The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism — Richard Clifton

The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism · Richard Clifton

Argument IIII.

1 Cor. 7. 14. If the children of beleeving parents be holy, then are they within the covenant of Abraham, and ſo conſequently have right to the ſeale thereof.

But the firſt is true, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo, the ſecond.

Touching the former propoſition. I take it, that none will affirme holynes in any that are not of the covenant, for in that reſpect Iſrael was called an holy nation. Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. and all others vncleane, Act. 11. 3. and 10. 15. that were without. If infants be within the covenant, then cannot the ſeale be denyed to ſuch, ſeing the Lord hath joyned the promiſe and ſeale together, Gen. 17. 10. which no man may or ought to ſeparate, Mat. 19. 6.

What can be objected againſt the aſſumption, I ſee not, ſeing the Apoſtle playnly affirmes; but now are your children holy. Vnleſſe it may be ſayd, as of ſome I have heard, that as the vnbeleeving wife is ſanctified to the husband, ſo are the children viz: to the uſe of their Father: but this to affirme is a great abuſing of the ſcripture. For the Apoſtle in that place anſwering an obiection that the faithfull is defiled by the ſocietie of the unfaithful: proveth that the faithful husband may with good conſcience uſe the veſſel of his unfaithful wife, by an Argument frō the effects, namely, becauſe their children, which are borne of them, are accounted holy, or within the promiſe, God having ſayd to all the faithful, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed. As for that other ſtrange expoſition, that the Children of a beleeving father are no otherwiſe ſanctified thē the unbeleeving wife is unto her husband, viz: to their fathers uſe onelyonly, that can not ſtand with the meaning & purpoſe of the Apoſtle. For ſo much may be ſayd of an unbeleeving ſervant, that he is for the vſe of his maſter to do him ſervice: if children be no more holy then ſo, then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father, neither is the objectiō removed by this anſwer.

If it be further preſſed that the unbeleeving wife is ſayd to be holy, as well as the children, yet is ſhe not within the covenāt. I anſwer that ſhe indeed is not holy, as be her children, for ſhe being an infidel is without Gods covenant, and therefore ſhe is ſayd to be ſanctified to her husband, the Apoſtle reſpecting their mariage, which though it was contracted before eyther party beleeved, yet ſtands firme and not deſolved when eyther of them is called to the faith, ſo that the beleeving husband may lawfully uſe her as his wife, if ſhe be content to dwel with him, 1 Cor. 7. 12. Now the children cannot be ſanctified or ſeparated to ſuch uſe to their father, as the wife is to her husband. And therefore are the children called holy, becauſe they are the ſeed of a beleeving father.

Mr. Smyth.

I anſwer, first denying your maiors conſequent: Seing that all the nation of the Jewes were holy, and yet not within the covenant of Abraham. I meane as you do of the everlaſting covenant in reſpect of Chriſt: that they were not all within that covenant is playne, Rom. 9. 6. all they are not Iſrael which are of Iſrael: verſe, 7. neyther are they all children becauſe they are the ſeed of Abraham, ver. 12. God revealed, that the elder ſhould ſerve the younger, Act. 7. 51. yee have alwayes reſiſted the holy Ghoſt, as your forefathers hauehave done ſo do you: &c.

Rich: Clifton.

This is a ſtrange opinion of yours, that a people of God can be holy, & be without the covenant in Chriſt. Is there a people called out and ſeparated from the world to offer ſacrifices and to worſhip God, which may be called and are a holy people conſidered out of Chriſt? The covenant made with Abraham, and his ſeed in Chriſt to come (which Abraham received) cauſed that the Iſraelites were called * a holy natiō or a holy people,Exod. 19. Rom. 11. …. H…b. 4. 2. Rom. 11. …6. collectiuely, being ſeparate from the nations to be the houſe & kingdome of God. And although † many of the Iewes by vnbeleefe cut of themſelves from the priveledges of Abraham: yet conſidering the reſt of that people as his ſeed, and the generall face of that Church in the true conſtitution therof, they were holy as the Apoſtle ſayth, “if the root be holy ſo ar the branches, and if the firſt frutes be holy, ſo is the whole lumpe. As it is one thing to conſider of a Church in reſpect of the whole, as it is one body of Chriſt; and another thing, to conſider thereof, according to every particular member: ſo is it one thing to call a people, holy, reſpecting theire covenant in Chriſt into which they have ſolemnely entred. Deu. 29. 10. - 15. and promiſed to be Gods people: and another, to conſider thereof according to the perſonal holynes of every particuler member: the Church hath the denominatiō of holines, of the former, & not of the latter, (though this alſo be required) for the perſonall holines of any particular members, cauſeth not the whol multitude to be called a holy people, (els might many aſſemblies be called holy, for that there may be and are ſome particular perſons in the ſame indued with perſonall holynes) but their joynt entering into Gods covenant and felowſhip in the ſame: & therefore let divers holy perſons come together to ſerve the Lord entermingled with an Antichriſtian aſſembly, that congregation, ſhall not be called holy, becauſe therePhilip. 1. 2 Cor. 6. …6. 17. is not a ſeparation of the cleane from the vncleane, and a joyning together of the godly in one body or “felowſhip of the Goſpel, neyther can you ever prove that any people or congregation is called holy, with whom the Lord hath not made his covenant of ſalvation. But let vsus ſee how you reaſon.

All the nation of the Iewes (ſay you) were holy, yet not within the covenant of Abraham &c.

You reaſon not ad idem, for in ſaying that all the nation of the Iewes were called holy, here you ſpeak of them, as they were a people ſeparated from other nations, and had *Deut. 10,-15.entred covenant with God to be his people, as he with them to be their God, in which reſpect they were called, holy, but in ſaying, that all were not with in the covenant, you intend it of ſome particular members of the body of that people, being conſidered a part from the whole, and ſo the Scriptures by you alledged do import.

For neyther Paul to the Romanes. cha. 9. 6. nor Steven in the Act. cha. 7. 51. do ſpeake of the whole nation, but of particular perſons who by their vnbeleiffe and evil workes, did manyfeſt themſelves to be no true Iſraelites.

Concerning that place of rom. 9. 6. the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the rejectionRom. 9. … of the Iewes (which might there vponupon charge God that if he did reject them he kept not promiſe with their fathers,) labours to remove all ſuch Calumnies, ſaying, it cannot be that the word of God ſhould take none effect & proveth withal, that the promiſe is not cut of, though the Iewes for their vnbeleife be rejected, ſeing the promiſe is ſure to the elect. The Apoſtle thus ſpeaking, not of the body of the people, but of ſome particulars that ſel away, is falſly alledged, to prove, that all the natiō of the Iewes were not within the covenant of ſalvation. And that ſome of them that were of Iſrael, were not true Iſraelites, who wil deny, but that many of them diſcovered themſelves to be no true ſonnes of Abraham? yet this proves not that the whol Church in reſpect of the viſible face of it, was not within the covenant.

But you will reply, that you ſayd, that they were not all within the covenant, and I anſwer agayn, if you reaſon not concerning the face of that people of Iſrael, but of Gods ſecret election, and reprobation, it is not to the purpoſe, for ſo diſputing, you anſwer not the Argument. And ſo may you reaſon againſt the viſible Church under the Goſpel, that not all therein, are within the covenant, becauſe *Luk. 1… 25. 26. 27 1. Ioh. 2. 19many prove hypocrites. And ſo by your reaſoning neither the Church of the new Teſtament nor of the old, in reſpect of the generall face thereof, are under the covenant of grace which is the thing controverted, and not the ſtate of particular perſons. As towchting that place of Act. 7. 51. Steven ſpake to the Ie…es there preſent to accuſe him, but in ſo ſpeaking did not accuſe the whole body of the church vnderunder the old Teſtament, but thoſe his perſecuters, and there forefathers who alſo perſecuted the Prophets before them, brake Gods covenant and * ſo manifeſted themſelves to be of their father the Divil.…oh. 8. 44.

Now to reaſon thus, from the example of thoſe wicked Iewes, and to ſay, many of the Iewes brake the covenant and became rebellious (for al did not) therefore the body of the people was never within the covenant, is to conclude upon a falſe ground.

If it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in reſpect of Gods ſecret election and not of mans knowledg, I anſwer the twelft verſe is pl…yne of that which was reveled vntounto the church, and yet Eſau was holy and circumciſed, being not vnderunder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ.

The place I have expounded before, and have ſhewed that the Apoſtle handles there no ſuch thing as you do gather.

