true the Apostles were to teach those among the Gentiles of ripe yeares and make them disciples before they or their children were to be baptized because they and their children were out of covenant and so uncapable of the seales and might not be received into covenant themselves or their children untill they gave up themselves and theirs unto Christ by faith and repentance which they could not ordinarily have wrought in them but by hearing the Gospel preached Yet when parents had given up their names unto Christ their children being also given up to Christ by them were capable of Baptisme As by Abrahams giving up himself unto God in Covenant not onely he but also his children and those that were as his children were received into Covenant and had the seale thereof administred to them by vertue of the unchangeable tenour of the Covenant of grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 as hath been said and God willing shall more fully be shewed Therefore the Commission which was given to the Disciples makes nothing against baptizing the children of the faithfull which are already in covenant with God though they have not heard the word preached Answer 3 Thirdly Yea I conceive it is no absurditie but a sound truth to say that infants of beleeving parents are made disciples of God and Christ so that the Apostles in making parents disciples that gave up themselves and their children unto God in that act made their clildren also disciples in two respects First in that parents gave them up unto God promising and purposing to bring them up in the knowledge of God so soone as they should be capable of outward teaching This Abraham was bound unto by vertue of the Covenant that as God would be the God of his seed so he should command and teach his children and houshold after him that they should keep the way of the Lord c. Gen. 18.19 So all the Israelites Exod. 12.26.26 27. Deut. 6.6 7. And the like obligation lies upon Christian parents Ephes 6.4 so that now they are the disciples of Christ in respect of Gods obligation and the parents promise purpose and prayer Secondly they may be said to be Christs disciples in that they are now under the teaching of God and Christ who hath promised to teach all that are in covenant all the children of the Church or faithfull at least some of all sorts from the least to the greatest Esa 54.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edoctia Iehova or Edocti Ievovae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord c. All is an universall note implying all sorts sexes ages and conditions of those which were children of the Church or posteritie of the faithfull Ier. 31.34 And they shall teach no more every man his brother saying Know the Lord. For they shall all know me from the least to the greatest of them And so that those which are so little that they are uncapable of the teaching of men are capable and under the promise of Gods teaching To which promises our Saviour having as it seems respect saith Ioh. 6.44 It is written in the Prophets And they shall be all taught of God Every one that hath heard of the Father and learneth cometh unto me So that as there may be outward teaching without inward so there may be inward teaching without the outward Christ saith Whosoever hath heard of the Father not whosoever hath heard of the Preacher for many may heare of the Preacher and yet not come to God and some may be taught of God that are uncapable of the Preachers instruction though the inward and outward both be ordinary to those who being of ripe yeares are effectually called So that sith God promiseth that in the time of the Gospel All even from the least unto the greatest shall become his disciples why should the infants of beleevers be excluded seeing they are capable of divine instruction and the operation of the holy Ghost even from their mothers wombe Luk. 1.15 I have stood the longer on the answering of this Scripture objected Because these answers may serve for all the other reasons and Scriptures you bring to confirme your last Argument against baptizing of children Where having heaped up many Scriptures needlesly you talk your pleasure and triumph as if the cause were your owne as if your grounds were unmoveable and your conclusion unquestionable But though you plead against Childrens Baptisme you should remember that you dispute not with children Neither have we need or will By wit and sophistrie to goe about to elude any truth and justifie any errour though never so grosse and absurd as you say Which imputation of yours it may seeme is you last shift to answer those that will not be carried about with every winde of your vaine doctrine and subscribe to your dictates Now for what followeth I will not proceed in maintaining those further objections which either you devise of your owne head or raise out of others words to whose principles we are not bound your answers whereunto either doe not concerne us or if any thing therein seeme to beare shew of truth and weight it may be sufficiently answered from what hath beene already laid downe Therefore I will not trouble my selfe with the repetition of the same things So forbearing any further to meddle with your confident conclusions Apology for your expressions or other impertinent digressions wherewith you fill up paper I come to give our reasons for the lawfulnesse and requisitenesse of baptizing the infants of Christian parents intending to consider all along your answers you have made to them Arg. 1 Our first Argument therefore shall be To whom the spirituall and invisible grace represented signified and sealed in baptisme