differeÌ„ce externally betweene the times of Christ promised to come and his manifestation in the flesh and accomplishment of his promise And as * we have 30. â— 8. 11 â—4 RoÌ„ 10. â— 7. 8. â—er 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 â— 1 Cor. 10 â— 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. â—â—k 1. 74. the spirituall covenant and spirit so had the faithfull vnder the law and therefore it is false to say that they had the carnall covenant and wee the spirituall typed by the carnall for although vnder the Law the Lord did traine vp his people vnder many ceremonies which were types of things to come yet did he never ordeyne any carnall covenant with a seale therof as you devise But let vs see your proofes for all these particulars First that there are two Testaments made with Abraham you alledge Gal. 4 24. saying Agar that is the old Testament and Sara that is the new both married to Abraham 2. There are two seeds Ismael of Abraham and Hagar who typed the carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah who typed the spirituall seed ver 23. 3. There are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall covenant vpon the carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seale of the spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. c. First for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnall covenant that nothing fits your purpose for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles who vrged the works of the law for iustification and taught the people that vnlesse they wer circumcised Christ could not profit them whom after he had confuted with divers reasons he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 â—â—egorie of Abraham and his two wives shadowing out there 〈◊〉 â—at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in â—atter of iustification the law ingendring bondage requiring strict â—dience without which is no salvation but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2â— 26. â—egall bondage and requireth to †RoÌ„ 10. 6â— 11. Rom. â— 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation â—o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law doth shew them â— foolish they are which by the gospel are set * Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of â—w and legall ceremonies do frustrate that freedome by subiecting â—mselves againe to the law which could never make them †Act. 13. 39. righteous â—d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman whereas all â—hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law â—eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman Now this being â—he purpose or scope of the Apostle this allegorie setting downe the diâ—â—rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament vnder the gospel or new testament concerning iustification and salvation doth â—either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham or yet that the Iewes were so vnder the lawe that also they were â—ot free by faith in Christ for if we consider the times wherein the law was given 430 yeres after the promise it will appeare that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham or yet that it did * Gal. 3 1â— disannull the covenaÌ„t to dispossesse his seed of that estate which they obtayned by that promise made vnto him And it is to be noted that aswell vnder the â—ew testament as vnder the old all they are in bondage with Hagars sonns that seek by the workes of the law to be iustified 2. I answer more particularly to your proofes whereof the two former are drawen from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first because the Apostle calls Hagar Sarah the two testaments vers 24. and both â—â—re married to Abraham therefore to Abraham were made two testaments True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments the one of the old the other of the new But the Apostle applyes them to set out thereby the different estate of them that be vnder grace from such as be vnder the lawe of works Now to Abraham was not the lawe given whereof Hagar is made a type and therefore could not have that coâ—nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision for sure I am moe covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of but 〈…〉 Heb. 8. â—3 new the one abrogated by Christ his comming the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments it may be s 〈…〉 playnely out of the text it self for speaking of the lawe he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth vnto bondage making 〈…〉 tion purposely of Sinai because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountaine whereof Hagar was a shadow ver 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace sayth but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above is free c. ver 26. 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same be sayd to be two in respect of the tymes and diverse administration thereof and then your carnall covenant cannot stand Certaynly the Lord made one eternal vnchangable covenant to his Church instructing and dispensing his benefites otherwise in the time of the Law then now he doth under the Gospel And in this respect the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament may well speak in regard of the dispensation therof as of two And so understand by the old Testament that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses the Prophets to the Fathers promising eternal life openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law threatning of the curse if they did not perform it together with that intollerable burden of legal rites yoke of Moses politie and covertly under condition of repentance fayth in the Messiah to come prefigured under types shadowes ceremonies that by this meanes the Iewes as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ And by the new Testament understaÌ„d the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ his Apostles manifestly without shadowes and legal rites promising righteousnes life to al both Iewes Gentils that shal beleeve in Christ already come And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenaÌ„t seing both these TestameÌ„ts are spiritual though some carnal things wer commaunded in the old testament Yet those makes it no more a carnall covenant then water in Baptisme bread wine in the Lords supper the receiving of them which al are carnal things do make the new Testament carnall they being given to signifie vnto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnall things vnder
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. â—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. NuÌ„ 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 coÌ„â—idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof with that of the â—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 coâ—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 〈◊〉 onely 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 â—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 onely 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 your Differencâ— 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 coÌ„stitution 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 â—… 24. 1. â—sa 61. 1. â— 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 madâ— â—… 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. â—6 Gal. 3. â—… RoÌ„ 3. 20. â—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. â—as not to be ceremonially but truly holy as before I have proved and these †Deu. 2â— 9. 14. â— Esa 5. 4. â— 15. 24. 3. 4. 5. Esâ— 58. 2 7. â— 14. Deu. â— 12 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further
confirme Their * Deu. 2â— 10 13. “ Gal. 3. â— coâ—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 coâ—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 â— 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 coÌ„stitution no spiritual promise but onely carnal typical things Heb. 9 â—â— 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 â— 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 Testâ—â— 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. â— Ier. 13. â— â— Luk. 1. â— 74. 1 pet â—â— 9. 10. â— 2. 12. â— 22. Gen. 17. 7 â—om 4. 11 â—a 26. â— Heb. 4. 2 â— 11. 30. â— Cor. 10. 3 â— Ezech. 18 â— 32. Ioel. â— 3. â—b 9. 9. â—â— 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 coÌ„munion 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 constitutioÌ„ 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 coÌ„ming 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 â—â—th and repentance to the members and so not real or true holynes But the old Test â—e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the â—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 â—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 iâ— you â—ind it †Rom. â— Heb. 10. of the law onely 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. â— 12. 3. â— 17. 7. 21. Esa 1. â— 7. 14. â— 9. 6 GeÌ„ â— 10. Numâ— 24. 17. Gâ— 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
that is which by the works thereof †seek justification â—l 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. â—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 coÌ„pareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that coÌ„tinued 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 â—s 1 Tim. 1. â— 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 â—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 iâ— the matter or constitution of it was not really holy but onely 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 onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham and afterward assumed written â—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 charging Iohn 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 thaâ— 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 the Heb. 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 â—xo 19. 5 24. 3. Lev. 34. â— Dâ—u 5. â— Heb. 9. â— 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 onely 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 â—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