As for the reveyling of this diviſion of the ſon…s of Iſaac which you ſay was to the church; indeed thus much was reveiled to Rebecca, Gen. 25. 23. it was told her that two nations are in thy wombe and two maner of people ſho…ld be devided out of thy bowels, and the one people ſhould be mightier then the other, & the Elder ſhall ſerve the yonger, meaning that they that ſhould deſcend of the Elder brother, ſhould ſerve them that came of the yonger▪ ſee the bleſſing of Iſaac to his two ſonns. Gen. 27. 27. 28. 29, 39. 40: Abdi. 10. but that the perſonal reprobatiō of Eſau was revealed then to Rebecca or to the church, doth not appear in theſe words before reherſed: can any ſay that none of Eſau his poſterty was in Gods ſecret electiō? & if this ſcripture wil not warrant any ſo to judg, then neyther would it warrant Rebecca ſo to apply it to her ſonne being ſo generally ſpoken.

The perſonal rejection eyther of Iſmael or Eſau was not reveled, vntil by their evil workes they manyfeſted themſelues, and therefore theſe children being borne in the church, as Eſau was in Iacobs houſe, were to be reputed holy, to be circumciſed and held of the covenant, vntil there wickednes threw them out.

That the whole church of the Jewes was not vnderunder the poſseſſion of the everlaſting covenant in respect of Christ, but onelyonly vnderunder the offer of it, I uſe theſe reaſons, 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 of the old Teſtament. Fayth and …tance is the condition and obedience of the matter and members of the new Testa…: Mar. 1. 15. Ergo, fayth and repentance is not the condition or obedience of … matter or members of the old Teſtament.

Your propoſition is not true, you exclude fayth and repentance from …he members of the old Teſtament, as if by their covenant they were not …ound to beleev and obey his commandements, which is contrary to theſe …criptures. Gen. 17, 1. 6. Rom. 4. 3. 13. Heb. 11. 17. Iam. 2. 21. - 23. Deu. 19. 9-20. & 10. 12. 13. 20. That repentance was required of the Iewes, not onelyonly the prophets often exhorting of them to repētance, do witnes, as before is obſerved: but alſo in that their repètance †Iud. 2. … 1 Sā. 7. 3… Ezr. ca. 1… Neh. cap. … Deut. 9. 10. Eſa. 1… 16. 17.turned away Gods anger from them: and the conditional *Eſa. 1. 1… Jer. 3. 22. Hoſ. 6. 1. … 3. & 14 … Ioel. 2. 13promiſes of pardon if they did repent: Alſo Gods threatning of judgments againſt them if they repented not.

And that fayth was alſo required of them, ſee al theſe ſcriptures. Pſal. …8. 5. 6. 7. 22. 2 Chro. 20. 20. Eſa. 53. 1. and 7. 9. Hab. 2. 4. Act. 26. 6. 7. Heb. 11. 13. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4.

And thus you ſee that that condition and obedience of the members of the new Teſtament, which you ſay, is fayth and repentance, was alſo the condition and obedience of the members of the old Teſt.

The reaſon of the maior is evident &c. ſeeing that as the miniſterie, worſhip & goverment of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature, then the miniſterie worſhip and goverment of the new Teſtament is: ſo the condition, viz. the matter and forme of the Church of the old Teſtament was of an other nature, then the conſtitution, that is, the matter and forme of the new Teſtament, &c. Heb. 7. 16. Gal, 5. 3.

I anſwer firſt, that it is not ſimply true, that the miniſterie & worſhip of the church of the old Teſt. is of another nature from that of the Goſpel. For although in their worſhip and miniſterie were many things typical & ceremonial: yet vvithal God required of them ſpiritual vvorſhip & obedience, without which their “Eſa. 1. 12. - 15. G… 4. 5ceremonial was abhominable. Alſo, if preaching of the word and prayer &c. be of a ſpiritual nature, then was their miniſterie and worſhip more then carnal. The prophet †Eſa. 56. 1…complaynes of neglect of teaching in the Preiſts, which argueth that they were bound by their calling to inſtruct the people. Malachy ſayth *Mal. 2. … 6. 7.The Prieſts lips ſhal preſerve knowledge &c. they ſhall ſeek the law at his mouth, for he is the meſſenger of the Lord of hoſts: and this was by office, for the Lord ſayth, My covenant was with Levi of life and peace, &c. the law of truth was in his mouth. And in Ieremy the Lord complaynes of the Preiſts, ſaying, they that ſhould minister the law …ow me not: promiſing unto the people if they repent: that he would give them “Paſtors according to his owne hart, which ſhould feed them with…r. 3. 15. …eh. 8. … Act. 13. … … Act. 15. … knowledg and underſtanding. And in Nehemiah it is written, that the Prieſts and Levites † read in the book of the law and gave the ſenſe, and cauſed the people to underſtand the reading, and this by their office. Lev. 10. 11. The Iewes had the * lectures of the law and Prophets in their Synagogues. And “Moſes had them of old tyme in every citie that did preach him.

Thus we ſee that the opening of the law and preaching of the ſcripturesLev. 9. 22 …. Num. … 23. - 27. …. 9. 4 13 … & 10. 1. …h. 8. 6. …l. 1. 14. … 2. 16. 17. was a part of the miniſterie of the Prieſts and Levites, and of their publick worſhip on the ſabboth. Alſo the Prieſts † gave thanks unto God for the people, bleſſed them and prayed. The Temple was called the howſe af prayer, Math. 21. 13. alſo they had certaine howres of meeting at the Temple, which were called howres of prayer. Act. 3. 1. And they were cōmanded ſpiritual ſacrifices, as Pſ. 4. 5. &. 50. 14. 15. 23. as formerly is obſerved.

Concerning the goverment of the Church of the old Teſtament: which was by the Prieſts and Levites, Elders, I know no great difference in nature of th…t church, and of this under the Goſpel.

The former was governed eccleſiaſtically by the Prieſts & Elders: Mat. 26. 47. Luk. 22. 66, Act. 23. 14. and 6. 12. and 13. 15. & 18. 8. 2 Chro. 19. 8. And ſo the churches of the New Teſtament are to be governed by theMat. 18. …5. 16. 17. … Cor. 5. 3. - 5 … Exo. 19, 6. … Exod 22. …1. Lev. 14 …. & 11. 44 …d 20. 7. … Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 11. 16 … Deu. 4. 20 & 5. 2. Pſa. …0. 3. 4. Deu. 14. 2. Rom. 11. …-19, 23. … 27. miniſters and Elders. Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Theſ. 5. 12. Hebr. 13, 8. The cenſures eccleſiaſtical under the old Teſtament, were admonition & caſting out of the Synagogue: Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. & 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. ſo are theſe the cenſures of the churches under the Goſpel. Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5.

Secondly, for the conſtitution of the Church of the old Teſtament, which you ſay, was of another nature then that of the new.

I anſwer, that former church was of an heavenly conſtitution, a † kingdome of Preiſts and a “holy nation, the people * ſaincts, as wel as the members of the church of the new Teſtament. And this people being ſeparate from al other nations, & called out to be the Lords “peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them: and ſo became the people, church and kingdome of God, as in renuing of their covenant is manifeſt. Deut. 29. 9-15. Exod. 14. 8. They were † natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graffed grounded by fayth on Chriſt then to come, in whom they beleeved, 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Chriſt for ſalvation. Gal. 3. …6. Luk. 1, 68-75. This old church by their conſtitution admitted of no prophane perſon to be a member therof, but ſuch as profeſſed holynes. They were for every tranſgreſſion appointed to offer ſacrifices and to con… their ſyn, Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch. & 5. 5. Nū. 14. 40. & to make ſatiſfaction to that man whom they had wronged. Num. 5. 7.

Now let the conſtitution of the church under the new teſtament be cō …idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof, with that of the …d, and there wil be no ſuch difference in ſubſtance between them, as you pretend, the matter of them both being holy and living ſtones: and the forme, an holy uniting together in the covenant of God, to walk in al his commandements, els could not the Gentiles be made one body, and co…heriters with the Iewes, Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his promiſes in Chriſt, if the conſtitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not ſpiritual.

Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament, … onelyonly a carnal holynes, viz. the circumciſion of the foreskin. &c.

I have already proved, that of the Iſraelites God did require ſpiritual holynes, Lev. 11. 44. ſaying, I am the Lord your God be ſanctified therefore and …e holy, for I am holy. Here it is to be minded that they muſt be holy after Gods example, who neither is carnally holy, or yet delites in carnal holynes without the ſpiritual. Pſal. 50. 7-23. Eſa, 1. 11-20. & chap. 50.

And here M. Smyth I obſerve how you contradict not onelyonly the truth, but your ſelf: for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Teſtament was carnal their covenant carnal, & holynes carnal: yet in yourDifferenc… pag. 10. book of Differences, you ſay, that the Septuagint Tranſlation was a gree… ſynn, for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles. So by your own confeſſion, Iſrael had the covenant of grace, els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles, what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant? can not your hearers mynd how unſtable a leader they follow.