belongeth by vertue of Gods promise to them baptisme it selfe belongeth Act. 2.38 39. But to the children or infants of parents beleeving or within Covenant belongeth by vertue of Gods promise the spirituall grace represented sealed and signified in baptisme to wit the teaching of God and the Spirit of God which doth include all the spirituall blessings signified by baptisme as sanctification or regeneration wherein is comprehended virtuall faith and therein being besprinkled with the bloud of Christ and pardon of sinnes Esa 54.13 Ier. 31.34 Ioel 2.28 Es 59.21 Act. 2.39 Therefore Baptisme belongeth to infants of Christian parents Both the premisses me thinkes should be undeniable with Christians as being built on the word and so the conclusion certaine But because I would cleare this Argument against the cavils of the captious and doubts of the ignorant or scrupulous I will adde some what by way of explanation and confirmation The proposition for ought I know it is not doubted of by any It is taken as an unquestionable principle by A. R. and many of his arguments against baptizing infants are built upon this ground because they have not regeneration faith remission of sinnes
tenets practise and worship and not take them up meerely of custome because they are generally received But it is not safe for people to leave the Ministery of the word and hearken to none but those that wil humour them in their opiniōs say as they say It is an argument that peoples opinions and practises are workes of darknesse when they refuse to come to the light to have them tryed How miserably may Satan and his instruments abuse silly soules if they can perswade them to come into no company but such where they may be confirmed in their errours I would intreat such to take heede lest being drawn to renounce their Baptisme received in infancie which is the drift of these men by perswading them that it is no Baptisme and keeping their Children unbaptized they cast themselves and their posterity out of Covenant reject God the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost to whom they were consecrated in Baptisme by their parents and so cast away their Christianity their soules and salvation all at once and not onely their owne but their posterities too It cannot but bee very offensive to God whereas he hath offered himselfe to be our God from our infancy and taken us into his family having made the promise and covenant to our parents and us their children and sealed the same Covenant to us and really bestowed on us at least some of us and is ready to bestow on us all if we be not wanting to our selves what was in Baptisme sealed namely remission of sinnes regeneration and the spirit of adoptions if all this notwithstanding we shall hearken to the enemy of Gods glorious grace and our soules greatest comfort perswading us that neither wee were in Covenant with God in our infancy by vertue of the Covenant made with our parents neither our children in any better condition then the children of Turkes and Pagans untill the time of actuall faith If we set so little by Gods ancient mercies conveyed to our parents and us successively for many generations according to his mercifull promise and covenant let us take heede lest wee provoke him to cast us off and give us over to strong delusions because we have followed lying vanities and forsaken our owne mercies Secondly seeing the children of the faithfull have right to the promises of those blessings which are sealed in Baptisme and not onely the beleeving Governours of families themselves but also the whole families were baptized the children of the faithfull are holy within covenant and have right to Baptisme as well as infants in the Iewish Church had right to Circumcision upon which and the like grounds it hath beene proved that they ought to be baptized This should call upon Christian parents that have or shall dedicate their children to God in Baptisme and all the posterity of the faithfull that have beene consecrated to God in their infancy by Baptisme both highly to esteeme this priviledge and ancient faederall mercy of God so that they doe not suffer themselves to bee cheated of it by impostors And so thankfully holily and fruitfully to use it that it may be a meanes to strengthen their faith and confirme them in the assurance of Gods love and a speciall spurre to holinesse and curbe to restraine from profanenesse and by all meanes take heede of so abusing it that it should be an occasion of Gods dishonor by causing this holy ordinance to be blasphemed the offence stumbling of others and their own greater condemnation And this they should the rather look unto First because so many Christians by profession bring their children to baptisme meerly of custom neither regarding the grounds on which nor the end for which nor the manner how they ought to do this neither considering the mercies which God offers to them and their children in this sacred ordinance nor yet the duties whereunto they and their children are herein obliged as if Gods ordinances whereunto he cals us the priviledges which he bestowes on us and the duties whereunto he bindes us were but matters of fashion or sport And in like manner many when they come to yeares of discretion no more regard their baptisme then a trifle hardly so much as inquiring why they were baptized Secondly because as the Apostle said of circumcision Rom. 2.25 that it became no circumcision if men kept not the Law so may I say Baptisme becomes no baptisme to those which walke not according to the Gospel Let us not thinke that the meere worke done makes us sufficient