and in earth Esa 3. 14. 15. of this scripture also is spoken before Though infants could hear and beleeve it is nothing to me except they can shew me their fayth I say therefore that al infants are carnal to me Rom. 9. 8. If you be not carnal to your self also it is wel But thus you confesse that you have no word of God that children can be saved The scripture requires confession as I have sayd of persons growen to yeares which are to enter into the Church not of their Infants It was required of the Gaylor himself that he should beleeve and the promise was that †he and all Act. 16. â—1 â—â—ck 19 â— 8. 9. his howse should be saved And Zacheus receiving Christ and professing his repentance Iesus sayd to him * this day is salvation come to this howse Note he sayth not onely salvation is come to him but to his howse And he adds a reason thereof forasmuch as he is also become the sonne of Abraham And therefore as want of confession in Zacheus Familie in Lidias Stephanas c. hindered not salvation to come to their howses no more shal it hinder any other families of the faythful Touching that of Rom. 9. 8. which you alleadge to prove that infants â—m 9. 8. are carnal I have expounded before pag. 63. have shewed that it makes not for your purpose And where you tel me that I sayd that every infant of Abraham and so of the faythful was borne spiritual as wel as carnal and that here the Apostle is contrarie to my aserâ—ion Although being well understood it may so be sayd yet this was that I sayd that I did thus conceive of the seed of the faythful that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects And so I say still nether doth this scripture contradict it for those that the Apostle calls children of the flesh he meanes not thereby al the circumcised but such of them as became carnal by their works as those in Ioh. 8. 44. and such as for their unbeleif were rejected and “ broken off from the olive tree until â—oÌ„ 11. 20 which tyme they are to be held the children of the covenant so was Iudas accounted of by his fellow disciples to be one of them although God in his secret counsel know them for none of his And so Paul doth not deny the natural sonnes of Abraham to be accounted his spiritual seed in respect of Gods covenant but that of * Ioh. â— 41. 37. these so externally estemed there were of them carnal sonnes manifesting themselves in tyme through unbeleef to have been in shew that they were not in deed as Iohn speaketh †1 Ioh. â— of the hypocrites of his tyme. And thus these impossible contraâ—ictions as you cal them are easily reconciled And where I sayd that children of the flesh can never be the children of the promise in that sense as the Apostle opposeth the one to the other Rom. â— 8. 13. You answer that al the children of the Jewes were borne according to the flâ—sh Gal. 4. 23 24 25. and so were carnal and so are the children of the faythful and yet as many of the Iewes were afterward regenerate so many of the infants of the faythful may prove children of the promise but I confesse that Esau can never be Iacob c. If you wil thus understand being borne according to the flesh and so being carnal you speak not to the Apostles meaning And Abraham Isaac and Iaacob al the faythful are so borne as you intend of which point I have spoken before And I have already answered to “ pag. 14. Gal. 4. 2â— 24. 25. that place of Gal 4. 23 25. that by that allegorie is described two sorts of children whereof the one seeks by the workes of the law to be justified the other by the covenant in Christ seek after salvation through fayth in him typed out by the two mothers and their two sonnes Now take this scripture in his true sense and it can not be gathered from hence that eyther al the children of the Iewes were thus borne after the flesh and in this sense to be called carnal as the Apostle meaneth nor yet that the childreÌ„ of the faythful are thus to be held of us to be carnal For they seek not by workes justification and therefore makes not themselves children of the bond-woman I mean of the covenant of works or of the law for this falleth â—ut by an action of the parties themselves that refuse the doctrine of free justification by fayth and seek salvation by the law And this is that the Apostle reproves the Galathians for because †Gal. 3. 3â— after they had begunne in the spirit they would be made perfect by the flesh Carnal corruption doth hinder infants from baptisme more then men of yeares because men of yeares make confession of their sinnes and their â—ayth and so declare their mortification and regeneration but infants can not or do not so at al to us and so with them we have nothing to doe But the covenant of God hath to doe with them and therefoâ—e we also if we wil walke according to it Also your comparison is not equâ—l for infants nede not to make such confession of their sinnes and fayth as men of yeares are to do seing they are already to vs within the covenant of God 2. The Scripture gives nether precept not example to require an actuall confession of their fayth of al that are baptised except of such as are of yeares and to be added to the Church but †examples of the contrary â— Cor. 1 â— Act. 16. â— 31. 33. And therefore to make a general rule of such particulers thereby to exclude the seed of the faithful is contrary to the meaning of the Scripture But where as I did affirme that natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men beleeving you answer That I cannot defend that without the opinion of vniversal redemption And then if all infants of the faithful being delivered from their natural corruption may therefore be baptised then all infants partakers of the same benefite shal be baptised even the infants of the Turkes As concerning that opinion of general redemption I reiect as an error but as touching the imputing of natural corruptioÌ„ to infants thus I mean that as the children of the faithful are to vs within Gods covenant as wel as their parents because of the promise made to the faithful and their seed So of vs they are to be estemed of as pertakers of the promise whereof * Heb. 10 17 the not imputing of sinne is one But whereas you would inferre herevpon that infants of the Turkes partakers of the same benifit may therefore be baptised as wel as the infants of beleevers I deny that eyther they are partakers of the same benyfite I meane the covenant in Christ or may be baptised if
Lactantius whom you also cyte are generall of yong old whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number but proves not your desire his words you set downe thus Candiduâ— egreditur nitidis exerâ—itus undis atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort Concerning Lodovicus Vives vpon August de Civit. Dei cap. 27. if â—dovicus â—ves floâ—â— anno â—4â— â—â—d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his â—â— as did â—â— Erasm he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him seing he is but a late writer I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth certainly froÌ„ that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name Lastly you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes to say That in Pauls time it was not received that infants should be baptised Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth and therefore being of so late time what is his witnes against so many fathers testifying the contrarie Thus in alledging of him and the rest you shew the weaknes of your cause that have not one auncient father directly to vvitnes with you but are driven to call them to vvitnes that in this thing vvere of contrary judgment to your selfe REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the coÌ„trarye the first of them is this 1. Reason Because there is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their faith were baptised Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. Answer 1. This reasoÌ„ being brought into form wil bewray the weaknes therof for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a speciall comandement or example in the practise of Iohn or Christs Disciples for the baptising of infants yet it may not withstaÌ„ding be lawfull to baptise them namely if by sound coÌ„sequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warraÌ„t froÌ„ the exaÌ„ple of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by Argument necessarily drawen from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expresâ—ly mentioned and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament though wee can not shew any playne precept or example yet may upon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead that the son is Homousius that is of the same substance with the father now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture And many such like 2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence because they are within the covenaÌ„t and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested I wil thirdly answer vnto it 3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants Commandement I say Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents the same lawe of sealing the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be changed except the lawemaker do repeal it or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof which must be shewed or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia her household Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers 33. both which seming to be great