Wel, let us conſider thoſe Scriptures which you produce for the proving of your carnal covenant, the firſt is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I anſwer, that the Apoſtle, by the law of carnal commandement, intendeth not thereby to teach that the cōſtitution of the old church was carnal, but ſheweth the diverſitie of Chriſts prieſthood from Aarons, underſtanding by carnal commandement, thoſe frayl and tranſitorie things, which the † law commanded…. 24. 1. …ſa. 61. 1. …. 45. 7. in the conſecration of the Levitical Preiſts: ſo called in reſpect of Chriſt his anoynting, which was “ſpiritual.

Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apoſtle reaſoning againſt them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for juſtification, exhorteth the Galathians chap. 5. 1. &c. to ſtand faſt in the libertie wherewith Chriſt hath mad… …. 5. 3.us free &c. teſtifying to every man, that if he be circumciſed, he is bound to keep the whole law. Noting circumciſion eſpecially, becauſe the falſe teachers did urge it by name for juſtification. And he reaſoneth againſt it, not as it was in it ſelf by the ordinance of God: but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it, which made circumciſion a part of their ſalvation. And he that ſo eſteemes of it as a work to juſtifie, muſt alſo (ſayth Paul) keep al the reſt of the commandements. For the law requireth of ſuch as ſeek to be juſtified by works and legal ordinances, the whole obſervation therof,Deut. 27. …6. Gal. 3. …. Rō. 3. 20. …al. 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promiſe no * life. And becauſe no man can be “juſtifyed by the works of the law, therfore doth the Apoſtle reject circumciſion being urged to that end, And when the ceremonies be thus uſed the Apoſtle ſpeaketh baſely of them, and calleth them † beggerly rudiments. And now if a papiſt or any other ſhould contend, that a man is juſtified by Baptiſme, as by a work wrought, we might ſo ſpeak to them, as the Apoſtle doth here to the Galathians, that if you receive baptiſme to be made righteous thereby, ex opere operato, you are bound to keep the whole law: for baptiſme being made a work to juſtifie, is perverted.

And that Paul meaneth by Circumciſion, in this place as a work urged to juſtification, the very next verſe, viz. ver, 4. ſheweth, wherein he ſayth, ye are aboliſhed from Chriſt whoſoever are iuſtified by the law.

And thus much for anſwer to your firſt Arg. the ſecond followeth.

2. The type, ſhadow, figure, ſimilitude of a thing, is not the truth, the ſubstance the thing it ſelf: true is nature and reaſon. The conſtitution, viz. the matter & forme of the Church of the old Teſtament is the type &c. the conſtitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Teſt. is the truth &c. Heb. 10. 1. & 9. 19. 23.

I anſwer, firſt, to your Major, that one and the ſame thing may both be the type and the truth; for Iſaac was a type of the faythful, as your ſelf doth affirme; yet was he alſo faythful, and ſo was both the type and the truth. Secondly to your Minor, the conſtitution, viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type &c. of the church of the new Teſtament, in that ſenſe as you take matter and forme: for the matter of that former Ch. …as not to be ceremonially, but truly holy, as before I have proved, and theſe †Deu. 2… 9. & 14. … Eſa. 5. 4. … 15. & 24. 3. 4. 5. Eſ… 58. 2, - 7. … 14. Deu. … 12, 16.ſcriptures quoted in the margent do further confirme. Their *Deu. 2… 10, - 13. “Gal. 3. …co…enant was to be the Lords people, & is the ſame that we are entred into, els could not the “bleſſing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Ieſus Chriſt that we might receive the promiſe through fayth, if that the covenant which we receive were not the ſame that was made to Abraham and his ſeed. Alſo Peter affirmes it to be the ſame, Act. 2. 39.

If then the Lord required of Iſrael true holynes, and made no other co…enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people, but that everlaſting covenant, and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Teſtament, (true holynes of the members, and communion in the covenant and Goſpel) then was not the conſtitution of the former Ch. a ſhadow of this, but even the ſame with the church under the new Teſt. I ſpeak of the ſubſtance of this covenant, and not of the outward adminiſtration thereof, which was divers, & wherein there might be ſome type or ſhadow in the former of this latter.

Concerning the ſcriptures which you quote for the proof of your Aſſumption,Heb. 10, … In the former, Heb. 10. 1. the Apoſtle ſheweth that the ſacrifices under the law were imperfect, becauſe they were yearly renued; & proveth alſo that Chriſts ſacrifice is one and perpetual: & here it muſt be minded, that he ſpeaketh of the adminiſtration of the old Teſtament differing from the new, & not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their cōſtitution no ſpiritual promiſe, but onelyonly carnal & typical things.Heb. 9, … 23. In that other ſcripture, Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul ſets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed, between the legal ſacrifices and purifyings, & the purging of ſynne by the blood of Ieſus Chriſt, between the old Teſtament and the new &c, and ſo ſhewing how the truth anſwereth unto the type, concludeth that Chriſt hath taken away the ſinnes of many, by the ſacrifice of himſelf. And this is that which the Apoſtle intendeth, and not to ſhevv that the conſtitution of the old church vvas the tipe of the conſtitution of the nevv.

3. That which was not nor could not be accompliſhed performed effected▪ … produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament, was not required or exacted or preſuppoſed to the constitution of the church of the old Teſt…. Iuſtification and fayth, and ſanctification and 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 &c.Deut. 29. …. Ier. 13. …. … Luk. 1. … 74. 1 pet …. 9. 10. …. 2. 12. … 22. Gen. 17. 7 …om. 4. 11 …a. 26. & …. Heb. 4. 2 … 11. 30. - …. Cor. 10. 3 … Ezech. 18 …. 32. Ioel. … 3. …b. 9. 9. … …. 2. 15

The aſſumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before: for the members of that church might have and had fayth, repentance, juſtification & ſanctification, ſeeing the † Lord was their God in that ſtanding, & he is God to none but to them that are his in * Chriſt: & therfore it muſt follow, that they were partakers of fayth, juſtification, &c. in that their cōmunion. Again, as the covenant was geven to Abraham, ſo was “it to his ſeed: but to Abraham it was geven † for juſtification, therefore to his ſeed: I mean the Iſraelites and people of God that were before and under the old Teſt. Alſo, I have proved * before, that God required of the Iſraelites, “fayth and repentance, and that they did repent & beleev, & ſo conſequently juſtification & ſanctification were effected & accompliſhed in the members of that church in the communion thereof, and required in the conſtitutiō: Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be ſatiſfied in my anſwer to your ſecond Argument, yet this I will further add, that the Apoſtle having deſcribed the partes of the Tabernacle &c. in ver. 9. ſheweth the uſe of thoſe things to be a figure for the preſent, preaching unto them ſpiritual things in Chriſt, in whom they beleeved the ſame to be fulfilled.

And here it muſt be obſerved that theſe ordinances whereof the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, were ſuch as by Moſes were given to that church, long after the conſtitution thereof.

In that other ſcripture, Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reaſons not about the conſtitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether juſtification was required therein, but having to deal againſt the falſe teachers that taught, the Galathians could not be juſtified without the works of the law, affirmeth the contrary in theſe two verſes, ſaying, we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law, but by the fayth of Jeſus Ch. &c. This being the purpoſe of the Apoſtle to eſtabliſh juſtification by fayth without works; doth not deny the church before the cōming of Chriſt to be juſtified by fayth: but teacheth that both that church, and this under the Goſpel were ſaved not by works, but by the free promiſe of God in Chriſt received by fayth. And thus you ſee neyther of theſe ſcriptures proves your deſire.

4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members, preſuppoſed not …th and repentance to the members, and ſo not real or true holynes: But the old Teſt. …e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the …hurch of the old Teſt. Heb, 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. &c.

Firſt concerning the major, The old Teſtament though it brought not perfection, yet did it require fayth in Chriſt to come. 2. Touching your …inor, firſt I require what you mean by the old Teſtament, whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moſes was the Mediator, if the former, then is your minor falſe, for thoſe books conteyn as wel Goſpel as law, the promiſe made unto the fathers in Chriſt, to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance, aſwell before Chriſts incarnation as ſince. But i… you …ind it †Rom. … Heb. 10.of the law onelyonly & adminiſtration of Moſes, it is true, that perfection and life came not by the law, nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law: but withal you muſt know that the Iewes were alſo partakers of the everlaſting covenant in Chriſt, as *pa. 23. … “Gen. 3. … & 12. 3. … 17. 7. 21. Eſa. 1. … & 7. 14. … 9. 6 Gē. … 10. Num… 24. 17. G… 3. 8. 14▪before is proved.

3 For the church of the old Teſtament, it could bring or publiſh life to the members thereof, ſeing it had the promiſes “of the Goſpel, and ſo preſuppoſed fayth, repentance & true holynes as you ſpeak.