Christians If men perswade themselves they may live ignorantly profanely and carnally and yet hope to be saved because they have been baptized let them read 1 Cor. 10. vers 1. to the 12. for confutation of their errour and discovery of the dangerousnesse and damnablenesse of that opinion Thirdly as the name of God was blasphemed by the Gentiles through the vicious lives of the Iews Rom. 2.24 who were by circumcision consecrated to God and made his people by profession so is God and Christ blasphemed and this holy Ordinance of Baptisme spoken evill of by occasion of the wickednesse of many that have beene baptized For not to speake of the blasphemy of Turkes Pagans and Papists cast upon the Christian Religion for the profanenesse of Protestants doe not we heare that some hence make bold to speak evill of the Baptisme of Children as if it were the cause of all profanenesse and impietie that is in the Church which though it be a most false calumnie and I know not how it can be excused from blasphemy For are not many of those that were baptized in infancie pious wise and garcious Chrstians How can baptisme then in infancie be the cause of profanenesse seeing where the cause is it produceth the effect Were not there among the Iewes as many profane ignorant and disordered persons as among us shall men say that circumcising their children in infancie was the cause of it that were plaine blasphemie Was there not notorious profanenesse in the Primitive Church as among the Corinthians c. Was baptisme whether of infants which yet I thinke they will not say or of professours of faith and repentance the cause of it This imputation a Christian eare will abhorre Is not the word of God a savour of death and occasion of hardning to some the Sacrament of the Lords Supper an occasion to some of temporall and spirituall judgements Yet what Christian dare say that these are the causes of sinnes in the Church Yet I say though this be a false and wicked imputation that the baptizing of infants is the cause of evils in the Church let them looke to it that give occasion of such blasphemy Fourthly all Christians should be stirred up the rather to make a good improvement of this priviledge of Christian parents in having God not onely for their God but also for the God of their children and so of the baptizing of their children because we see Satan
made concerning the thing signified viz. powring his Spirit which promise belonged to them and their children therefore they should receive the signe which God had instituted to signifie it which may seeme the most genuine resolution of the Text. Or secondly This reason may be understood as brought both to the exhortation Repent and be baptized and the promise And you shall receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the holy Ghost for considering that baptisme and the gift of the holy Ghost are correlatives as the signe and thing signified the reason well may that I say not necessarily must be referred to both Or thirdly if we grant that it is immediately referred to the foregoing promise yet it must necessarily be taken as a reason of the exhortation at least mediately for seeing the promise of remission of sinnes and the holy Ghost is brought as a reason to perswade them to be baptized and these words For the promise is to you c. is brought as a confirmation of the promise Causa causae est causa causati and considering that the cause of the cause is the cause of the caused and the reason of the reason is the reason of the thing proved by that reason this For the promise c. must needs be brought as a reason why they should be baptized and so those who bring this as a reason that the Apostle gives why they should be baptized joyning the thing argued and the Argument together and omitting that which was interposed as not pertinent to the purpose are quit from your slander of false alledging Scripture and you convinced to be a false accuser of the brethren The next Objection that you frame I owne not Assenting that it is true that neither these Iewes nor the Gentiles were in Covenant untill they had entred into the same by repentance and faith seeing that the old Covenant was now abrogated and the Gentiles had beene hitherto foreiners so that you will acknowledge that whensoever Iewes or Gentiles should receive the promise by faith and repentance it did not onely belong unto them but also to their children For though it be expressed to the Iews That the promise was to them and their children it is to be understood to hold of the Gentiles also For now the partition wall was removed and the Iewes had no priviledge for their childrens having right unto the promise any more then the children of beleeving Gentiles Thus farre I have digressed in answer to some objections made against the Scripture which was brought for the proofe of my proposition though it might be handled as well in the assumption yet because I have more to say on the assumption I brought these objections under the proposition The summe of the proposition must be remembred to be this Where is right to the spirituall blessing promised in the word and sealed in baptisme there is right to baptisme which stands firme against whatsoever hath beene objected I come to the assumption The places of Scripture quoted to confirme the assumption have beene spoken of before Onely we may consider now First what things are promised in those Scriptures expresly Secondly what is implied Thirdly to whom these promises are made For the first God promiseth to be their teacher yea though they be uncapable of humane discipline They shall not teach one another