, that children vnderunder the government of the faithful alſo are vnderunder the covenant, that the covenant is conveighed alſo by pupilship or adoption & if bondſlaves or ſervants being infants be vnderunder the covenant bicauſe of their beleving Mrs. then ſervitude is alſo a meanes or inſtrument of conveigning the covenant from Mr. to Servants: this being propounded then as the truth you hold, that plead for Pedebaptiſme, then you maintayne, that …g generation, filial relation, pupilship, adoptiō & ſervitude are meanes to bring infants vnderunder the covenant, then they are meanes to bring infants vnderunder juſtification, & vnderunder ſanctification: So that it followeth that we muſt account al the infants of beleeving parents that are childrē by nature & by adoption, al infants of beleeving Mrs. that are borne in ſlavery or ſervitude to be juſtified & Sanctified, bicauſe the covenant is communicated vntounto them by the foreſaid relation: Then I proceed & demaund why may not all the infants borne vnderunder one King, if his ſubjects, bee all his Servants & Vaſſals (as they ſay) bee by that relation brought vnderunder the covenant, & ſo be accounted juſtified & ſanctified: For relation of a King & a ſubject borne ſo is as neer as the relation of a Mr, & Servant, or an adopted Child: And then I demaund, ſeing the relation of a mā & a wife is neerer a great deale then any relation of adoption or ſet vitude, why the wife shal not be vnderunder the covenant for the relation of mariage: happily it will bee ſaid the wife being of yeeres cannot bee admitted bicauſe of her vnbeleefe…: & I ſay that infants of parents & Mrs. cannot bee admitted, bicauſe of their want of Faith being vnderunder yeeres: but it wilbee ſaid that the covenant with Abraham was with him & his ſeed only: I ſay, that it was made (by your confeſſion) with him and his adopted infants, with him & his pupils being infants, with him & his Servants being infants: & therfor not only with him & his ſeed: & ſeing ſome not of his ſeed may be admitted into the covenant, & thoſe that are further of, why shall not thoſe that are neerer as his wife: but you wil ſay bicauſe infants do not refuſe the covenāt, they may be admitted to baptiſme, though adopted childrē, though pupils, though Servants: but wives refuſing the covenant may not: I further inſiſt that as infants do not reſiſt, ſo they do not conſent: & that al the Children, Servants, & Wives, that do not reſiſt, may bee admitted, though they cannot make declaration of their Fayth & repentance: if you ſay: not ſo: bicauſe that in them that are of yeers Faith & repentance is required, but of infants no ſuch thing is required: I answer, firſt shew that by Scripture, & then I ſay ther is no reaſon why Faith & repentance should bee required of one to make him capable of the covenant of juſtification, & Sanctification more then of another, except you wil ſay that God is accepter of perſons: & further the covenant is only with Abraham & his ſeed, not with his adopted Children, not with his pupils, not with his Servants, & therfor in thē Faith and repentance muſt neceſſarily be had, & ſo they cannot bee baptized til they shew their Faith & repentance which is contrary to your doctryne: beſides you cannot shew in al the Scriptures that perſons may be ſaid to be partakers of the covenant actually, except actually they fulfil the condition of the covenant: & if you ſay that infants being vnderunder the covenant, juſtified, & ſanctified, therfor they have Fayth & the graces of God in them, I ſay that is contrary to the Scriptures which ſay that Faith commeth by hearing: & that the word is the immortal ſeed of regeneration, wherby new borne babes vnderunder the goſpel are regenerate: & if it be ſaid that infants have a kind of Faith wrought in them inviſibly, & after an hiddē manner: I ſay what God worketh inviſibly, & ſecreatly we diſpute not nor regard, but what he worketh viſibly & to our knowledg, & by the meanes appointed for the communion of the Church: For ther is but one Faith, which is the common Faith of the members of the Church, which is viſibly ſeen by ſpeaking & confeſſion, according as it written I beleeved & therfor I ſpeake, Tit. 1.4. & if it be objected that then wee doe condemne al infants dying before they be converted: I ſay No: wee pronounce nothing of infants, but leave the ſecreat of them to the Lord, who hath reſerved ſecreat things to himſelf: Hence then I conclude that ſeing you cannot declare what this holines is which infants have, ſeing they cannot have actuall holynes: Seing you cannot declare that they have Faith or juſtification, ſeing they cannot have actuall Fayth: Therfor you cannot declare that they are actually vnderunder the covenant, by actuall Faith & holines: & ſo if they bee not actually vnderunder it, but vnderunder the offer of it onelyonly, that is it which wee affirme, & which wil help you nothing to baptiſme of infants.