To the ſcriptures, firſt to Heb. 7. 19. I anſwer, that the law indeed, maketh nothing perfect, nor could give lyfe, but I have told you againe and againe, that the law was not that proper & onelyonly form of the Iewiſh church, but the covenant in Chriſt received by Abraham.

Concerning Gal. 3. 21. The Apoſtle teacheth that if the law could have given life, righteouſnes ſhould have bene by the law, & this who denyeth: but with al you ought to obſerve that he ſayth, the law is not againſt the promiſes: & theſe †Luk. 1. 69. - 74. Rom. 9. Ephe. 2. … & 3. 6.promiſes were geven to the old church: as wel as the law was given, & thereby they might have & had life under the old Teſtament.

5 That which was a ſchoolmaſter onelyonly to teach Christ did not preſuppoſe that the ſchollers had already learned Chriſt or put on Chriſt, which is onelyonly done by fayth …d repentance: The law or old testament was a ſchoolmaſter onelyonly to teach Chriſt Gal. 3. 24. Rom. 10. 3. 4. Ergo &c.

The major is not ſimply true, for a ſcholler may have learned ſomethings by his ſchoolmaſter, and yet continue vnderunder him ſtil to be further inſtructed. And ſo the lawe might lead them to Chriſt (lawe being taken in that Place for al the ordinances of Moſes) and they by fayth put on Chriſt to come.

But I anſwer to the minor, That the lawe was a ſchoolemaſter to teach Chriſt, I ſay it was, that they might be made righteous by fayth: but can a ſchoolmaſter teach Chriſt without teaching fayth in Chriſt? & if they were taught fayth, did they not learne fayth? The Apoſtle Gal. 3. 24▪ ſetts downe the uſe…d. 3. 24. of the lawe or legal oeconomy, 1. That the Iewes thereby might be kept as it were by a gariſon, ſhut up unto the fayth which after ſhould be revealed. verſe. 23. Secondly, that they might be inſtructed of righteousnes and ſalvation by Chriſt, verſ. 24. for during the legal oeconomy their hope was nouriſhed by the Prophets, which propheſied of Chriſts comming.

Alſo by the ceremonies and ſacrifices they were inſtructed; by circumciſiō that Chriſt ſhould be borne of the ſeed of Abraham, that by his death and ſpirit ſhould † circumciſe their harts: by the paſchal lamb they were taught… Col. 2. 11. …2. … Ioh. 1. 29. that Chriſt as * an innocent lamb, ſhould be ſlayne to take away their ſins: and by the other ſacrifices, and ſprinkling of blood, and waſhings; was ſignified the offering up of Chriſt to come, & the applycation of his death to the purging of them from al their ſyns, whereof they were partakers by fayth. Thirdly, this Argument may thus be returned upon you: That which was a ſchoolmaſter to teach Chriſt doth preſuppoſe that the ſchollers ſhould learn Chriſt, and put him one by fayth and repentance: But the law or old Teſtament was a ſchoolmaſter to teach Chriſt. Therefore the law or old Teſtament did preſuppoſe that the ſchollers ſhould learne Chriſt, and put him on by fayth &c.

Touching the other ſcripture Rom. 10. 3: 4. The Apoſtle there layeth outRō. 10. 3. 4. the blind zeale of the Iewes, that being ignorant of the righteouſnes of God which is by fayth, ſought to eſtabliſh their owne righteousnes which is of works, and ſubmitted not to the righteousnes of God, this he reproves in them: and then verſ. 4. ſetts downe the reaſon of their ignorance of the righteouſnes of fayth, becauſe they did diſpiſe the end of the law which is Chriſt, ſo called, becauſe the *Mat. 5. …7. Col 2. …4. Mat. 3 …5. 1 Pet. 2 …2. Heb. 7. 26. 27. Gal. …. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 19: 22. 23. Tit 3. 5. Ioh. 3. 5.law is fulfilled onelyonly in him.

Thus you may ſee the Apoſtle ſpeaks not againſt the cōſtitution of that former church, but againſt the corruption of ſome members of the ſame.

6. That which was hidden, & kept ſecret was a myſterie and not reveyled, the …embers of the old teſtament in their conſtitution were not indued withal. Fayth or …bedience to the Goſpel was a myſterie and not reveyled, but kept ſecret from the begin…g. Gal. 3. 23. Rom. 16. 25. Ergo &c

There is a fallacy in your ſetting down of this word Fayth, you concludeGal. 2. 23▪ that which is not in the propoſitions, or els your Argument is not to the purpoſe. For Fayth, in the ſecond propoſition according to the meaning of the Apoſtle. Gal. 3. 23. which you cyte for proof thereof, is not put for the gift of fayth, which is given to al true beleevers whereby they are juſtified, as in Gal. 2. 16. 20. and 3, 6. 8, 9, 11, 12, 14. but for the things beleeved, or fulfilling of the promiſes of God: for in the tyme of the law was ſayth, els the former church could not have been ſaved, ſeeing the prophet ſayth, †Hab. 2. …the iuſt ſhal live by fayth, & the Goſpel was preached to them, (without *Rom. 10▪ 14-17.which they could not beleev,) yea to “Gal. 3. 8.Abraham. And though the things promiſed were not fulfilled during the tyme of the old Teſtament: yet had had Iewes †Heb. 11. 33. 1 Cor. 4.fayth in Chriſt promiſed, and thereby were ſaved.

If you reply, that the church of the old Teſtamant was not indued with fayth in her conſtitution. I anſwer, that there can be no church to God *Epheſ. 2. 20-22. 12▪ 19. Lev. 2… 12. 2 Cor. 6… 16.founded without the everlaſting covenant in Chriſt, by “Gen. 1…. 7▪which Abraham & his ſeed became the people of God, and therefore indued with fayth in their conſtitution.

Concerning, Rom. 16. 25. By myſterie, the Apoſtle meaneth the callingRō. 16. … of the Gentiles which now is opened and publiſhed among al nations. And if it be underſtood of the Goſpel or preaching of Chriſt, as ſome doe, yet was it called a myſterie: partly in reſpect of the nations to whom it was not reveyled before the comming of Chriſt, as ver. 26. Alſo to the Iewes, in reſpect of †1 Pet 1. 10-12. Luk. 10. 24.the things promiſed; but the promiſe of ſalvation was preached to Adam, to Abraham, and to the whole church, and was no myſtery kept ſecret from the beginning of the world, but in al tymes and ages revealed to the Lords people, and by them received

7. There is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt: There is condemnation to them that are under the law, for it is the ministerie of death or condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7. Ergo, the law or old Teſtament doth not preſuppoſe Chriſt, or they that are under the law are not in Chriſt, and ſo the members of the church of the old teſtament: are not truly holy.

Surely this reaſoning of yours makes me doubt, that you reaſon againſt your own knowledge, for how can you be ignorant that the church of the Iewes was not under the law as it is the miniſterie of death, I mean in reſpect of their conſtitution? There is indeed condemnation to them that are under the law, that is, which by the works thereof † ſeek juſtification;…l. 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. …or. 3. 7. and ſo were ſome members of the old church under the law, as the Phariſees that * ſought to juſtifie themſelves, as now they ar that do the like: but to hold, that the whole church was under condemnation, & without faith in Chriſt, is an error to be abhord.

That ſcripture, 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no ſuch thing: for the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the miniſtration of death, cōpareth the miniſterie of the Goſpel with the miniſterie of the law, ſhewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that cōtinued not in al things to fulfil it: then much more the miniſtration of righteouſnes ſhal exceed in glorie, which bringeth ſalvation to them that beleev. This is the meaning of the Apoſt: and not to ſhew that Iſrael was under condemnation, ſeeing they were partakers of the covenant in Chriſt. And as they, ſo wee under the Goſpel have the law to accuſe & condemn us, if we tranſgreſſe it, but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Chriſt are freed from the curſe of the law; ſo were the Iewes alſo. Now the law is the miniſtration of death not to the chur▪ eyther before or ſince Chriſt, but to the “faythleſſe and diſobedient both…s 1 Tim. 1. …. 10. under the old Teſtament and under the Goſpel.

Finally (you ſay) the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iuſtification by fayth in Chriſt without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth, teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iuſtification. Therefore the law or old Teſtament did not preſuppoſe it.

That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the diſputation of Paul concerning juſtification, is a notable error. For where Paul reaſoneth againſt ſuch as mainteyned juſtification by the works of the law, he doth not teach thereby that the old Teſtament did not preſuppoſe true holynes, for albeit ſome of the Iewes fel into this error, to hold juſtification by works of the law, yet did the church look unto Chriſt for juſtification then, as wel as now. And though the utmoſt obedience of the law could not effect juſtification, yet fayth in Chriſt could effect it, which I have proved that the old church had, in that they had the pomiſe of ſalvation in Chriſt.