but they shall all be taught of God Esa 54.13 Ier. 31.34 Againe that he will give yea powre his Spirit and that his Spirit shall be upon them Ioel 2.28 Es 59.21 Secondly under these two expressions yea each of them severally are comprehended all those things that are requisite for our being in Covenant with God and all those spirituall graces that give us right to the seale of entrance as first Regeneration which is the proper and certaine worke of the spirit of sanctification Ioh. 3.5 which spirit of regeneration to be signified by the water of baptisme may appeare by that Scripture Ioh. 3.5 Tit. 3.5 Againe this implies communion with Christ which must needs be by faith actuall or virtuall Ioh. 6.45 Heb. 11.6 For whosoever is taught of God and hath the Spirit of Christ must needs have Christ and so it follows that such have right unto remission of sinnes Thirdly these promises belong unto the children of the Church the sonnes and daughters of the faithfull all of them from the least to the greatest the seede of the faithfull and their seeds seed as may appeare in the Scriptures quoted and here must be comprehended infants as well as others who have right unto the promise by vertue of their parents entering into Covenant with God as Act. 2.39 The Apostle bids them repent and be baptized and so enter into Covenant for the promise saith he is unto you and your children so that there can no reason be given why infants should be excluded from these promises unlesse any one shall say that infants are uncapable of these gifts which this A. R. seemes to hold in many places of his booke which opinion is more worthy detestation then confutation Are not infants capable of sinne Psal 51.5 and therefore of sanctification shall the first Adams disobedience be available to bring guilt and defilement and not Christs obedience to procure remission and sanctification Or is there no remedie for the poore infants of beleeving parents but if they die before they come to the use of reason they must necessarily perish as being born the children of wrath and being uncapable of remedie Or doth this man hold that they are brutes without soule in that he compares baptizing of infants to circumcising of Camels or Asses 2 Part pag. 21. Are not these profane Atheisticall conceits contrary to the promises of God cleare testimonie of Scripture and example as of Iohn the Baptist who was sanctified and moved by the Spirit even in his mothers wombe Quest But what must we then beleeve that all the children of Christians are already indued with the holy Ghost taught of God and sanctified c. so soone as borne or in their infancie Answ It is enough to prove their right to baptisme that they are under the promise and interessed therein by vertue of their parents being at least externally in Covenant so that whether they have already received the Spirit or have a promise thereof it sufficeth to give them a right to the Sacrament As these are bid repent and so come under promise themselves with their children and then be baptized and afterward they shall receive the holy Ghost Quest But must we think that all children of Christian parents that are baptized either have or shall receive the Spirit and so be saved Answ Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles though they were not to beleeve that amongst those multitudes whom they baptized there were none but truely had or should receive the Spirit for it was after proved by the event that many were hypocrites yet they turned away none because by
proved in Abraham Gen. 17.10 11. with whom we read that God first made an expresse and formall Covenant and instituted a signe or seale to signifie enterance into that Covenant and distinguish the Church from other Societies And this was not required of Abraham alone and his family but of all foreiners also that so soone as they should enter into covenant they should have this signe and seale of admittance Exod. 12.48 And still in the New-Testament as soone as men had given evidence of their entrance into the new Covenant they were baptized Now here is to be noted that the Covenant of grace was ever one and the same for substance though for the manner it have beene variously dispensed Heb. 11. through the whole Chapter and Heb. 13.8 Ephes 4.5 as shall be shewed God willing more fully hereafter Secondly before Abrahams time we read not of any distinct and full manifestation of the Covenant of grace expresly in the termes of a Covenant nor of any gathering of a Church out of the world as a distinct body whereunto the faithfull were to joyn themselves nor of any visible seale or sacred signe of admission into Covenant with God though God had a people in covenant from the beginning yet the covenant was more sparingly obscurely and implicitly revealed and no distinctive outward note of entrance into covenant that we read of appointed Thirdly since the Covenant was made with Abraham and the signe of circumcision instituted in the old and new Covenant there hath still beene a solemne signe or Sacrament of admission to which all that were in Covenant had right so that Abraham that was the first expresse Covenanter is called the father of the faithfull or of those that were in covenant with God and is to be imitated by the faithfull in all those things that are essentiall to the covenant For the Assumption The words of the Text are cleare First that God made the Covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 Secondly that we should not thinke that that externall covenant belonged onely to those that imitated his faith it is made with his naturall seed all that should