housholds it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist meÌ„tioÌ„ them not But the exceptioÌ„ is that only such as did coÌ„fesse their sins confesse their fayth were baptised CoÌ„cerning Iohn he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the waye of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confesse their sins he baptised but did Iohn refuse their children if they broughâ— them to him but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them no more say I is there that they were offered unto him There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised and yet it were too bold a part and no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptised All things that Iohn did nor that Christ did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof And therefore to gather an Argument from hence because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn therefore they ought not to be baptised is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country now in iourney homeward therefore not like that he should have his children with him specially in such a tedious iourney not knowing of this accident M. Smyth Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants to the first argument you say if it be brought into forme it wil bewray the weaknes of it wel I wil bring it into forme c. That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example Ergo. c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus That which hath precept and example must be practised Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ
Apostle doth witnesse saying * Gal. 3. 17 and this I say that the covenant which was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ the law which was 430 yere after cannot disannull Where it is to be noted 1. that this covenant that was given to Abraham was but one 2. that it was in respect of Christ therefore was that spirituall covenant 3. that it was confirmed vnto him which is more then a bare offer Secondly I deny that God ever made any carnal covenant eyther with Abraham or with the Israelites seing he made but two testamentâ— all with his people and both of them spirituall the new Testament yoâ— graunt to be spirituall and that the old is so the Apostle doth witnesse câ—ling the law which is a part of the old Testament both †holy and spiritâ— Rom. 7. â— 14. all This law covenant or old Testament God gave to Israel and they diâ— * promise to keepe it and so were bound to the observation of a spirituaâ— Exod. 19. â— and not of a carnal covenant Besides this first Testament was not made with Abraham seing it can not be shewed that he or the fathers did vndertake the keeping thereof vnder penaltie of the curse as †Israel did Deut. 27. â—5-26 And as for the promise of Canaan which Abraham beleeved that his seed should inherite it was annexed vnto that covenant made with him in Christ as saith the Apostle that †Godlynes hath the promise of the life present and of â— Tim. 4. that which is to come And therefore can no more be called a carnall covenant or be said to be sealed with circumcision then the promise of the life present vnto vs may be called carnall or to be sealed with baptisme And that circumcision was not given as a seale to confirme vnto Abraham and his seed onely the land of Canaan as you affirme in your answere to my second argument Reason 1. but to seale vnto him and to his seed the covenant of salvatiô as may be gathered from that very place of Gen. 17. 8. 9. Where Moses having set downe the sume of the covenaunt that concernes Abraham and his seed ver 7. in vers 8. repeates that promise of Canaan before made vnto him Gen. 13. 15. and with all sayth I will be their God which is that spirituall covenaunt here againe purposely repeated because he would shewe that the commaundement of circumcision which followes in the next vers was given for a seale thereof ver 11. And that it is so to be vnderstood the spirit who knoweth the minde of the Lord so expoundeth it Rom. 4. 11. saying after he received the signe of circumcision the seale of the righteousnes of fayth c. by which place it is evident that circumcision was a signe of the spirituall covenant made with Abraham and not of an other different from this called by you a carnall covenant The covenaunt in Christ made to Abraham was confirmed vnto him Gal. 3. 17. and there is no mention of any other signe given vnto him but of circumcision ergo Againe if God gave circumcision to be a seale to Abraham and his carâ— seed as you affirme what had the Proselites to do with this signe â—y were they to be circumcised seing they were not of Abrahams carnal â—d this signe could not seale vnto them the land of Canaan who had â— promise thereof yet were they circumcised Exod. 12. 48 thereâ—e they were partakers of that covenant wherof circumcisioÌ„ was a signe â—t concerning Canaan it was promised onely to Abrahams seed after the â—sh and so you say then must it needs follow that the Proselites were â—artakers of the spirituall covenant and so received circumcision as a seal thereof And thus it is manifest that circumcision was no signe of any â—carnall covenant made to Abraham as you affirme Also that to Abraham was made but one covenant the very phrase of the holy Ghost intimates so much for in speaking thereof the scripture useth the * Gen. 17. 4. 7. Gal. 17. singular number neyther do we read of any moe testaments or covenants but two the old the new the former given vnto Israel in the wildernes a long time after that God had made his covenant with Abraham in the Messiah to come Further you say that circumcision being a carnall seale could not seale a spirituall covenant but the seale therof must be the spirit c. I require of you what you meane by a carnal seale if you mind that circumcision is carnall because of the cutting of the foreskinne I graunt that there was a cutting of the flesh or if you mean carnal because it was an external signe who wil deny it But what is this to the purpose for the flesh of Christ was lanched persed with nailes yet for all that it was a spirituall sacrifice and the sacraments of the new testament be outward and visible thinges yet are they signes of spirituall things and so circumcision though it was externall by incision of the flesh yet was it a visible signe of an invisible grace of that spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham Againe concerning your devised carnall covenant with circumcision which you say is a type of the spirituall covenant and spirit I answer that circumcision and Canaan typed out spirituall things promised but were not a carnal covenaunt to type out the spirituall which was already made with Abraham neither doth the scripture teach us that God did make a carnal covenant with him and his seed thereby to accept them to be his people for that could not be by any other covenant then onely by that in Christ there being no reconciâ—ation to God †2 Cor. 5. 19. but in him And although the spirrit be the * RoÌ„ 8. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 1. 22. 5 5. Gal. 4. 6 Ephe. 1. 14. earnest or pledge of Gods promises in our harts yet for the further strength◠〈◊〉 and confirming of our weak faith the Lord both before the Law to A 〈…〉 ham and so vnder the Law and likewise vnder the gospel hath to his 〈◊〉 venant annexed certayne outward signes as seales thereof And thus you having set downe your distinction of two covena 〈…〉 Wish that they may be remembred and orderly applyed and the argument say y 〈…〉 will appeare of no valew c. There can be no orderly applying of disorderly things your distin 〈…〉 on brings all out of order and therefore this double covenaunt being denied and not by you proved my argument stands firme in all the parts thereof And the maior vnderstood of that spirituall covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed the Minor is truly assumed out of the Maior and so is no sophisme Furthermore the crosse of Christ hath not abolished the covenant made vnto Abraham but coÌ„firmed it nor yet abrogated the sealing thereof save onely changed the outward signe that therby he might put some
circumcision by which the Iewish children were received into the covenant that must type out baptisme by which say you the partie so qualified should be received into the new Testament actually or els shew a reason why this ceremonie of baptisme is added to the truth as you expound it and nothing added to the type to shadowe out baptisme this is not proportioable that there must be a ceremonie added to the truth in receving in of members into the Church now since the coÌ„ming of Christ and not any to the type in receiving in of members into the Church before his coming Lastly if you wil keep proportion you must compare together circumcision and baptisme both which do lead to the circumcision of the hart are the seales of one and the same covenant the one appointed for the old Church before Christ the other for the Church under the Gospel then wil your Argument fall out against your self And thus I have shewed both the weaknes of your answer of your reasons grounded therevpon Argument II. Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumcision belonged to faithful Abraham and his seed yea to such as were but infants then doth baptisme also appertayne to all beleevers and to their seed being infants But the first is true Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the second The consequent wil follow seing baptisme coÌ„meth in place of circumcision sealing up unto us and to our seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham and to his seed Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner if not more ample then to the Israelites for of them onely were the males circumcised but by baptisme are both males and females sealed And this must follow necessarily or els the covenant by the coÌ„ming of Iesus Christ should be more restreyned then it was under the law who came to ratify and confirm it wholly as the Apostle sayth 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him yea and Amen c. For God gave it with the seale thereof to Abraham and his infants and if Christ should give it unto us onely and not to our infants this were to lessen and infringe the covenant and not to confirm all but to take away part of that which God before had given Mr Smyth I answer that this argument is built vpon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant and seale and seed and there is manifest violence coÌ„mitted upon the scripture by perverting and wresting it to false consequents first therfore I deny the consequence and I give reasons of my denyall c. The former Argument is proved to stand upon a true ground and so â—all it be manifested that there is no mistaking eyther of the covenant seale or seed in this reason nor yet any violence offred to this scripture by wresting it to false consequences as you affirme The consequence you deny but desprove it not to your reasons I wil answer particularly which in number are three Your first reason because that circumcision did not appertaine to Abraham his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant but of the externall temporary covenant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moses c. I have already proved the contrary both out of Gen 17. 7. 9. where it is added as a signe vnto that everlasting covenant and also out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith Furthermore circumcision did signify the †Deut. â— 16. Ier. â— Act. 7. 5â— inward circumcision of the hart which was not required of them in respect of the promise of CanaaÌ„ the same being required vnder the Gospel nor yet of the law for it admitts of no repentance but as a condition of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham and his seede in Christ also the proselites Ismael were circumcised that had no promise of Canaan nor right to one foot of inheritance in it for * Ios 14. â— 16. 17. 18 19. 21. c Canaan was devided by lot to the 12. Tribes and in every tribe to the several families and therefore their circumcision did eyther seale vnto them the spirituall covenant or none at all as before is observed Againe if by the male circumcised Christ was typed as you have affirmed before in your fift reason in your answere to my former Argument then circumcision was a signe of the spiritual covenant For Christ is that which was promised And if the infant circumcised was a type of him it must nedes followe that circumcision was asigne of that covenant whereof the child circumcised was the subject but the infant in becomming a type of Christ became in this respect a subiect of the spiritual covenant and therfore his circumcision a seale thereof for the type and truth must have relation to the same thing or covenant Lastly Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises unto the fathers Rom. 15. 8. Also I deny that circumcision was first given as a seale of obedience to the law of Moses seing the law was not given when circumcision was ordeyned but * Gal. 3. 1â— 430. yeares after the thing to be sealed is to go before the seale or els it is preposterous and the seale without fruit Neyther was it given to be a seale of a carnall promise in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace God togither with it promised unto him and his seed the Land of Canaan but he never appointed circumcision to be the seale thereof els when Israel possessed that land circumcision should have ceassed as all Sacraments shall do when the promises whereof they be seales shal be fully accomplished and circumcision should have bene of no force to them that had no right to Canaan which yet were circumcised Your second reason because the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the new Testament c. I answer they do thus occupy the place of Abraham that as he did so Act. 2. 39 do * they receive the covenant to them and their children who through the free promise of God received by the faith of the parents have entrance into the covenant together with them and in this regard parents are so may be called “ fathers of their children being the meanes whereby they Act. 2. 39 come to this prerogative And this is not to supply that particular of Abrahams fatherhood which was extraordinarie Your third reason is because the infants of the faithful doe not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham but possesse the place of the typical children of Abraham according to the flesh c. First how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham I have shewed here deny that the children of Abraham according to the flesh onely as you mean were types of the infants of the faithfull seing the children of the Proselytes were the children of
whereby you seeme to understand confession you cannot but know that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his company by the hearing of Peters words was the extraordinary geving of the spirit wherewith he and the rest were indued and not onely that ordinary confession of the faith required of each true beleever as by the text is plainly to be seen which sayth that they of the circumcision were astonied as many as came with Peter because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost For they heard them speak with tongues And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them even as upon us at the beginning Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them viz there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre and it sat vpon each of them and they were filled with the holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance This descending of the spirit upon the Apostles was extraordinarie for he came not so upon all that were baptised Act. 8. 36 37. 16. 14. 15. 33 seing * the multitude was astonished â—ct 2. 6. â— 12. wondred all and marveyled Therefore that comming of the spirit upoÌ„ Cornelius and his company was extraordinary for Peter sayth The holy Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them baptisme for he seing them partakers of the spirit sayth can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we This visible seale seale of the new Testament say you is confession as in the old Testament circumcision was their confession That confession is not the seale of the new Testament I have already proved And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old TestameÌ„t thus farre may be granted that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance and so is baptisme now to us a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pagans but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our baptisme Act. 19. â— Rom. 10 10. King 18 â— Exo. 19. â— Psa 107. â— 21. 31. Esa 29. 13. â—e DaÌ„ ch 9 Exo. 12. â—8 Act. â— 27. c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God and his truth not onely by circumcisision but also †with words to his praise And I make no question but the Proselytes before they were “ circuÌ„cised made confession of their faith Baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale I pray you Sir of what seale is baptisme the manifestation Confession you say is the visible seale of the new testament Doth it manifest our confession it needs not for that is visible If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace it is true but thereby we are assured of Gods promise and so is the visible seale thereof Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to coÌ„firme the consequence of my Argument the first whereof is Collos 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme coÌ„meth in the rome of circumcision this you deny so to be construed and say That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision c. That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcisioÌ„ was the seale I wil further manifest prove both out of this place of the Collossians and also by other reasons First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremonies with the Gospel proveth that the Church stands no need therof seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ and because the adversaries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvatioÌ„ he answereth that neyther needed they to be circumcised because they were spiritually circumcised And whereas the Collossions might have objected that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof which if we want our state is not so good as their was yea sayth Paul that it is for in stead of outward circumcision you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children under the Gospel the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed this is the meaning of the Apostle and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme succeedeth circumcision Now I vvil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant First the sacraments of the nevv Testament have the same end scope in respect of the thing signified with the sacraments under the law For as Paul attributed the same vertue efficacy and effect of our baptisme the Lords supper * 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers so doth he ascribe to the beleevers under the gospel the efficacy of the †Cor. â— Pascall lambe “ Col. 2. 1â— 12. and circumcision therfore in respect of the thing signed there is no difference the same Christ was the Lambe * Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world Also the same instrument and meanes of application the same †Rom. 4 16. c. faith end and effect one and the same righteousnes of faith the same “ Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham the same spirituall circumcision of the hart both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel so that in all these things there is no difference which plainely argues that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments 2 This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and baptisme together in their special vses and ends There is the same principal use and end of circumcision and baptisme viz to * be signes of the covenant â—o 4. 11. â— c. Gal â—6 Mar. â— 16. conâ—d with â—om 4. 11 Deut. 10. â— 30. 6 â—it 3. 5. â—er 4. 4. â—l 2. 11. â—uk 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 â— 6. 4. 6. â—om 2. 29. â—hil 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 â— Exo. 12. â— Act. 8. â— 16. â— 33. â—at 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 â—2 1 Cor. â—2 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ both of the sacraments of †regeneration “ requiring repentance and mortification both signifying that we are corrupt and by the ¶ blood of Christ to be clensed by both of them such as were * without were received into the communion of the Church And by both of them Gods people were †discerned from
