Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	believe_v	faith_n	justification_n	2,510	5	8.9827	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19033	The plea for infants and elder people, concerning their baptisme, or, A processe of the passages between M. Iohn Smyth and Richard Clyfton wherein, first is proved, that the baptising of infants of beleevers, is an ordinance of God, secondly, that the rebaptising of such, as have been formerly baptised in the apostate churches of Christians, is utterly unlawful, also, the reasons and objects to the contrarie, answered : divided into two principal heads, I. Of the first position, concerning the baptising of infants, II. Of the second position, concerning the rebaptising of elder people.	Clyfton, Richard, d. 1616.	1610 (1610)	STC 5450; ESTC S1572	214,939	244

meaning better then you do For Paul speaketh of Abrahams justification by fayth Rom. 4. 3. 11. asketh how fayth was imputed unto him when he was circumcised or uncircumcised ver 10. answereth when he was uncircumcised Then preventing a double objection that might be made thus 1. If Abraham received the righteousn●s of faith when he was uncircumcised then his example seemes to belong to them that are uncircumcised No sayth the Apostle for he received circumcision 2. It might be objected yet it seemeth that he received circumcision in vayn seing he had received the righteousnes of fayth before no sayth Paul for he received it as a seal for the confirmation of his fayth which he had in his uncircumcision Then he expresseth the cause both of Abrahams justification by fayth when he was uncircumcised and also that being justified by fayth he received circumcision viz. that he might be the father of al that beleeve being uncircumcised that righteousnes might be imputed unto them also And the father of circumcision not unto them onely which are of the circumcision but also unto them that walk in the steps of the fayth of our father Abraham c. this is the Apostles meaning Now whereas you affirme that circumcision upon Abraham was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcised that beleeve I desire this may be proved according as you mean For the Apostle sayth it not but thus he received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of the fayth which he had for how could Abrahams circumcision that was applied to his particular person seal up justification to us not to himself seeing a seal is a particular applying of the covenant to the partie that is partaker thereof By this your exposition you make Abrahams circumcision to differ from the circumcision of his seed of which difference the Lord spake not a word in the institution thereof nor in any other place Yet you say the righteousnes of fayth is not sealed up to Abrahams particular person but to the uncircumcised that beleeve Which doctrine is very strange that Abrahams circumcision shal seal that to others those uncircumcised not to himself being circumcised you must therefore bring better proofe hereof els your confident affirmation wil be accepted as the facing out of an error As for the cōmon acceptatiō translation of Rom. 4. 11. which you say is the mother of this heresie it is confirmed in these words but unto them also that walk in the stepps of the fayth of our father Abrahā when he was uncircumcised which makes it plaine that the Apostle understood by the righteousnes of fayth Abrahams righteousnes which he by fayth apprehended and which was sealed up unto him by circumcision Againe al the persons of Abrahams familie were not circumcised because of Abrahams fayth but the males onely the males being assumed as types for to teach them figuratively the male Christ So many of Abrahams familie were circumcised as the Lord commanded to the women it was not injoyned and though Christ was typed out in the circumcision of the male yet as it was a sacrament it sealed unto them the righteousnes of fayth and therefore in Genes 17. 10. it is called the covenant because it was a signe thereof sealing unto them remission of sinns and regeneration by fayth in Christ to come And the femal●s were uncircumcised c. to signifie that those that had not the male Christ in them were not fit to be members of the Church of the new Testamentment 1. The females were not accounted as uncircumcised seing they were comprehended under the males and so distinguished from the uncircumcised Gentiles Genes 34. 14. Deut. 7 3. Esa 3 16. 2 I confesse that such as are not in Christ are no fit members of the church but this seemes not the reason why women were not partakers of this sacrament but rather to teach that salvation should come by the male but this alegorising proves nothing Further you say as it was with Abraham and his familie in Circumcision so was it with Lidia c. it is not so I shew the difference in divers particulers 1 They of Abrahams familie were circumcised upon particular precept c. 2. They that ●ere males onely were circumcised c. 3. They that were circumcised of Abrahams familie were al the males being of yeares though never so lewd c. 4. As fayth did not intitle the female to circumcision and as infidelitie did not deprive the male of circumcision so fayth did intitle the female to baptisme in the familie of the Gaylor and ●f Lidia c. To these pretended differences I answer 1. that the precept of sealing the covenant to Abraham is not reapealed onely the ceremonie is changed and that Christ hath given * a cōmaundement for the administring 〈◊〉 28. of the signe as the preaching of the covenant to all nations and by vertue hereof were the families of the Gaylor and Lydia baptised and so it was