For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which ſhould not or could …ot preſerve and produce that which was in them in their firſt constitution: wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament i… the matter or conſtitution of it, was not really holy, but onelyonly typically &c.

I have ſhewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes, not to make them holy, and ſo it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given, and therefore your bould defence againſt al men, that the conſtitution of the church of the old Teſtament was not really holy but typically; hath in it more boldnes then truth: the contrary is proved †pag. 23. &c.before. And therefore your inference is falſe, fiz. that the members thereof admitted in by circumciſion were not truly holy or in poſſeſſion of that everlaſting covenant. &c. but onelyonly under the offer of it in that typical teſtament given to Abraham, and afterward aſsumed written & …mplified by Moſes. Ioh. 7. 19-23. with Heb. 8. 8. 9.

That the everlaſting covenant was given to Abraham and his ſeed, ſee pag. 20. &c. concerning theſe ſcriptures; in the former, Chriſt chargingIohn. 7. 19-23. the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry againſt him for making a man whole on the ſabboth day, proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practiſe, reaſoning thus, if you may circumciſe on the Sabboth and not break the law, then why may not I as lawfully heal a man: this is that Ch. intendeth. now becauſe it is ſayd ver. 22. that Moſes gave them circumciſion, &c. it ſeemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moſes or old Teſt. were given, firſt to Abraham, and afterward aſſumed & written by Moſes, but tha… cannot be proved by this place: For circumciſion was a ſigne of the promiſe in Chriſt, not of the law, as before is proved.

In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apoſtle ſheweth that Chriſt is theHeb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Prieſts, and ther fore his miniſterie more excellent then theirs: this firſt hee proveth, becauſe this covenant was eſtabliſhed upon better promiſes, and then he ſheweth the excellency of it compared with the former: And that God made it with his people he proves by the Teſtimony of Ieremy. Now concerning the firſt Teſtam. it was made with the church, when the Lord gave his law in Sinai & the people did covenant with him, ſaying, Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do, of Abraham we do not finde that he did promiſe the keeping of the law under the curſe, as Iſrael did, Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law, the covenant of works or old Teſtament, was not firſt made with him, and after examplified by Moſes, but…xo. 19. 5 & 24. 3. Lev. 34. … D…u. 5. …. Heb. 9. …. 23. it was † made with Iſrael: as further alſo may be ſhewed by the deſcription thereof, in Heb. 9. 1-10. which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme.

Agayn, the Apoſtle * ſayth, when Moſes had spoken every precept to the people according to the law, he toke the blood of calves and of goates and ſprinckled al the people, ſaying, this is the blood of the Teſtament which God hath appointed unto you &c. Alſo the confirmation of this Teſtament was by the miniſterie of Moſes. And Paul ſayth, that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham, & his ſeed in reſpect of Chriſt: Now if the law had been geven to Abraham, the Apoſtles Argument taken from the diſtance of tyme had been of no force. And thus much for anſwer to your Argumenrs.

Next followes your anſwer to my objections, wherein ſtil you afferme, That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy, but tipically, & that their holynes was this, that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumciſion admitted, they were trained or ſchooled to Christ, &c.

What is here ſayd, is anſwered elſwhere, & here I deny that the Iewes holines was onelyonly typical, though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Chriſt, whereof alſo they were partakers by the covenant of grace.

Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Iſrael was called a holy…od, 19. 6 people, you anſwer thus: I ſay that eyther the meaning is, that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes, or that they by atteyning the end of the law ſhould attayne true holynes in Christ: ſo that this place is nothing to your purpoſe of the holynes of the eternal covenant, which God made with Abraham.

It ſeems you are not fully reſolved of the meaning of this ſcripture. Ex. 19. 6. ye ſhal be to me a kingdome of preists & a holy nation. This being mindedExo. 20. 1. &c. Deut. …3. 8. 1 Pet. 1. 5 of the people or nation they could not be called a kingdome of Preiſts in reſpect of a typical preiſthood which was proper to † Aaron and his ſonns, but in reſpect of their ſpiritual prieſthood in Chriſt as the Apoſtle ſayth, * ye are made a holy prieſthood to offer up spiritual ſacrifices, which place doth wel expound this of Exodus 19. 6. that the Lord doth intend to cal them holy in regard that he had choſen them for himſelf, and had received them into his covenant to be his people. For to be preiſts to offer up ſpiritual ſacrifices, muſt needs be in Chriſt. therfore truly holy.

Again you ſay, that they by attayning the end of the law ſhould attain true holynes in Chriſt, which if you grant, then muſt this holynes be in reſpect of the eternal covenant, out of which neither Chriſt nor true holynes can be attayned unto.

Thirdly, ceremonial holines without true holynes the †Eſa. 1. 11-16. Pſ… 50. 16. 17.Lord regardes not: it were to approve of hipocriſy, which he hateth: & therefore in that they are called holy it muſt be underſtood of true holynes as alſo, Deut. 7. 6. & 14. 2. Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. & 19. 2. And thus you ſee this place is to my purpoſe, unleſſe you can ſhew me that a people can attayne Chriſt and true holynes and be without the covenant of grace.

So that infants though they be under the offer of the covenant made with Abrah. i… respect of Chriſt, yet ſhal not baptiſme be adminiſtred upon them, becauſe that in the old Teſtament none were circumciſed but thoſe that were actually ſeaſed upon the external covenant: & therefore none in the new Teſtament ſhal be baptiſed but thoſe that …e actually poſſeſſed of the covenant of the new Teſtament.

Firſt it is proved *pa. 12. 13.before, that circumciſion was a ſeal of the covenāt of ſalvation. Secondly, you are to explayn what you mean, by actually ſeaſed upon the external covenant: for actual poſſeſsion of Canaan, the Iſraelites had not of a long tyme after Abrahams death, otherwiſe then by fayth, whereof you ſay, Infants are not capable. If children were circumciſed, & were ney ther ſeaſed upon Canaan by poſſeſſing it, nor by actual fayth, how were they ſeaſed upon the external covenant? The law was not then given, what were they ſeaſed on, and how?

Thirdly, the Infants of beleevers under the Goſpel are “Act. 2. 39. 1 Cor. 7. 14.poſſeſſed of the covenant of grace, by the vertue of the free giving thereof to the faythful and their ſeed, therefore to be baptiſed.

Fourthly, If Infants be but onelyonly under the offer of the covenant, then they dying in their infancy are without the covenant of ſalvation, and ſo periſh, ſo farr as we can judg: for to be under the offer onelyonly, you wil not ſay that thereby they can be ſaved. Againe, if they be not in Chriſt and ſo within the covenant, they are under condemnation. Rom. 8. 1.

But actual poſseſsion (you ſay) is by obedience to the fayth. This is true beingrightly applyed: But you muſt know that there is a general giving and applying of the promiſe on Gods part to his people, and there is a more ſpecial and particuler applying of the ſame, by the miniſterie of the word and ſpirit: The former was to Abraham when God made his † covenant withGen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 Rom. 4. …. 12. him and his ſeed: The other is to al that receive the word & keep it wherof Luk. 11. 28. Act. 2. 21. Iam. 1. 21. This actual poſſ…ſſion (to uſe your phraſe) belonges to ſuch as by their yeares are capable to underſtand, and it is a continual applying of that which was given in general to the faythful and their ſeed. And of ſuch are thoſe places of Rom. 10. 17. Gal. 3. 2. 14. to be underſtood. And this the Lord requires according to the diſpenſationMat. 13. …4. 11. Heb. 4. 2. Rev. 2. 7. … Rom. 11. …8. … Rom. 10. 14-17. 21. of the covenant, both under the old and new Teſtament, that al they that are his people capable of underſtanding ſhould † hear his word and yeeld obedience to the fayth. For although God love the children for the “fathers ſake; & reſpect his promiſe, yet wil he have them as they come to yeares, to practiſe fayth and obedience, unto which end the † preaching of the word is given unto us.

Secondly, I anſwer concerning the conſequent of your maiors conſequent, that it ſhal not follow, that becauſe children are under the covenant, that therefore they ſhal have the outward ſigne and ſeal thereof, for under the law the females were actually under the covenant of the old Teſtament, yet were not ſigned with the ſeal. And before the law was given, al that were actually under the covenant until the tyme of Abraham had no external ſigne or ſeal thereof.