againe that the law was not that proper onely 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. â— 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 onely to teach Christ did not presuppose that the schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ which is onely done by fayth â—d repentance The law or old testament was a schoolmaster onely 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 vnder 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 â—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 circumcisioÌ„ 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 â— Col. 2. 11. â—2 â— 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 out RoÌ„ 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. â—7 Col 2. â—4 Mat. 3 â—5 1 Pet. 2 â—2 Heb. 7. 26. 27. Gal. â— 13. 1 Pet. 1. 19 22. 23. T it 3. 5. Ioh. 3. 5. law is fulfilled onely in him Thus you may see the Apostle speaks not against the coÌ„stitution 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 â—embers of the old testament in their constitution were not indued withal Fayth or â—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 conclude Gal. 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. â— 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. 2â— 12. 2 Cor. 6â— 16. founded without the everlasting covenant in Christ by “ Gen. 1â— 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 calling RoÌ„ 16. â—â— 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
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 minded Exo. 20. 1. c. Deut. â—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 Psâ— 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 iâ— 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 â—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 covenaÌ„t 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 onely 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 onely 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 with Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 Rom. 4. â— 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 possâ—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 dispensation Mat. 13. â—4 11. Heb. 4. 2. Rev. 2. 7. â— Rom. 11. â—8 â— 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 havâ— the outward signe or seale because the †Lord hath so commanded joyning Gen. 17. â—-11 Mat. 28. 19. * Mat. 19. â—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 covenaÌ„t without the seal because the L. did so dispeÌ„ce 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 theÌ„ 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 coÌ„manded 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 onely to be circumcised thereby purposed to teach in a type that onely 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
beleevers may and ought to be baptised though they can not by teaching be made disciples 2. to that you answere to my first particular thus I reply That of Abraham his circumcision of the Church of the old Testament I haue spoken before this now I wil adde further that AbrahaÌ„ was an * Iosh 2â— 3. idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church As for his faith it was not onely a president or example to others but was also necessarie for him self as the scripture teacheth he beleeved the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes And being thus iustifyed he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousnes of faith by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemne covenant of the Lord to become his peculiar people and to haue him to be their God which at that time the Lord made with him so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood And where you say that Circumcision was not a seal of Abrahams iustification c. you give the holy Ghost the lye which testifieth the contrary Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason that he was sealed by the spirit long before it is nothing to the purpose for the spirit was no external seal as circumcision was The spirit sealeth inwardly and is proper onely to the elect yea to all Gods people in Babilon and so is no visible signe of of Gods promises given to the Church visible whereof our dispute is And here remember by the way that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit and so was under the new Testament as also others had Esa 63. 11. Psa 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4 39. that being the pledge and earnest of the sowles of al the faythfull in al ages of the love of God in Christ But Abrahams iustification in uncircumcision was a type of the iustification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised And Abrahams circumcision after his iustification sealed him up to be the father of all the beleevers circumcised That Abrahams justification was an example to al that should be justified both of the Iewes and Gentiles I graunt viz. that as he was justified by fayth so should al others that beleeve be likewise justified But as concerning Abrahams circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father Rom. 4. 11 â— 13. of al beleevers circumcised the Apostle sayth thus * Abraham received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of fayth which he had when he was uncircumcised c. that he should be the father of al that beleeve not being circumcised c. and the father of circumcision c. In which words I observe 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousnes of fayth yea of Abrahams 2 that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised beleeving And the father of al the circumcised his posteritie the Israelites and so was father of both sorts of people and of the parents and children 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised he meaneth Mat. 15. â— Act. 25. Rom. â— 4 5. of his spiritual fatherhood in regard of the “ covenant 4. He is called the father of circumcision not onely of beleevers circumcised as you say but of their infants also seeing they were circumcised and in this you deceive your hearers by perswading them that Abraham was the father onely of beleevers circumcised not of their seed whereas Paul sayth he was father of the circumcision And so circumcision had a triple vse one general two special â— Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a patterne of al the beleevers in uncircumcision c. 2. Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a paterne to al beleevers in circumcision c. The general use of Abrahams circumâ—…cumcision was common with him to Ismael and al the persons of his familie and al the carnal Israelites viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. You labour by your new devised distinctions to obscure the truth and to shut out of the covenant of grace the infants of the faythful otherwise â—e affirme that both beleeving Iewes and Gentiles are justified and †Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20. live by their fayth and that the one and the other have but * Rom-4 3. 24. 2 one way of justification as they have but one Christ and one covenant of salvation And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham so was it given to have the same use to al that were circumcised viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by “ Rom. 3. 2â— his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Concerning that general use of circumcision as you terme it to be common with Abraham and to Ismael and to al the persons of his familie c. is true but the use viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. you must prove for God had not then given the law or old Testament It was the covenant in Christ that was sealed by circumcision and not the law or covenant of works And whereas it was the Apostles purpose to shew that †Rom. 4â— c. Abraham was not justified by works he hath not proved it but confirmed it by this your distinction of circumcision if Abraham received it to seal him up to the old Testament to the observation of the law Now for the place of Rom. 4. 11. which I am assured you wil ground your assertion upon I say it is both falsly translated expounded for tes en acrâ—bustia is usually translated which Abraham had when he was uncircumcised and this I say is a false translation for this is the true translation viz. which is or was or shal be in the uncircumcision meaning that circumcision upon Abraham c. was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcision that beleeve and the end of his circumcision is the fatherhood of the faythful Here you pick a quarrel against the translation before it was alleadged and so it pleaseth you to set downe an other with your own exposition to this scripture Rom. 4. 11. and by your glosse corrupts the text You 〈◊〉 4. 11. fault the Translator for saying which he had c. and you put in which is or was or shal be The text is which in the uncircumcision the verbe being omitted Now I ask you what warrant you havâ— more for your addition then the Translator had for his the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain that the Translator saw his