with Lydia and her family as it was with Abraham and his household els was she not the daughter of Abra. entring into Gods covenāt she hers as Abraham and his entred in seing the holy Ghost saith that the housholdes were baptised without limitation it belongs to you to prove that the children in these families were exempted or els that children are not of the family or els we may not restreyne the Apostles words contrary to the tenure of the first giving of the covenant which was sealed to yonge and old For your first difference I deny that cōmandemēt to be a particular precept to Abraham and his house alone it was also to all beleevers of the Gentiles and their children and so was it a generall precept to the whole Church for the sealing of the covenant though circumcision was proper to the former Church as baptism is to the church of the new testament and so there needed no particular precept for baptising of infants they being cōprehended under the general For the 2. difference that the ●males onely were to be circumcised I answer this was according to the Lords dispensation then to set his signe on the males now on both sexes but neither then nor now to restraine it from infants Concerning your 3. difference I ask you where the scripture sayth that any wicked persons were circumcised in Abrahams familie Dare you condemne that house which the Lord doth iustifie see Gen. 18. 19. where the Lord saith I know that he wil commaund his sonnes and his household after him that they keep the way of the Lord c. and that infants being males in Abrahams house were circumcised you can not deny for the commandement is that every man child be circumcised and Abraham did so Gen. 17. 12 23. And therefore you must prove that the children in Lydiaes the Gaylors families were not baptised els you shew no difference For your 4. difference it stands upon an unequal

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. ●1 ●●ck 19 ● 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 ●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 aser●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 ●ō 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. ● 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. ● of the hypocrites of his tyme. And thus these impossible contra●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. ● 8. 13. You answer that al the children of the Jewes were borne according to the fl●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. 2● 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 childrē 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 ●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. 3● 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 ●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 therefo●e we also if we wil walke according to it Also your comparison is not equ●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 ● Cor. 1 ● Act. 16. ● 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 corruptiō 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

Re. or example or els you reiect it as Antichristian now y●● being pressed with this Act of Zippora you shew nether nor any reason for the lawfullnes of the fact and yet you defend it answering that you know nothing to the contrary but Zippora might circumcise her son c. What nedes the Scripture to forbid women to circumcise when for the adminisstring of that ceremony God gave cōmaundement that Abrahā the * Gen. 17. 7. ●om p. with ●ers 10-13 ●osuah 5. 2 ● 4 master of the family should circumcise al his males as baptisme is now † Mat. 28. 19. injoyned to the Apostles and Ministers of Christ the which commaundements disable all others whether women or men that have not such calling from God for the administeration therof That Zippora did circumcise her sonne by Moses commaundement appeares not in the Scripture but that “ Exo. 4. 24 ●5 she being greeved at her husbands neglect did it But if Moses ought to do it himselfe the question is whether he might commaund his wife to do it The non-residents in England are condemned for preaching by their substitutes and you dese●d that a woman may be a substitute to administer a sacramēt If Zipporah may circumcise in case of necessitie at the appointment of her husband why may not the midvvives in case of necessitie baptise by the appointment of the Preists You pretend rule but in this you practis● it not 4. I yeeld that the Minister shall not preiudice baptisme if the baptisme be the Ans Lords owne ordinance c. In this we agree that the Minister if he be not lawfully called doth not Rep. so farre preiudice baptisme as to make a nullitie of it what is further here to be answered is done els where The 2 obiection you answer is that although baptisme be administred in a false Church of Antichrist upon an unfit subiect yet it shall not be repeated no more then circumcision in the dayes of Jeroboam c. My words were these That ●epl the children in that apostasie are as fit subiects to receive baptisme as the infants of Israel in the dayes of Jeroboam were to receive circumcision And you pervert my wordes and say that I affirme that although baptisme be administred in a false Church vpon an vnfit subiect Is this to confesse that infants are vnfit subiects to say they were as fit as the infants of Israel Your self doth acknowledge that the infants of ISRAEL in that Apostasie were capable of circumcision I sayd that the infants of the Antichristians were as capable as they not approving of the state of eyther but arguing that if the former might stand for circumcision then also the other without iterating the state of the Antichristians