be begotten of him Gen. 17.10 Even all that seed wherein God promised to make Abraham fruitfull should so farre be in Covenant as to have right to the onward signe untill they should fall away from the outward covenant by wilfull Apostasie vers 6 7 10. Thirdly that you may see this was not peculiar to Abraham and his posteritie alone that proceeded from his loines the same is commanded concerning his servants borne in his house or bought with his money that the males who onely were capable should receive the seale of the Covenant vers 12 13. Fourthly that you may know that this did not belong onely to Abrahams family but was a thing common to all that should enter into covenant viz. that their children should be acknowledged to be in Covenant also by having the seale of entrance administred to them see Exod. 12.48 Lastly that we may understand that this was not proper to the old covenant in the Legall dispensation but common to the Covenant of grace under whatsoever dispensation as well Evangelicall as Legall a promise of the same priviledge is made to beleeving parents even from the time of the Gospel Esa 50.20 21. compared with Rom. 11.26 27. A. R. Now I come to your answers which is That neither Abraham nor his seed was circumcised because the Covenant was made with him Answ Who denies this or what is this to the purpose we know that God might have made a Covenant without a seale if it had pleased him They were circumcised because God did institute circumcision for a seale and appointed it to those that were admitted into Covenant The faithfull we know were in covenant before Abrahams time though there be no formall or full expression of the covenant nor of any signe or Sacrament of entering thereinto You adde a reason of your assertion For the covenant was made with Abraham above twenty yeares before circumcision was instituted as may appeare by comparing Gen. 12.2 3. with Gen. 16.3 17.25 Answ No such thing appeareth in the places cited It appeareth indeed that God had made a promise to Abraham long before of making him a great Nation and blessing him but there is no word of the Covenant or that God would be a God to him and his seed in those places before Gen. 17.2 though we know that Abraham from his first call was in covenant with God as were Abel Enoch Noah and all the faithfull before Abraham as the covenant is generally taken But here we speake of the Covenant in regard of its expresse manifestation and speciall administration with Abraham and afterward since the institution of a seale thereunto And it appears that in Gen. 17. vers 2. is the first expression of Gods making a covenant with Abraham at which time also circumcision was instituted And if God had made a covenant never so long before with Abraham neither he not his seed must have used circumcision untill God had instituted it But after God had appointed it all that were in covenant were to be circumcised that were capable even all males of eight dayes old and upward You say The covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man but for his being such a faithfull man whom the Lord was pleased to chuse and set out as a patterne to all beleevers Rom. 4.23 24. and to be a father of many Nations Rom. 4.17 18. and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed Act. 5.25 13.23 to wit in Christ who was to come of his flesh Answ We know that the Covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithfull man neither yet for his being such a faithfull man c. as you would have it But Abraham was made by God a faithfull man and taken into covenant of Gods free grace that he might be a patterne to future beleevers and a father of many Nations c. Abrahams faithfulnesse so qualified was not the cause why God took him into covenant But Abrahams faithfulnesse acceptance into covenant and being a patterne of beleevers a father of many Nations in whose seed all Nations are blessed were effects of Gods good pleasure and free grace Secondly neither doe those places of Scripture produced by you yeeld the least shew of proofe that Abraham was taken into covenant and his seed for being such a faithfull man as God was pleased to choose and set out a patterne to all beleevers c. Thirdly seeing Abraham was taken into covenant that he might be or at the most as being I dare not say with you for being such a faithfull man whom the Lord was pleased to choose and set out a patterne to all beleevers and to be a father of many Nations and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed then
fancies of your owne braine that you have vented before I will not think it burdensom to answer you though in some things the same for substance that hath been said before That you say viz. the Iewish Church-state and old Covenant being constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham Answ I pray you can you tell what you meane when you say that the Iewes Church-state was constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham I am sure you speake not according to Scripture that I say not nor according to sense or reason As far as I can apprehend when you say it was built upon nature If you have any meaning in these words and doe not let them fall from you at randome it must be understood either first that nature was the ground cause of this covenant or secondly that naturall blessings were onely bestowed in this covenant or thirdly that this covenant was made onely with the naturall children of Abraham all which are manifestly false For first if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature so that nature was the cause of it you must either meane the