It muſt follow, that if children be under the covenant that they muſt hav… the outward ſigne or ſeale, becauſe the † Lord hath ſo commanded, joyningGen. 17. …-11. Mat. 28. 19. * Mat. 19. …6. “Gen. 34. 24. the ſeal to his covenant which man may not * ſeparate. For your reaſons to the contrary, they are of no weight. Firſt concerning the females under the law, though they were not circumciſed, yet were “they accounted of the circumciſed. And for the ceremonie it ſelf they were never capable of it yong nor old, the like you wil not ſay of children under the Goſ. 2. For the fathers before the inſtitution of circumciſion, they might be under the covenāt & without the ſeal, becauſe the L. did ſo diſpēce with thoſe times: but you muſt prove that the ſtate of children under the new Teſt. is alike to the condition of thoſe fathers before Abr. or of the women under the law, & thē wil it follow that they ſhal not be ſealed at al, for theſe that you inſtance were not. It is one thing when God hath commaunded the ſigne and adjoyned it to his covenant to be received: & another when he cōmanded no ſuch thing. They are to receive the ſeal, to whom the covenant with the ſeal is given; as it was to Abraham and now is unto us. And therefore the ſigne may not be denyed to whom the covenant belongs. But to infringe this truth you ſay, The Lord in choſing the male onelyonly to be circumciſed, thereby purpoſed to teach in a type, that onelyonly the male, (that is one that is in Chriſt) ſhould be ſealed with the spirit of promiſe under the new Teſtament.

That circumciſion ſo ſignifieth as you ſet downe, you are to prove, in that it was ſett upon the male, it did type out Chriſt, that promiſed ſeed through whom our corruption is purged, as before is obſerved. And if circumciſion be ſuch a type, (as you here afferme) how can you exclude children under the new Teſt? they are Chriſts and in the covenant, †Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7.capable of the ſpirit or nevv berth, & therefore to be ſealed.

If it be obiected that before the law there was no ſeal appointed, I ſay, hereby it appeareth that to be under the covenant was not the cauſe of …ytle to the ſeal: but the expreſſe commandement of God. &c.

But to be under the covenant after the ſeal was thereunto annexed is ſufficient cauſe of tytle to the ſeal, except you vvil diſjoyn thoſe things that God hath coupled together:

In the next place you anſvver to the Aſſumption of my Argument vvher firſt you deſire of me to expound unto you vvhat is this holynes vvhichwhich the Apoſtle mentioneth, 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I ſay under the covenant, then you demand vvhat it is to be under the covenant, and ſo you proceed from queſtion to queſtion, as if you could not find out a direct anſvvere vvithout ſuch interrogatories.

To your firſt demaund, I anſvvered before & ſhewed that this holynes in 1 Cor. 7. 14: is in reſpect of the covenant, that children of the believing fathers are called holy, by the Apoſt. Then what it is to be under the covenant, happely you wil ſay, to be iuſtified by the imputatiō of the righteouſnes of C. righteouſnes.

Although thus to anſwer be true, yet is it not al that vve are to anſvver to this demande. For to be under the covenant is to be conſidered 2. māner of vvayes. 1. according to the L. ſolemne diſpenſatiō of his covenant vvith his people, & their admittance thereinto, after vvhichwhich manner it vvas made vvith Abraham and his ſeed. And thus the covenant vvas eſtabliſhed to *Gen, 17. 21. Act. 39. Deu… 15.them that vvere unborne at the tyme of the promiſe making, being then in the loynes of Abraham. Secondly men are ſayd to be under the covenant after a more ſpecial and hidden manner. And ſo al the elect whether known by the confeſſion of their fayth, or lying hidden… …om. 4. 4. …at. 8. 12. …zo. 14. 6. Rom. 11. …-2…. Eſa. 29. 13 Luk. 13. …-27. …at. 8. 12. in the confuſed aſſemblies of the world, are within the cov. of ſalvatiō, but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within, who is without, ſome wee may judge to be within, in reſpect of their outward ſtanding, which in the Lords ſight are without, and ſome without whom the Lord accepteth: but after that external and ſolemn making and receiving of the covenant of life, we are to repute † al that makes profeſſion of their fayth, with their ſeed to be under the covenant, and * branches of the olive tree until they fal away. And of theſe that are thus under the covenant, there be many “hypocrites which are not partakers of ſalvation in Chriſt.

Then I demand which of theſe three, viz. to be holy, to be under the covenant, to have Chriſts righteouſnes imputed, is first in nature: happely you wil ſay, firſt they are under the covenant, ſecondly, iuſtified, 3. ſanctified or holy.

I perceive you would draw us by your ſuppoſed anſwer, from that generall holynes apperteyning to the whole church of God, by reaſon of the covenant of ſalvation made with them, to the ſincere holynes of perticular perſons, which is not found to be in al that are viſible members of the ch.Heb. 4. 1. …. Rom. 11. …0. For this we ſay, that a people that are entred covenant with God, are in regard thereof, holy; becauſe they are ſeparate from the world unto God, and ſo are to be eſteemed of us, as they to whome is promiſed Chriſt with al his bleſſings, whereof they are partakers, if by † unbeleef they hinder not themſelves of that holynes of the olive whereinto they were planted, & in this ſenſe are we to underſtand that place of the Apoſtle. 1 Cor. 7. 14.

Then I proceed and demand, when do Infants come under the covenant, when they are conceyved or when they are born, or when the parents are converted being born already. It wil be anſwered that Infants begotten of faythful parents come under the covenant in their conception, and ſuch as are borne come under the covenant when their parentes are regenerate. Hereby it appeareth, that the covenant is conveighed to the children by generation & by filial relation.

Thus I anſwer as formerly I have done, that the covenant belonges to the parents and their ſeed, through the free grace & gift of God, the Lord binding himſelf by promiſe to be God to the faythful and to their children, which though they be borne according to the courſe of nature & are in the covenant, yet is their ſo being within it, not by vertue of their carnal berth ſimply conſidered; but by vertue of Gods promiſe. Indeed this we ſay, to be borne of beleeving parents is a declaration of the childrens being in Gods covenant, & that they come under the covenant when their“Act. … 14. 15. 33… parents do * firſt beleev, whether they be borne already, or to be borne: I mean ſuch parents as were before ſtrangers to the covenant.

Hereunto adde, if it be true that ſome ſay, that children under the goverment of the faythful alſo are under the covenant, that the covenant is conveighed alſo, by pupilſhip … adoption, & ſo of ſervants under beleeving maſters &c.

God making his covenant with beleevers, includeth their families, as in Gen. 17. 7. with verſe 9, - 13. where the Lord eſtabliſhing his covenant with Abraham, included his whole houſhould, borne in his howſe or bought with money; for he commanded al to be circumciſed. So Zacheus manifeſting his fayth and repentance, Chriſt ſayd, †Luk. 1… 8. 9.this day is ſalvation come unto this howſe: ſee alſo Act. 16. 30, 31, 33. and Ier. 31. 1. And thus do we affirme hereof, according to the ſcriptures. You ſay,

Why may not at the infants borne under one king, if his ſubiects be al his ſervants …d vaſſals be by that relation brought under the covenant, and ſo be accounted iustifyed and ſanctified.

God hath eſtabliſhed his covenant to the beleevers and their ſeed, not to a king and his ſubjects, and therefore this relation wil not ſtand with the condition of the covenant.

The relation of a King and a ſubiect is as neer as the relation of a maſter and a ſervant or an adopted child.

The relation of a king and ſubjects, be it never ſo near, maketh not t… the purpoſe: ſeing we are to mynd with whom God maketh his covenant, who tyeth not himſelf to civil relations, but freely accepteth the beleever and his family, and further then this relation, the ſcripture doth not warrant us to apply Gods covenant.

And then I demaund (ſay you) ſeeing the relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal, then any relation of adoption or ſervitude, why the wife ſhal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage? happely it wil be ſayd, that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted becauſe of her unbeleef, and I ſay that infants cannot be admitted becauſe of their want of fayth.

It is true that neyther the wife nor ſervants if they refuſe, can be admitted becauſe of their unbeleef, but the caſe is not alike of men and women growen to years, as of infants borne in the church, the former eyther conſent or refuſe actually, infants do not refuſe, and therefore being the ſeed of the ſaythful are to be admitted to Baptiſme.

But it wil be ſayd, that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his ſeed onelyonly, I ſay, it was made (by your confeſsion) with him and his adopted infants▪ &c.

We ſay as the ſcripture teacheth us, that the everlaſting covenant was made with Abraham and his ſeed, the faythful & their children: Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby, the whole family of the faythful, if they refuſed nor, as before is proved.

And ſeeing ſome not of his ſeed may be admitted into the covenant, and thoſe that are further off, why ſhal not theſe that are nearer as his wife?

I have anſwered before, her unbeleef hinders her, to be one fleſh, makes them not one in the covenant, which is by grace not by mariage.

But you wil ſay, becauſe infants do not refuſe the covenant, they may be admitted to baptiſme, &c. but wives refuſing, may not. I further inſiſt, that as infants do not reſist, ſo they do not conſent, and that al the children, ſervants and wives, that do not reſiſt may be admitted, though they cannot make declaration of their fayth. &c. &c.