being alike to the apostate Israelites but I will come to your further answer which is this I say that the Israelites infants in there defection were the subiect that God commaunded Ans to be circumcised so are not the infants in Antichristianisme both for that they are 1. infants 2. members of a false Church 3. the seede of vnbeleevers That the Israelites infants in their defectiō were cōmaūded to be circūcised Repl. can not be proved God is no approver of apostasie When he gave to Abraham and his seed circumcision he did intend that it should seale his covenant unto them and that they should continue therein and not apostate and therefore to speak properly the Israelites in their apostasie could be no fit subiects although upon their repentance the Lord let stand their circumcision And so if the state of this people be rightly cōsidered the dissimilitude between their circumcision and baptisme in Antichristian assemblies wil not prove such as you pretend Your reasons to prove infants in Antichristianisme to be no fit subiects of baptisme are of no weight The first of them is answered in the former part of this writing where is proved that infants are fit subiects of baptisme Concerning the 2. I might ask you why you make infants members of Antichrists Church and deny them to be members of true Churches but to let this passe I answere that this reason is of no force seing your self confesseth that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes c. it had bene true baptisme To the third I answer that the infants in Antichristianisme are no more the seed of unbeleevers then the infants in Ieroboams Church were the seed of unbeleevers both were the seed of apostates and that is all you can say of them Their parents although apostating from many truthes and polluted with mens inventions yet were not fallen from all profession of Iesus Christ but stil did and do acknowledge salvation by him retayne and beleeve many mayne grounds of faith excellent truthes so many as the Lord hath his people in * Rev. 18. Babylon brought to the knowledge of God by those doctrines there taught And therefore thus I think of such apostates that in respect of their outward standing they remaine in apostasie having forsaken many truthes pollute Gods ordinances practise the cursed inventions of men yet professing faith in God in Iesus Christ though corruptly I can not hold them as infidels simply but as the Israelites in their apostasie and their seed may rather be termed the seed of Apostates then of infidels or vnbeleevers And whereas you say that the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ did ●● truely belong to the Gentiles after the coming of Christ as it did to the Israelits though both in defection I deny it for the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelits the carnal seed of Abraham even in their parents Apostacy and the spiritual covenant did never appertayne to the Apostate parents 2. much les to the infants of them c. 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved and Gal. 3. 14. is not to be vnder stode of the blessing of Abraham to come vppon any of the Gentiles in their Apostacy but onely being in Christ as the words are also ver 7. and 9. c. I speak comparatively of the seeds of the apostate Israelites and Antichristians affirming the one as fit subiects for baptisme as the other for circumcision because the Gentiles since Christ have as much title to the covenant with Abraham as the Israelites had This you deny shifting off with your devised carnal covenant It is not for the spirituall covenant or Sacrament to belong to Apostates that I contend I know it belongs to the faithful and their seed though you say no. But this was the end wherefore I did alledge Gal. 3. 14. to prove that the covenant is inlarged to the Gentiles and that they may now make as iust clayme to it for them selves and their seed as Israel could do And therefore did reason thus If the children of Israel could chalendg right to the covenant and circumcisiō their parents being in Apostacy

comparison toucheth not the thing in question you might know that faith could not intitle the females to circumcision when they had no cōmandement for it In the Gaylors Lydias families the women were capable of the seal by the ordināce of God Againe concerning the males infidelitie might and did hinder from circūcision as it did the Gentiles vvhich received not the faith and so infidelitie excludes from baptisme both males females As for infants they can not be sayd to be infidels or vnbeleevers for they are partakers of the promise which is the ground of faith els * Rev. 2● were they under condemnation To the second particular of my answere you reply thus I answere that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abraham and the other of Lydia and the Gaylor according to the commission of Christ Mat. 28. 19. 