confesse the Lord these were called “ Acâ— proselytes which signifies a stranger coming and converted to their manner of religion as the Eunuch such like And it is not to be doubted that the Iewes would ever admit into their communion and to administer circumcision unto a Gentile that did not renounce his heathnishnes and professe their fayth seeing †Ex. 12 one law was to them that were borne in the land and to the stranger that dwelled amongst them therefore as much required of them that were to joyne to the Church of the old Testament as is now of theÌ„ that wil ioyne to the Church of the new And so I hav shewed you that more was required of theÌ„ that were circumcised then to be a male for every one must be a professor or the child of a professor so much is required coÌ„cerning baptisme no more And to your particulers I answer that these things were also required of the Israelites CoÌ„cerning the two former infants both have Ch. wer are circumcised in hart in that they are partakers of the covenant of graceâ— we are to hold them partakers of Christs benefits Mat. 19. 13. 14. For the third point that we must learne what the schoolmaster of the old Testament doth teach It is for such as are of yeares and was required of the Israelites and not of us onely as the writings of Moses and the Prophets do shew And where you say this must be done of al before they can be baptised it is your addition which you can never prove Moreover if you by old Testament do mean the writings of Moses the Prophets then can not we †learne al that they can teach us whylest we live Cor. 13. â— unlesse you dream of perfection with the Familists and so by your doctrine shal not be baptised But if by old Testament you mean Moses administration Heb. 8. 9. â—3 Gal. 3 25. it is * abrogated and seing “ fayth is come we are not under that schoolmaster to be taught by such legal types and ceremonies as were the Iewes And so your doctrine is false howsoever it be understood And whereas you wonder at me and at your self that we could not see so evident a truth al this tyme for myne owne part I saw I thank God long since and stil do see your evident truth as you cal it to be a manifest Act. 13. 10 error And further I see that God hath given you over to †pâ—rvert the right wayes of the Lord and to be the leader of others into heresie and so for just cause known to himself blynded your eyes and hardened your hart This is that great comfortable state that now you stand in God in his mercy deliver you forth of it To the 2. particular of my Answer to your reason you thus reply 1. Your distinction is without warrant and I deny that Infants of the faythful are to be considered in these two respects And whereas you bring Gen. 17. 7 1 Câ—r 7. 14. to prove the latter part of your distinction I have answered these two places alreadie shewing your false exposition of them c. And these two places of scripture I have likewise formerly proved to stand with my exposition where it wil appear that this is but a calumniatioÌ„ of yours and that my exception is not frivilouâ— For first you wil not deny that the children of the faythfull are carnall in respect of their naturall berth then being proved within the covenant in that regard they must â— Cor. 7. 14 needs be spiritual and as the Apostlâ— calleth them * holy To the third particular of my Answer you reply saying The sacrament of baptisme is prophaned when it is administred upon a wrong subiâ—ct as to give the Lords supper to an infant of two yeares old so to baptise an infant is â—â—phanation c. That to baptise an infant is a prophanation of baptisme I deny and by sundry reasons I have proved the contrarie shewing that infants are not a wrong subject but a right subject for baptisme As for the Lords supper the institution and use of it and the actions duties required of them that eat and drink at that table shew it to be otherwise for the not giving of it to infants But you say As profession of fayth shal intitle any man to al the ordinances of the Church and fâ—rst to baptisme So absence of confession of fayth shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the church in communion And afterward you say Although I dare not say this or that infant is not under the election of God yet I dare say that never an infant in the earth is actually seazed of the new Testament which is onely attayned by confession of sinne and of fayth c. Mar. 1. 15 Ioh. 3. 3. Eph. 3. 17. c. To this I have answered before and have shewed that profession of fayth is required of such as were never of the church and that with them their seed enters in also but that absence of confession shal debarre every one from the orrdinances of the church can never be proved seing there is not a like reason of persons without and of infants borne in the church Also I have shewed that infants are actually seazed of the new Testament according to the â—enure of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed I mean so actually seazed as we are to repute them children of the covenant And here also I mynd that al infants to you stand in the state of condemnation this is your Gospel contrary to Gen 17. 7. Act. 2 39. 3 25. Gal. 3. 8. Gen. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Concerning the Scriptures which you alledge I answer first that all Mar. â— three places are applyed to them of yeares secondly in Mar. 1. 15. the Evangelist setts down in breif the summe of Christs doctrine the unfolding thereof doth reach to the faythful and their seed as by his own action Iohn 3. â— appeareth Mat. 19. 13. 13. Mar 10. 14. In Ioh. 3. 3. Christ speakes of regeneration without which none can enter into the kingdome of God and he speakes to Nicodemus that was a member of the Iewish church into which as also into the visible Churches under the new Testament many did and may enter into with outward confession onely as did Simon Magus though their harts be not regenerate And therefore this scripture speaking of that grace of God which is imvisible is not fitly alleadged for this purpose where we are to judge of members of the church not as they stand so before God in his secret counsel but as they externally appear to us within Gods covenant by their confession or otherwise That of Ephes 3 17. is also spoken to them that were of yeares who â—h 3 17. being beleevers they theirs were Christs of whom is named the wholâ— familie in heaven
and worshipped him though corruptly professed also many of his truthes which neither the Sodomites Egyptians Babylonians or Gentiles did And therefore are not comparable with the heathen in all respects much lesse to be held the worst kind of Paganisme For in Paganisme it was never heard that God had his people yet in Antichristian Babylon the spirit witnesseth that he hath his people amongst them and so many truthes of God are therein taught as thereby Gods elect do come to some knowledge of God and to faith so can none do in Paganisme by any doctrine there taught 2. I declare playnly the difference between the Apostasie of Antichrist and Israel Aâ—â— in this that Israels apostasie did not destroy the true constitution of the Church but Antichrists apostasie did rase the true Apostolike constitution For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or proselytes circumcised and so long as they reteyned circumcision in the Land of Canaan they reieyned a true constitution though there apostasie was never so great c. This which you say is a playne difference is none at all it is your false Re. ground that deceaves you The reason of your difference wil not hold for if reteyning of circumcisioÌ„ preserved the constitution of the Church of the old Testament though their apostasie was never so great as you say it did then should the reteyning of baptisme in the greatest apostasie preserve the Churches constitution under the new testament but this you deny ergo the other can not stand Seing baptisme by your owne confession * Char 〈…〉 in the prâ—fâ— is the constition of the Church under the Gospel as circumcision was of the old Church Now if this be true doctrine which you teach I pray you shew us some reason why Apostasie more raseth the constitution of the Church now then it did under the law for circumcision was as corruptly administred by the apostate Israelites as baptisme is by the Antichristians But your iudgement of the Churches constitutioÌ„ fayles you in holding the Sacraments to be the constitution thereof 〈◊〉 them appertayne vnto it yet can they not be counted the whole constitution of the Church And if this should be granted you it would follow that if Israels constitution was carnal for circumcision you say was carnal so should the constitution of the Church of the new testament be carnal also seing baptisme is an external ordinance as well as circumcision was and both alike carnal in that respect And therefore you must eyther renounce this opinioÌ„ or els grant that the constitution of the Church of the old Testament was spiritual then all your building is overthrown But to prove that Israel reteyned a true constitution in their apostacie you alledge Hosea the fourth saying Though their apostasy was never so great thâ— their worship ministerie and government as it is to be seen in Hosea 4. 6. 8. 