We do not make the infants not refuſing, the cauſe of their acceptance to the ſeal of the covenant; but the Lords diſpenſation and cōmandement: in children there can be neither actual cōſent or reſiſting, the one of whichHub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3, 1. …am, 2. 18. …2. 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares: who alſo are to † live by their own fayth: alſo * confeſſion is of ſuch required, ſo is it not of infants.

Then I ſay there is no reaſon why fayth and repentance ſhould be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification &c. more then of an other, except God be an accepter of perſons.

To this I have anſwered before, and again do anſwer, that there is one and the ſame way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers, they receiving the covenant after the ſame māner that he did, beleeving that God is their God and the God of their ſeed. Alſo fayth and repentance, is required not onelyonly of ſuch as are of yeares, and to enter into the Lords covenant, but of al that are in the covenant, (they being the condition thereof on our part▪ to be performed) continually: and therefore we muſt know, that it is Gods good pleaſure that makes men capable of the promiſe, and not any act of theirs: fayth receiveth grace, but cauſeth it not, and repentance is the fruit thereof, required of every one, as they are of underſtanding.

And further, the covenant is onelyonly with Abraham and his ſeed, not with adopted children &c. and therefore fayth and repentance muſt neceſſarily be had, and ſo …y cannot be baptiſed til they ſhew their fayth. &c.

I have proved already, that God in ſaying, I wil eſtabliſh my covenant be…en me and thee and thy ſeed, included Abrahams family; or els ſhew unto …e, wherefore they were with him partakers of circumciſion, if they …ere not with him in the covenant. Agayn, fayth and repentance is required of the elder ſort, not of infants, Ergo &c. As for partaking of the covenant actually, how children are thereof capable, I have proved oft ynough: and therefore it needs no further anſwer.

And whereas it may be juſtly objected againſt you: that if infants be denyed to be within the covenant, they cannot be ſaved, you labour to remove this exception, ſaying: we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be …verted, but leave the ſecret of them to the Lord

Thus you leave a ſtarting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or againſt your opinions: is the condition of infants ſuch a ſecret that God hath not manifeſted his wil concerning them? Was not Abraham to take notice of the ſtate of his infants, when he was to circumciſe them? Gen. 17. 12.

And doth not †Mar. 10. 14.Chriſt his receiving of little children and bleſſing them, manifeſt unto us, how we ought to account of the infants of beleevers? The prophet Malachy ſayth, *Mal. 2. 1.did not he make one, ſeeking a ſeed of God? Act. 2. 39. the promiſe is to children, as Peter there witneſſeth, and Ier. 31, 1. God promiſeth to be the God of al the families of Iſrael, and children are a part of the familie, 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy. Now if God had given you eyes, theſe ſcriptures† Gen. 17 &c. Deu… 29. 10. - 15. might teach you that the ſtate of the childrē of the faithful is no ſuch ſecret as you pretend. Moſes ſhewed the ſtate of children under the old T. & you ſay, “Caracter, pag. 6. 3.the new Teſtament is as ſufficient for direction of al affaires &c. as the old. How is it then that the ſtate of children is now more ſecrete then, formerly it was? Thus you might ſee your ſpeeches contradictory, if your right eye were not blynded.

Secondly, I deſire you to prove unto me by ſcripture, that in this place, 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes ſignifieth true ſanctification. &c.

And I deſire you to prove unto me, that this or that member of a viſible church is truly ſanctified? you keep not to the ſtate of the queſtiō, that place is to be underſtood of the general holines pertayning to the … & every mēber thereof in reſpect of the covenant, & your demand is of page missing Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded, and is to be underſtood of the general face of that church, which was called holy, becauſe the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people. in Exod. 32. 9. & 33. 3. the Lord cals them a ſtifnecked people, in regard of perſonal ſinnes, which he found to be in ſome of them, not in all, the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part, whereof they repenting, the Lord forgave them. The perſonal ſinns of ſome mēbers do not diſpoſſes the face of the church of holynes, …he labouring to reforme ſuch faulty members. Concerning the holynes of children, & of the unbeleeving wife, before is ſhewed.

Finally, you ſay, God hath ſayd to al the faythful, I wil be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed. I deny it utterly, God ſayd that onelyonly to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. and wheth…r you expound it literally or spiritually, I avouch confidently against you and al men, that the meaning of it is not, that God made his covenant with the faithful man or faithful woman, and their infoo…s begotten of their bodies: but that literally the meaning is, I wil be God unto thee Abraham, and thy ſeed according to the fleſh, to give them the land of Canaan, Gen. 17. 8. and spiritually the meaning is, I will give unto Abraham the father of the faithful and al that are his spiritual ſeed, everlasting life.

You deny a manifeſt truth, as it is your manner to eſtabliſh your hereſies. I have proved already that the ſpiritual covenant is given to the faithful and their ſeed, as it was to Abraham and his ſeed, and further confirm it thus. 1. That promiſe that was made to Abraham † is the ſame that belongsGal. 3. 14. to al the faythful, and therefore as God did apply it to Abrahā, ſaying▪ I wil be thy God and the God of thy ſeed: ſo is it to be applyed to every beleever: as Gen. 17. 19. God ſpeaking of Iſaac ſayd of him, as before of Abraham that he would eſtabliſh his covenant with him and with his ſeed. And Act. 2. 39. the ſame promiſe was applyed to the Iewes that were preſentEx. 39. 45 …ev. 26. 12 Deut. 29. ….▪ 15. Jer. …1. 1. 33. Pſ. 44. 15. Hoſ …. 10. & 2. …3. Heb. 8. … - 10. 2 Cor. … 16. Rev. …1. 3. Gen. …2. 3. at Peters preaching, and to their children, and this application are the words following to have. (And to as manie as the Lord God ſhal cal,) viz. to ſo many, and their ſeed. Secondly, if the covenant was not made to the faythful and their ſeed, then are not the faythful partakers of the ſame covenant with Abraham, for it was to Abraham and his ſeed, and ſo by your▪ doctrine we have not the ſame covenant and goſpel that was preached to Abraham, and conſequently no promiſe of ſalvation. Thirdly, that this promiſe, I wil be thy God and the God of thy ſeed, is made to al the faythful and their ſeed. ſee theſe † ſcriptures quoted in the margine. Laſtly the applying of this promiſe to Abraham and his ſeed, doth teach us ſo to apply it to every faythful man and his ſeed: the Apoſtle thus applies the like promiſe in Heb. 13. 5. for comfort to al the faythful, that God in particuler had made to Ioſhuah▪ in Ioſh▪ 1. 5. which was this, I will not leave▪ thee nor forſake thee. And David did ſo apply it to himſelf. Pſalm. 118. 6. whoſe examples teaches how to apply Gods promiſes.

Concerning your expoſition of this promiſe, I wil be thy God &c. applying it onelyonly to Abraham, you pervert thereby the Lords meaning: he made his everlaſting covenant with Abraham and his ſeed, Gen▪ 17. …7. promiſed alſo unto him and his ſeed the land of Canaan, Geneſ. 17. 8. adjoyning this promiſe of Canaan, to that everlaſting covenant, with this copulative (and). the everlaſting covenant being common to Abraham, with al the faythful and their ſeed: but this promiſe of Canaan proper to ſuch of his ſeed, as according to the courſe of nature ſhould proceed out of his loynes, and therefore it cannot be, that this covenant and the promiſe of Canaan ſhould be one and the ſame, as you expound it. Beſides God made this promiſe to Abraham concerning Canaan and confirmed the ſame unto him. Gen. 15. 7. - 18. therteen yeares at the leaſt before circumciſion was commanded. Gen. 15. 14. and 16. 2. 3. 4. 16. compared with Gen. 17. 1. 10. 23-26. and that ſolemne eſtabliſhing of that everlaſting covenant with Abraham: Gen. 17. 7. at which tyme indeed this promiſe of Canaan was agayn renued. Alſo it is further to be noted, that Canaan was to Abraham and his ſeed a type, and as it were a ſacrament of the promiſe of the heavenly country, which they ſought after: Heb. 4. 8. - 11. and 11. 9. 10. 13. - 16. 39. for els had their poſſeſſing of it made them in no better eſtate then the Canaanites before them, nay not in ſo good an eſtate as divers other peoples, which injoyed their countries more quietly, then they did Canaan.