1. Abraham and all his family by the Lords commaundement came under the covenant of the old Testament actually the males onely were circumcised but Christ doth not commaund all persons of a family in the new testament to be baptised but onely such as are made disciples 2. the Gospel was onely preached to Abrahams owne person but in the Gaylors case Paul preached to all that were in his house c. 3. The gospel was not preached to Abraham thereby to prepare him to circumcision as if thereby it should follow that circumcision was a seal of the Gospel for it is not so c. but Christ in the new testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every parricular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme and so Paul did to the Gaylors family To your first difference I answer as formerly I haue done that Abraham and his family came not under the old testament or covenant of works seing it was not made with him but with Israel afterward by the Ministery of Moses 2. Your comparison should thus be propounded as Abraham all his family came under the covenaunt of God so likewise do the faythful of the Gentiles and their families therefore as Abraham and his family were circumcised so ought the faithful and their families to be baptised thus holds the comparison and thus it is against you and you do but beg the question in saying that Christ commaunds not all the persons of of a family in the new Testament to be baptised for this is defended against you that Christs commaundement of baptising extends to the infants of the beleevers as wel as to themselves To your 2. difference I answer that the Gospel which was by the Lord preached to Abraham was by † Gen. 11. 1● 19. 12. 1-5 Gal. 8. him preached to his family To your third difference I answere that the gospel was preached to Abr to be the meanes and ground of his faith circumcision was given to him to be a seale of the righteousnes of faith therefore a seal of the Gospel which was preached unto him and so the Gospel was preached to Lydia the Gaylor baptisme given for the same use as circumcision was to Abraham And where you say Christ commandeth the gospel to be preached to every particular person that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme and so Paul did to the Gaylors family Why sayd you not according to the point in hand And so Paul did ●● Lydias familie the Gaylors Did your self perceave that you could not shew it so in Lydias familie Did you therfore passe by that exāple Act. 16. 14. 15. Let the reader wel observe these things and this dealing of yours And to this your standing so strictly that the gospel or covenant was preached●● every creature I answer that as it was preached to such as were received into the Christian Church so was it to Abraham all the Gentiles which entred into the old Church and therefore in this is no difference To my 3. exception thus you answere Christ speakes onely of such as to whom the gospel may be preached that are of a docible age and nature I graunt that Christ intendeth by his commaundement that they should be taught that are of a docible age but with all intendeth it so to be preached to them as it was before to Abraham which was not to exclude their infants from the covenant or seale thereof To this obiection how infants not being in the covenaunt can be saved you answere Eyther they are all saved though they can not come to faith by hearing or that they are one of the Lords secrets Can you speak of faith to say they are all saved and not within the covenant of grace but it is not your faith for you hold it doubtingly and being driven to a non plus you answer as the Preists and Elders did to Christ concerning Iohns baptisme who sayd wee can not tell whether it be from heaven or of men and so you make the state of children one of Gods secrets but the contrarie I have before proved And here you might see if your erronious opiniō had not blynded your eyes that you cannot beleev that any infants shal be saved seing by your doctrine you haue no word to groūd your faith upon for their salvation To the last particular of my answer you reply saying First you confesse that this place of Mat. 28. 19. is not vttered of Christ in respect of infants that they should be taught and then I say he never intended by this place that they should be baptised c. I wil cōfesse as much as I haue spoken In this scripture Mat. 28. 19. Christ commaunded to make disciples and to baptise them the former I sayd Christ intended to such as were unconverted but yet so as they receiving the gospel their infants came also under the covenant the latter I did and stil do affirme to be vnderstood of the beleevers and their seed and so I have not contradicted my self as you untruly speak Next I say that general rules shal be expounded with their senses and as impotent persons infants shal eat though they can not work so infants shall be saved though they cannot be baptised seing they cannot by teaching be made Disciples c. Now you affirme infants shal be saved a little before you doubted whether it were not a secret thus vnstable men are when they erre from the truth But if infants can be saved as now you affirme then tell me whether you hold them to be saved in the covenant or out of the covenant if within you crosse your self and if without shew me what warrant out of the word you haue so to beleeve certainely * Act. 4. ● there is no salvation out of Christ And if children can be saved by the covenant why is the signe thereof denied them You separate those things that Christ hath ioyned together and yet you charge me therewith and so you pronounce a woto your self in saying wo be