Secondly, I deſire that you would prove vntounto me by Scripture, that in this place. 1. Cor. 7.14. Holines ſignifieth true ſanctification, or to be actually vnderunder the covevenant, having it really inveſted vppon them, You endevour to declare it out of the text: For you ſay Paul anſwereth an objection, viz, that the faithful are defiled with the Society of the vnfaithful, & proveth that the Faithful husband may vſe the veſſel of his vnfaithful wiſe with a good conſcience by an argument drawne from the effects, namely, bicauſe their Children are holy, & vnderunder the covenant: God having ſaid to the Faithful I wilbe thy God, & the God of thy ſeed. Wel, let vsus ſee the force of your reaſon: your fourth argument was this.
If infants be holy then are they vnderunder the covenant.
Infants are holy:
Ergo infants are vnderunder the covenant.
Your proof that infants are holy is this.
If infants be vnderunder the covenant, then infants are holy.
Infants are vnderunder the covenant.
Ergo infants are holy.
I ask you Sir, in good ſooth, is this circular reaſoning ſound: you ſay infants are Holy, bicauſe they are vnderunder the covenant, & you ſay they are vnderunder the covenant bicauſe they are holy: Let al men judg whither you have proved infants Holy or not.
Thirdly I answer that (Holy) doth not ſo ſignify as you expound, neither is the argument taken from the effects, but from the greater to the leſſe after this manner.
If your children (in your owne judgment) be holy, & you do not put them away when you are converted to the faith, but vſe thē ſtil as your Children to al thoſe vſes wherto children are apointed, the relation natural of Father & ſonne remayning, though you beleve: then much more the relation of mā & wife remayneth, & you may vſe your wives, they being of a neerer natural bond then your children.
But the firſt is true by your owne confeſſion, & by the light of nature.
Ergo the ſecond is true by the light of nature much more.
And whereas you ſay that by this expoſition an vnbeleving ſervant is in as good an eſtate, & as holy as children in reſpect of the covenant, I confeſſe it to be ſo: & you that plead for pedobaptiſme ſay ſo likewiſe, ſeing that you wil have ſervants vnderunder the covenant by their Mrs. Faith: but I would know whither the Apoſtle ſpeaketh only of infants or of al Children generally: if generally of al Children, then all the Children of the Faithful are holy, yea even thoſe that are vnbeleevers & then would I know how vnbeleeving children can be holy, if not as the vnbeleving wife is holy: that is to the vſe of their parents in the relative dutyes of children & parents. If the Apoſtle ſpeaketh only of infants, then he ſpeaketh not ſo generally as God ſpeake to Abraham ſaying I wilbe thy God, & the God of thy ſeed, for in that ſpeech you ſay al the ſeed is comprehended whither of yeeres or vnderunder yeeres, yea ſervants, pupils, children by adoption, &c. So that expound it as you wil, it cannot be vnderſtood of holines in reſpect of the covenant as you pretend: but you wil ſay they are to bee eſteemed Holy & vnderunder the covenant til they manifeſt the contrary: & I ſay, that they muſt manifeſt that they are Holy before they can bee eſteemed Holy: & that you cannot prove that aſſertion from the Scripture: & the people of the Iewes Abrahams carnall Children were Holy when they declared the contrary by their ſinnes, Exo. 19.6. compared with Exod. 32.9. & 33.3.5, ſo are the children of the Faithful holy though they be vnbeleevers as the wife is holy though an vnbeleever.
Finally you ſay: God hath ſaid to all the Faithful, I wilbe thy God & the God of thy ſeed: I deny it vtterly: God ſaid that only to Abtaham, Geneſ. 17.7. & whither you expound it literally, or Spiritually, I avouch confidently againſt you & al men that the meaning of it is not, that God made his covenant with the faythfull man, or the Faythful woman & their infants begotten of their Bodyes: but that literally the meaning is, I willbe God vntounto thee Abraham & thy ſeed according to the Flesh to give them the Land of Canaan: & ſo it is expounded Geneſ. 17.8. Or Spiritually the meaning is, I wil give vntounto Abraham the Father of the Faithful, & al that are his Spiritual ſeed, everlaſting life, which is the true Land of Canaan: The latter which is the truth being ſignified by the former which is the type: & shew mee in all the Scriptures that God ſaid to every Faithful man & woman (for you muſt prove it ſpoken of women aswel as men) that he will be God vntounto them & their ſeed: For I would fayne know why the covenant should paſſe vntounto the infants of the Faithful: it wilbe ſaid bicauſe of the Fathers Faith: this is falſe doctryne: For the Prophet teacheth that every man shal live by his owne faith & that one mans faith cānot conveigh the covenāt of juſtificatiō to another neither can one mans ſin cut of another from the covenant as this doctrine importeth: but the ſoule that ſinneth it shal dye.