12. yet they reteyned a true constitution so long as they reteyned circumcision in the land of Canaan I answer although the Lord call Israel his people he doth it in regard of his covenant formerly made to their forefathers not in respect of their present outward estate The Prophet sayth There shall be like people like Preist And in verse 12. they are charged to go a whoring from under their God How can this people be sayd to stand in a true constitution or covenant with God that went a whoring from under their God Hath Rome done any more then this the people * perished for want of knowledge Hose 4. 6 and the Lord reiected their Ministers from being his because they refused Hose 4. 12 knowledge The Israelites did †ask counsel at their stocks and the spirit of fornication caused them to erre they sacrificed to strange Gods c. â—hroÌ„ 13 â— King â— 31. â—hr 11. 14 â— Chron. â—â— â—ers 8. â—rse 9. “ Ieroboam drove away the true Prophets placed Preists after his own devise Israel set up an other governement and * refused the governement of the Lord †had a false ministerie and worship What more can be sayd of Rome then is here sayd of Apostate Israel And what though the Prophet Abijah did not charge Israel with a false coÌ„stitutioÌ„ but with the other particulars before meÌ„tioned yet that sufficeth to declare that they had broken covenaÌ„t with God which what is it els but to depart froÌ„ their primitive constitutioÌ„ Needs a man to say any more to prove that a wise hath violated the bond of mariage but that she hath played the whore and foloweth other lovers and so much have the Prophets testifyed of Israel â— Chro. 15 Azariah beareth witnes against Israel thus †now for a long season Israel hath bene without the true God without Preist to teach and without law And this was â—n the tyme of Asa king of Iuda Also Eliah complayneth †◠〈◊〉 10. that the children of Israel have forsaken the covenant of the Lord and this was in the dayes of Ahab now it cannot be that they that had forsaken Gods covenant could be a true constituted Church so continuing also which were without God and without his Law c. Câ—n you say more agaynst the Antichristians and them you deny to be a true Church and yet you iustify Israel withal her abhominations but let vs consider furder of the difference you make between Israel and Antichristianisme you saye That Antichrist hath not onely set vp a false government c. but also a false constitution Ans of the Church for whereas the true Apostolike constitution was of baptised Disciples that confessed theire sins and their fayth he hath foysted in a false matter of â— Church viz. infants and persons vnbaptised and so a false forme c. I answere 1. that the Apostolike constitution did not shut out the children Re. of beleevers as I have formerly proved 2. I iustify neither the matter nor forme of Antichrists Church neither their ministerie worship nor government they have in all these corrupted the wayes of God But the falshood you tax them of in their matter form is the baptising of infants otherwise if they had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. theire constitution had bene with you Apostolike such a deadly feud have you against infants that to admit them to baptisme makes a false Church For the lawfulnes of baptising children you may be satisfyed before if the eye sight of your soule be not quite put out Your saying that infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole or mad-man or pagan Argues in you the want of spirituall wisdome but that which you drive at in this your bitternes against infants is to prove That the Church of Antichrist is constituted of a false matter viz infants uncapable of baptisme and a false forme viz. infants vnable to enter into the new Testament
opinion of yours can not stand if the essence of baptisme be destroyed For your wish that the Lord would open all our eyes of the separation to see and our harts to understand that all the old Testament was carnal to type out to teach them heavenly things therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs the new Testament c. It hath pleased God and we are thankful for it to open our eyes to discern of your carnal doctrine to understaÌ„d the truth which you labor to obscure by your straÌ„ge expositioÌ„s As for the old Test which you cal carnal the church carnal I tel you agayn and againe that al the ordinances under the old testament were spiritual in their ordination and right vse as the †Rom. 7 law it self is holy spiritual and therefore are called “ Heb. â— ordinances of religion and the Tabernacle Mikdasch to teach that it was of an holy vse for the Lord. The old †Ioh. 1â— Ephe. â— 19. 3. 1 Cor. 10 4. Eph. 4 Church also was a spiritual house notwithstanding that the first testament had ordinances of religion which did shadow forth things to come for in substance both it and the Church under the Gospel are * Heb. 1. 10. the same onely differing in the outward administration of the covenant To the former Church holy things were administred under types and figures to the latter more simply and in the playn manifestation of the truth Now to prove your carnal and typicall Church you say The matter of the old Church was a carnal Israelite and the forme carnal circumcision Re. a carnal seal Gen. 17. 10-14 But the matter of the Church of the new Testament is a true Israelite the forme is the circumcision of the hart a new creature the holy spirit of promise whereby we are sealed which is manifested by confession baptism in water Act. 10. 47. Ephe. 1. 13. Gal. 3. 27. 6. 15. Io. 3. 5. Mat. 3. 6. RoÌ„ 10. 9. Act 8. 36. 37. c. Concerning your carnal matter and forme I haue answered pag. 12. and have also proved that God did require of that his people Israel to be †Exo. â— holy and “ RoÌ„ 2. 29. Dâ— 10. 16 Jer. 4. 4 Ans spiritual And for the forme of the old Church I have shewed likewise that they became * Gen. Deut. 2â— 10 15. a Church people of God by vertue of Gods covenant made with them wherevnto circumcision was added as a seal to coÌ„firme the same which they also received pag. 12. 13. 23. c. The form of the Church can never be wanting the Church continuing to be a Church but circuÌ„cision may be wanting and was wanting to all the Israelites 〈◊〉 in the wildernes by all that space of 40. yeres and yet I hope they were 〈…〉 bers of his “ Psal 43. Church all that time notwithstanding That which you set downe for the forme of the new testament viz. Circumcision of the hart a new creature and the spirit of Christ is internal proper to every true member both of the old Church and new yea this forme if it be so called belongs to Gods people in Babylon and to all the members of the invisible Church but that outward forme of a visible Church which we are to know it by must be visible and such as we can discerne them to be a people of God from all other assemblies But this new creature and inward graces you wil say are manifested by confession and baptisme in water so may it also where baptisme is not had as it might be in Israel when they could not have circumcision Also the forme of the Church must be one indivisible thing common to the whol that gives the being thereof as before I have observed but confession and baptisme as it is particularly applyed to every member as to the * Eunuch Paul c. so may it rest in one man if all the rest should dye or fall away who could â—ct 8. â— 9. 18 not be a Church and yet he hath that which you set down to be the form of the Church Wherefore Gods people ioyned together in the fellowship of the Gospel must have one general form whereby they receive the denominatioÌ„ of a Church that is their solemn eÌ„tring into coÌ„munioÌ„ vnder the covenant of the Lord vniting together to walk in all his wayes to be his â—eu 29. â— 13. â— 18. 20 â—i 1. 5. â— 2. 42 â—ifferenc â—he preâ— people which all that ar afterward †added to the Church must promise to observe And such a coÌ„munion do we hold for a Church so “ did you For as many stones may be heweÌ„ squared so be fit matter for an house yet have not those stones the denomination of an house vntil they be ioyned together in one forme No more people confessing Christ are to beheld a visible Church vntill they be ioyned together in such a forme as Christ hath commaunded But to follow you in your comparison of these two Churches speaking of the Iewes thus you say Their carnall Church in the matter and forme came by carnall genealogie and so they all of them were gendered vnto bondage vnder the rudiments of the world Gal. 4. 24 -25 vnder the carnal Testament Our Church in the matter forme thereof is by spirituall generation that is the genealogie of the faithful of Abraham the father of vs all Gal 3. 7. 9. 14. RoÌ„ 4. 10. 11. Their parents in that carnal Church was carnal Abraham and carnal Agar c. our spiritual parent is AbrahaÌ„ spiritual c. Their Ministery was a carnal Ministery by carnal genealogie c. First I deny that eyther the matter or forme of the Church of the â—â— Iewes came by carnal genealogie as you apply it They were made a Church and people of God through the everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham and his seede els could not the Proselyts and their children have bene matter of that old Church seing they descended not by carnall genealogie from Abraham Agayne that Church must be of the same nature with the covenant which gives the being thereof but this †Deut. 13. coÌ„f wâ— Luke 1. 7â— 73. 74. Cor 6. 1â— covenant is spirituall Ergo the Church also is spirituall That place of Gal. 4. 24. 25. which you cyte to prove that old Church to be carnal you missaply as before I have shewed pag 14. Secondly I deny that Hagar was the mother of the Israelites after the flesh though Abraham was their father neyther was Ismael the type of the Israelits as they were by nature the seede of Abraham but of such Israelits and others vnder the Gospel that by the works of the law sought to be iustified whereby they came in bondage to the law as the Apostle witnesseth See the exposition of Gal. 4. 24. 25. in pag. 14.