thereof and purpose of the holy Ghost who intendeth to discover the hypocrisie of vaine professors and to shew who are true sonnes of God viz. such as by a godly conversation declare their fayth to be unfeighned I denye that infants are carnal because they shew not their fayth by their works Those whom the scripture so calleth are they that ●om 8. ● 8. † walk after the flesh and do the deeds thereof which Infants nether do nor can do wanting actual power of doing good or evil The former scripture that you alleadge to prove infants carnal is Rom. 7. 14. The Apostle sayth of himself I am carnall and so you conclude ●●m 7. 14. thence that al that naturally discended of Abraham and so of the faithfull are carnal and so to be reputed of us and cons●quently without the covenant Paul when he thus sayd of himself I am carnal was regenerate And if you cal children carnal in that sense it hinders not but they may be spiritual seed as he was The Apostle cals himself carnal in respect of his natural corruption and carnal infirmities wherewith he was compassed neither was he wholly carnal but in part † Rom. 7. spiritual And here is to be noted that carnal is opposed to spirituall in one and the same person and is found to be in al that professe fayth and are regenerate yet doth it not debarre them eyther of the covenant or of baptisme A like Answer may be given concerning 1 Cor. 3. 1. 2. The Corinthians 1 Cor. 3● are called carnal because of their infirmities and carnal works as enrying strife c. vers 3. c. Infants cannot in this sense be called carnal therefore this scripture also is unfitly applyed unto them And here it is to be noted that a people which were a true church and within the covenant and baptised are called carnal whereby we may see how impertinently this scripture is alleadged You say also that you cal children carnal as in opposition to the spiritual seed that one seed of Abraham Gal. 3. 16. I have sayd that carnal as the Apostle opposeth yt to spirituall is our corrupt nature that * lusteth against the spirit and is found in the faythfull Gal. 5. 17 Rom. 7. 2 Now to oppose the infants of beleevers to spiritual seed is no opposition for such infants in regard of the covenant are spiritual though by nature they are carnal Concerning Rom. 9 8. see page 63. The Apostle proving God to be Rom. 9 8 faythful sheweth withal that though the promise was made indefinitely to al the Israelites yet al that were carnally begotten of Israel were not true Israelites save onely such as were the children of the promise verse 7. 9. but he intendeth not to oppose all the seed of Abraham naturally begotten to the childrē of the promise for then should Isaac be opposed against himself for he was both the natural seed of Abraham and a child of the promise but this he teacheth that although many be reputed the sonns of God in regard of the promise which is made indefinitely to all the seed of Abraham and to al that are called to be members of the visible church yet al of those in the account of God are not children of the promise seing many hypocrites are found to be in the outward visibilitie of the Church to whom the Lord shall say * Luk. 13. 25. 27. I know you not whence ye are c. Touching Gal. 4. 23. it hath been handled before pag. 14. Thus I will here answere to your obiection out of it viz. that Paul doth not intend Gal. 3. 2● to make an opposition betwene the natural seed of Abraham and the heires of promise but opposeth against the false doctrine of such as vrgeth circumcision and the workes of the law to be necessary to iustification and after divers reasons against this error he illustrateth his purpose by an allegorie which shadoweth forth two sorts of children borne of two Testaments as Ismael Isaac were of two mothers the one sort that should seek after righteousnes by the law but they were no better thē Ismael no heires of the promise but in bondage vnder the law The other should seeke after righteousnes by Christ and these are of the covenant of grace as Isaak was of the freewoman which are heires and free indeed and this appeares to be the Apostles meaning by that which followes in the Allegory as also by vers 21. And so it is to be noted that to be borne after the flesh typed out by Ismael is to be without the covenant under the bondage of the law which was given in Sinai signifying that all such as seek for iustification by the law are as they that take up their habitation in the wildernes and never enter into the land of promise ●eb 7. 16. The next Scripture is Heb. 7. 16. where the commandement is called carnall so children borne of theire parents say you naturally are carnal c. see this place expounded pag. 68. by carnal commaundement the Apostle means that law that cōmaunded the ordinatiō of the Preists under the old testament which stood in fraile and transitorie things as in Aarons consecration c. Also this commaundement or ordination of the Leviticall Preists may be called carnal compared with the ordination of Christ ●sa 61. 1. 〈◊〉 45. 7. which was without all * external ceremonies and not simply for in other respects it may be counted spiritual as all Gods ordinances are whether under the old or new testament and so this scripture rightly vnderstood maketh nothing to your purpose And towching childrē you should observe that as it is true that naturally children are carnall so is it true also that the children of the faithful borne under the covenaunt are by grace spirituall Gen. 17. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually sease upon any infant of the Iewes in deed and in truth and the place Act. 2. 39. doth not prove that it did for the place is to be understood of the offer of Christ and the new testament to all the carnal Iewes and their children c. and therefore I say to baptise infants is to baptise the carnal seed For this point for the exposition of this scriptur see p. 19. where also is answer to that which is here obiected for by this scripture it is playn that the promise apperteyned to the Iewes their infants into which they their child●ē had entred when God made his covenāt with Abra his seed for thē were they in his loynes And upō this groūd the Apostle exhorts thē to be baptised not saying the promise is now offred but thus the promise is to you that is made or given to you and your children as the Apostle explayneth the same Gal. 3 16. 17. 18. Act. 26. 6. And to as many