Neither wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlaſting covenant. For berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlaſting continuance, but a covenant that doth continue his proper tyme: For gnolam ſignifieth any hidden tyme, or any ſet tyme of any length, as 50. yeeres the tyme of the jubile: But let it be graunted that the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. was the everlaſting covenant made with Abraham in reſpect of Chriſt, (which yet I do not ſee proved) what then shal it follow that bicauſe it was with Abraham & the Faithfull whither Iewes or Gentils beleeving actually as Abraham the Father did: Therfor it is made with the Faithful men who is the child of Abraham: & with his children begotten of his body which have not Abrahams actuall Faith, & ſo are not the children of Abraham: I deny it vtterly: For the Apoſtle ſaith the ſeed is but one to whome the promiſes were made, viz: Chriſt or the actual beleevers: For Chriſt dwelleth in the harts of men by Faith onelyonly. Gal. 3.16. Eph. 3.17. But if it bee made with the Faithful who beleeve actualy which is one ſeed whither Iew or Gentil, & the infants of the Faithful carnally begotten of their body, which is another ſeed, (for they are not begotten of the immortall ſeed of regeneration:) then the covenant is made with the ſeedes which are many : & that is directly contrary the Apoſtles wordes, Gall, 3.16. Therefore the one ſeed is perſons actually beleeving, & actually juſtified by the righteouſnes of Fayth, as Abraham the Father of al the Faithful was, Roman. 4.11. whence this Argument may bee framed.
Abraham is the Father of al them that actually beleeve.
Infants do not actually beleeve.
Ergo, Abraham is not the Father of infants: & ſo infants are not vnderunder the covenant of Abraham.
Againe Abrahams covenant was only to Abrahams one ſeed, that is only to the beleevers.
Infants are not actuall beleevers.
Ergo, Abrahams covenant is not to infants: & ſo infants are not vnderunder the everlaſting covenant of Abraham.
Againe. They that are the children of Abraham, do the workes of Abraham.
Infants cannot do the workes of Abraham.
Ergo infants are not the children of Abraham: & ſo not vnderunder the covenant of Abraham.
Againe. I reaſon thus:
They that are not vnderunder the everlaſting covenant made with Abraham shal not be baptized.
Infants are not vnderunder the everlaſting covenant of Abraham.
Ergo: infants are not to be baptized.
Theſe & many other ſuch Arguments may be colected out of the anſwer to this fourth Argument of yours: but theſe shal ſuffice.
Mr. Rich. Clifton.
1. Corinth. 10.1.2.
If the infants of the Iſraelites were baptized in the cloud & in the ſea, as well as their parents, what letteth the infants of beleeving parents vnderunder the goſpel, to bee likewiſe partakers of baptiſma aswel as they?
The former the Apoſtle affirmes, 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & therefore good warrant muſt bee shewed, that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes Children had. And if the former Baptiſme of the Iewes was a Type of our Baptiſme, then muſt there bee an agreement betweene the Type, & the thing Typed, which is not, if our Children bee not baptized, as well as theirs.
The depriving of our Children of the Sacrament, is to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people of the New Teſtament, that being denyed to their children, which God gave to his people, & to their infants vnderunder the Law, is to deny them (in regard of their ſeed) the like aſſurance & comfort, which the Iſraelites had of theirs. And ſo to make our eſtate worſe & more vncomfortable then theirs was: & yet the Prophets prophecyed of the grace that should come to vsus, & did inquire & ſeach after the ſame. 1, Pet. 1.10.
Glad tydings were preached to Abraham & his ſeed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3.8. And this before Chriſt came in the Flesh, therefore much more he being come, is joyful trydings brought vntounto vsus & our infants & ſo are we to beleve that the grace of God is not leſſened either towards vsus or our children, but inlarged by his comming.