nature of God as contradistinguish't to his will and good pleasure or the nature of Abraham The nature of God was not the cause of it for what God doth by nature his nature being the cause he doth eternally necessarily unchangeably so as he cannot but doe it as to know himselfe and all things knowable to love himselfe Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant it is as false for there was nothing in Abraham by nature that put difference between him and others Deut. 7. Iosh 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onely bestowed temporall blessings in this covenant that is palpably and execrably false also God was their God in the old covenant circumcised their heart to love him feare him and obey him and trust in him he gave remission of sinnes and sanctification under that Covenant which were not naturall blessings Or thirdly if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall posteritie there is no appearance of truth in it for bond-men and those that were bought with money and Proselytes of any nation or stock whatsoever were admitted into this Covenant Gen. 17. Exod. 12. You adde This to wit the Christian Church-state upon grace and the spirituall seed of Abraham Answ So was the old Covenant to use your phrase constituted on grace Gods free favour was the cause of it and the graces of the Spirit bestowed as truly under it though not so plentifully and clearely as now as these phrases expresse Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5 I am God all-sufficient I will be thy God I will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God c. My Covenant was with him of life and peace Secondly if you meane by the spirituall seed of Abraham Iesus Christ the seed of the woman that was to breake the Serpents head Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2. in whom the Covevant was made with our first parents fallen at the seeing of whose day Abraham rejoyced in whom God promises that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him who is the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world who is the onely Mediatour between God and man and by whom alone Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God You adde That therefore termed Israel according to the flesh and of the circumcision of the flesh this Israel according to the spirit and of the circumcision of the heart Rom. 2.28 29. 4 6 7 8. Col. 2.11 Answ No such thing appeareth in those Scriptures Take heed how you falsifie Gods word would you perswade men that God gave not circumcision of heart under the old Covenant that because all were not right Israelites that were Abrahams seed therefore none were that because he is not a Iew that is one outwardly therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews because true Christians are circumcised with a circumcision without hands therefore the Iewes were not circumcised but onely with hands not spiritually Let any man examine those Scriptures and see whether from thē it can be gathered that all under the old covenant had onely circumcision of the flesh and that all under the new covenant have circumcision of the spirit It will appeare to any judicious Reader that here are two or three notorious falsehoods with a grosse perverting of Scripture in this short sentence The first That the Iewish Church-state or old covenant is called Israel according to the flesh or circumcision of the flesh but the Gospel-state Israel according to the spirit or the circumcision of the heart wherein are infolded more untruths then one Secondly that therefore they are so called because that was constituted on the naturall seed of Abraham c. The abuse of Scripture appeares that these Scriptures neither prove the antecedent nor sequele nor consequent neither make any thing for his purpose as if it would not be overtedious to stand upon and needlesse to any men of judgement might be shewed But such uttering of falshoods and then propping them with Scriptures to abuse the simple is ordinary almost in every page and sometimes frequent in one page as may appeare by the answer though I have not said so much in expresse words before neither should have said so now but that I consider such is the weaknesse of some Readers that what they read if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof though never so impertinently abusively and perversely they thinke it must goe for currant Thirdly that you say a state of bondmen or servants so as in that state an heire or beleever differed nothing from a servant though he were lord of all c. Gal. 4.7 Answ That under the Old Testament the Church of the Iews was an heire yea lord of all though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie nothing differing from a servant as being held under the tutourship of the Law this I say is sufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes and the Christian Church is one and the same for substance and under the same Covenant in all essentialls For all know that a sonne and heire is the same for substance and in person at three yeares old and at thirty though altered in some accidentall priviledges at riper yeares And hence your fancie of the Iewish Church being constituted on nature is quite overthrowne For if the Iewish Church was heire and lord of all beleevers were then children though in minoritie and under tutourship How were they children not by nature for Christ onely is the Sonne of God by nature therefore by grace and so they were under a Covenant of Grace Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow those errours that ignorant men would abuse and force it