his use unto such as Acts. 8. 37. 2. â—1 44. Cor. 10. 3 repenting turne to the true church of Christ because baptisme is an ordinance of the new Testament appointed by the Lord himself And though the beleeving Iewes were in Christ members of his mysticall body and their circumcision a seal of the righteousnes of their fayth yet was their fayth in †Christ to come and circumcision did seal up unto them Christ to come And therefore al this being but by fayth in the Messiah to come it was necessarie that they should also receive him now being come and be baptised into his name if they would continue members in his body And so this may answer you why Iohn Christ and his disciples did not admit the Iewes as members of the church of the Gospell with out confession of fayth in CHRIST now come and Baptisme in his name And yet we may receive into our Church them that have been baptised in the Apostate Churches without iterating of baptisme upon the confession of their fayth and repentance Neyther is this to offer indignitie to the LORDS ordinances in the old TESTAMENT as you do seeme to charge us for wee honour them in their place and right use as the Lord then appointed them and your self I suppose wil not say that you offer indignitie to those ordinances of the Lord although you acknowledg that baptisme received in Popery is not be to repeated being administred to such as are of yeares upon their owne profession of fayth Agayne c. I deny that ever the English nation or any one of our predecessors were of Re. the fayth of Christ shew it if you can but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came and put vpon vs her false baptism And therefore though the Romanes might plead this yet England cannot plead it and so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing and our case simply Paeganisme If al this were graunted that you say yet is the state of England in as Ans good case as Rome seing she by your own confession hath Rome for her mother †Ezech 44. and as the mother so is her Daughter If England partake with Rome in her Apostacy and whoredomes she must nedes be a member of her But I pray you Sir wil you admit of that baptisme in Rome without new baptising of such as shal come from thence if you do you overthrow your owne position viz That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme And if you doe not why put you this dissimilitude betwene England and Rome which serves not to the question in hand But you desyre me to shew if I can that the Englishe nation or any one of our predecessors were of the fayth of Christ it may be I cannot shew that any of them were Anabaptists before you which you falsly call the fayth of Christ but I can shew to them that wil heare that our English nation receaved the fayth before Rome fel into this Apostacy First Gildas affirmeth * Act. Monuâ— Book 2. p. 95. Gildas liâ— de vict Aurelij Ambrosâ— that Britayne receaved the Gospel in the tyme of Tiberius the Emperour vnder whome Christ suffered And then was not Rome “ Rom 1. apostate And further he sayth That Ioseph of Aremathea after the dispersion of the Iewes was sent of Philippe the Apostle from France to Britayne about the yeare of our Lord 63. And remayned in Britayne all his time who with his fellowes layed the first foundation of Christian faith among the Britayne people 2 †Tertul. con Indeos Tertullian testifyeth how the Gospell was dispersed abroad by the sound of the Apostles there reconeth up the Medes Persians Parthians and dwellers in Mesopotamia Iury Cappadocia Pontus Asia Phrygia Egypt Pamphilia with many more at length commeth to the coast of the Morianes and all the borders of Spaine with divers nations of France And there amongest 〈◊〉 other reciteth all the parts of Britayne and reporteth the same to be subiect to Christ And also reckoneth vp the places of Sarmatia of the Danes the Gerrmanes Schythians with many other Provinces and Isles in all which places sayth he reigneth the name of Christ which now beginneth to be common 3. †Origine sayth that Britayne did consent to Christian religion 4. * Nicephorus saith That Symon Origin â— 4. in â—…ch â—icep li. â— â—â—0 Zelotes did spread the gospel of Christ to the west Ocean and brought the same into the Isles of Britayne 5. In the time of the Abbot of Cluniake the Scots did celebrate their Easter not after the Romane maner but after the Greeks as he testifieth to Barnard Which argueth that they had received the faith and not from Rome 6. Also it appeareth by a letter of Elutherius Bishop of Rome written to Lucius King of Britayne anno 169. that Lucius had received the faith of Christ in his Land before he sent to Elutherius for the Romane lawes for so do the words of the letter purport which are these Ye have receiued of late through Gods mercie in the Realme of Britayne the law and faith of Christ you have with you within the Realme both the partes of the scriptures out of them by Gods grace take ye a law and by that law through Gods sufferance rule your kingdome of Britayne c. And thus was fulfilled in Britayne as wel as in Isa 42. 4 other lands the words of the Prophet who sayth “ he shall not fayle nor be discouraged speaking of Christ til he hath set iudgement in the earth and the Iles shall waite for his law And it is also further written of this King Lucius that he did not coÌ„pel the heathen but imbraced such as by the word were converted Which is to be observed concerning the constitution of the Churches then For it is sayd that he founded many Churches and gave great ritches and liberties to the same And because of this imbracing of the faith it caused those great troubles that fel out between the Britaynes which were Christians professing the faith and the infidels who brought in the Romanes which exercised much crueltie amongest the Christians In Dioclesians tyme the Churches of Britayne were greviously persecuted many sufferred for the faith of Christ as Albanus Iulius Aaron Amphibulus many more And thus if it please you to take notice from these writters you may see that this English nation were of such as professed the faith of Christ and and not of a Pagan race til Rome came and put vppon vs false baptisme as as you say neyther that our case is simply paganisme if these things be thus as is aforesayd Next whereas I sayd that repentance of such as were baptised in Apostate Churches was sufficient without rebaptization for their admittance into the church c. You answer That the Churches of Antichrist were false and Rep. the churche