And ſhew me (ſay you) that God ſaid to every faithfull man and woman &c. that he wil be God unto them and their ſeed. I have ſhewed it before, that ſo▪ the promiſe is to be applyed, & ſo did Lidia & the gaylor apply it, as by the ſealing of their families with baptiſme together with thēſelves appeareth. And concerning women the Apoſtle ſaith, in Ch. *Gal. 3. 2…ye are al one, there is neither▪ Iew nor Grecian, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, wherby▪ it appears that God in giving his cov hath no reſpect of ſex, be they male or female, al is one in C. & therfore P. adminiſtred the ſeal to Lidia, being a womā & to her familie, as wel as to Stephanus & the gaylor. You ſay, It is falſe doctrine to ſaie that the covenant doth paſſe unto the infants of the faithful becauſe of their fathers faith &c. How the covenant paſſeth to the infants of the faythful by the free gift of God is ſhewed before: pag. 77. one mans fayth cannot conveigh the covenant of iustification to another, nor one … ſinne cut off another from the covenant, but the ſoul that ſinneth ſhal die.

Although that one mans fayth cānot by any natural operation or qualitie (as a medicine doth health to the bodie) conveigh the covenant to an other, nor actually apply juſtification to the ſowl of an other in that ſenſe▪ as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh thereof Gal. 2. 20. yet according to the Lords diſpenſation of his covenant, the promiſe is received by the fayth of the Parents to themſelves and their ſeed, as it was by Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. 23. Heb. 11. 17. Rom. 4. 11. And this would be no myſterie unto you, if you did diſtinguiſh between the outward manner of Gods diſpenſation of his covenant (under which al the faythfull and their ſeed are comprehended and accounted Gods people) and the inward and hidden application of the things promiſed, whereof none yong nor old are partakers, ſave † theMat. 3, 11▪ …. 3. 5. 7. 8 …. 11. 7. elect, no not the aged, though they be held for ſaincts in the ſight of men.

As for one mans ſinne to cut off another, we hold it not in that ſenſe as you mean, yet in ſome ſenſe it is not altogether untrue; for did not ſuch of Corahs children as departed not from their fathers ſynne periſh with him, Numb. 16. 27. - 32.? and God ſayth I wil viſit the ſinnes of the fathers upon the children of them that hate him, in juſtice withdrawing his grace from the ſeed of the wicked: but that the perſonal ſynne of one ſhall cutt off an other, as the prophet meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not.

Neyther 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 continueth his proper tyme. &c.

I anſwer it doth import a covenant of everlaſting continuance and ſo doth gnolam an everlaſting tyme, as in theſe places: Pſal. 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Pſal. 145. 13. Eſa. 45. 17. and ſo in divers other places. Alſo the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. ſpeaketh of that thing which is everlaſting vid videlicet to be God to Abraham and his ſeed after him, and therfore gnolam muſt needs be underſtood for ever, unles you wil ſay that God was God to Abraham and his ſeed but for a tym…, for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlaſting. And Chriſt proveth the reſurrection from theſe words, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham▪ &c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the covenant made with Abraham is an everlaſting covenant. And though gnolam do ſometymes ſignifie a tyme that hath an end, as it doth in the type, …t it noteth tyme everlaſting in the truth of thoſe types, and therefore …s Canaan called an everlaſting poſſeſſion. Gen. 17. 8.

But be it granted (ſay you) that the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. … the everlaſting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Chriſt, what then? … it follow becauſe it was with Abraham and the faithful, whether Iewes or Gen… beleeving actually, as Abraham the father did, therfore it is made with the faith… …an, &c. and with his children begotten of his bodie, &c. I denie it utterly.

Yes, it †Act. 2. 3…wil and muſt follow, els are not the faithful partakers of Abra…ms covenant, for if Ahraham have it to him and his ſeed, and the belee…ers onelyonly to themſelves, then is it not the ſame neither in the giving nor …iving thereof, as before is proved. And if you graunt Abrahams in…s, as Iſaac &c. were to be eſteemed his ſeed in reſpect of the covenant …ade with him in Chriſt (for to deny it by any colour of ſcripture you …an not) then muſt the ſame account be made of al other infants of belee…ers, ſeing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their ſeed, … the ſame fayth that Abraham did to him and his.

Becauſe the ſeed is but one, to whome the promiſes were made, viz. Chriſt, or the …al beleevers.

The words of the Apoſtle are theſe, *Gal. 3. 1….but to thy ſeed, as of one, which is Chriſt. Some underſtand by ſeed, the church, Chriſt miſtically, as 1 Cor. 12. 12. ga…hered of Iewes and Gentiles, which grow together in one body in Chriſt, of the ſeed of Abraham, as ver. 18. According to which expoſition both …ong and old members of the church are underſtood to have the promiſe …ade unto them that are partakers of ſalvation, yea infants, els are *Eph. 5. 2… 26.they …ot ſanctified by Chriſts death. But if by ſeed, be underſtood the redeeming …eed, which is C. it is he in whō both the elder people & infants ar bleſſed.

But you to prove that by one, onelyonly actuall beleevers is to be minded, …edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted, that Paul intendes not to ſhew …hat none are in Chriſt, ſave onelyonly actual beleevers, (for that were to con…mne al infants) but he ſpeaking to the church, and ſuch of them as were …apable of inſtruction, and having exhorted them not to faynt becauſe of …is troubles, prayeth the Lord, that they may be strengthned with his spirit, that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith, that is bring forth the fruits of the ſpirit, teſtifiing their fayth, and ſo continue conſtant. Now it is to be obſerved, that Rō. 8. 9. 11 … Joh. 3. 24.Chriſt dwelleth in al his, by his ſpirit, and thereby joyneth them unto him, and ſo in infants, els are they †Rom. 8. 9.not Chriſts, & this ſhould you have minded as wel as the other, and hauehave knowen, that actuall beleeving and the practiſe of other Chriſtian duties, is the work of the ſpirit, as the act of reaſoning is of the ſoule, in the elder ſort, required of them, and not of infants, as oft inough hath bene ſhewed. But not minding the true meaning of the Apoſtle, you thus obiect.

1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one ſeed, & the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten, which is an other ſeed, &c. then the covenant is made with the ſeedes which are many, and that is directly against the Apastle, Gal. 3. 16.

I anſwer, that the covenant is made with the faithful, and their ſeed as of one kind, God of his free grace eſtating the beleevers and their ſeed in one and the ſame covenant of life, both of them becomming * ſpiritual orRom. 7. 4. …ct. 2. 39. …zech 16. …. 21. …ſal. 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. …phe. 2. 14 … holy ſeed, and ſonnes of God, by vertue thereof: and not two contrarie ſeedes, as you would pretend: and therefore the Apoſtle is not contrarie to that we affirme, for as he ſayth, the ſeed is one; ſo ſay we, whether, Chriſt our Saviour be thereby underſtood, or the Churches united into † one, or all beleevers, who together with their children are after a ſpiritual maner the ſonnes of God.

Therefore that one ſeed is of perſons actually beleeving, &c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed, Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actually: infants do not beleeve actually: Ergo, &c.

Your concluſion ariſeth from falſe premiſſes, which are anſwered before; to the former Propoſition of this argument, I anſwer, that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeve, but in no place of the ſcripture is added, of them onelyonly that actually beleeve, which you do inſinuate, & therefore there lyeth deceipt in your propoſition. God promiſed his bleſſing to Abrahams ſeed, which cōprehends his infants “& to bleſſe the houſe of Iſrael & not only the elder ſort. That promiſe of bleſſing the families, Gē. 12. 3. & 28.Pſ. 115. …2. 14. Act. 31. 25. Eſa. 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth childrē, for they ar of the family.

Againe, Abrahams covenant was onelyonly to Abrahams one ſeed, that is to all beleevers: Infants do not actually beleeve, Ergo, &c.

This Argument is the ſame in effect with the former, the maior in your underſtanding is falſe: the faithful and their children in reſpect of the covenant, are but of one ſeed. Children though they cannot actually beleeve, yet are they accounted of the beleevers, and partakers of the promiſe with their parents.

Again, They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham: Infants cannot do the works of Abraham, Ergo, &c.

The Propoſition is falſe in your underſtanding, Paul ſaith, if any would; not …k he ſhould not eate, 2 Theſ. 3. 10. intendeth not this againſt children no …ore doth our Saviour Chriſt, when he ſayth, if you were Abrahams chil…ren, ye would do the works of Abraham. Ioh. 8. 39. but both places are to …e underſtood of ſuch as be of yeres, not of infants, which are not come …o that ſtreng…h to work good or evil.

Againe, I reaſon thus, They that are not under the everlasting covenant made …th Abraham ſhall not be baptiſed: infants are not under the everlasting covenant … Abraham, Ergo, &c.

The minor is falſe: Infants are under the everlaſting covenant, as be…ore is proved, and therefore to be baptiſed. This your reaſon implies …e condemnation of infants, for if they be not under the covenant of Abraham, there is for them no promiſe of ſalvation.

The Plea for Infants and Elder People Concerning their Baptism, Part 1 · Argument 4

p. 60Argument IIII.

Argument IIII.