NINETEEN ARGUMENTS PROVING CIRCUMCISION NO Seal of the Covenant of Grace WHEREUNTO Is annexed The unlawfulnesse of Infants Baptisme upon that ground Written by R. J. GAL. 5.2 3.6 Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every man that is Circumcised that he is a debter to do the whole Law For in Iesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but Faith which worketh by love ROM 2.26 27. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousnesse of the Law shall not his uncircumcision be counted for Circumcision And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature if it fulfill the Law judge thee who by the letter and circumcision doest transgresse the Law LONDON Printed in the Year 1645. TO THE READER Curteous Reader THe Authour of this Treatise Mr. R. I. being beyond Seas and some friends of his and the Truth deeming these Arguments of his to be solid and conducing to propagate the Truth the Authour being known to be learned J have adventured though without his knowledge to make them publike The Copie being Transcribed by a bad Scribe so that there are sundry mis-spellings and oversights J shall desire thee with a favourable eye to bear with Jf delay might not have brought in danger J should have sent forth this and the other Treatises in more exactnesse But thou must remember we come out of Egypt in haste Farewell Thine C. B. Nineteen Arguments Proving Circumcision no Seal of the Covenant of GRACE BEcause that of CHAMIERUS is acknowledged Sacramentorum nulla necessitas nisi ex iustitutione Divina There is no necessitie of the Sacrament but by Divine Institution Some therefore observing how Christs institution of Baptisme Matth. 28. Mark 16. yeildeth no foundation for the Dipping of Infants but imployeth an absolute prohibition of any such practice whereby the Ordinance is prophaned in a prodigall abuse without and against the will of the Testatour and have ceased upon that Law of Circumcision Gē 17.10.11 which is stiled elsewhere in the Law of Moses Joh. 7.23 as the best foundation for besprinkling of Babes in an Apish imitation of that Gospel-dipping which was instituted by our Saviour for the more effectuall ingrafting of Believers into his own death And the rather do they fasten upon it Because finding it to be a seal of that Promise which was made to Abraham and his seed and denying that Promise to be a Covenant of Grace and remission of sins they conclude it belongs in like manner to all Believers of the Gentiles and to their children who are to have the same Seal unto them by Baptisme as they call it which came in the Rome of Circumcision as they contend To this purpose Blake pag. 14. viz. Upon this ground Infants under the Law were to be circumcised and upon the same ground are Infants now to be baptized c. Again what can Baptisme signe and seal but the righteousnesse of Faith This Circumcision did signe and seal to Abraham and his posteritie c. So CHIDLEY Baptisme being come in the room c. Sealeth up one and the same Covenant of life And therefore as Circumcision c. so Baptism is to be administred upon Infants of Believers Chidley pag. 39. If therefore it be proved that Circumcision did not seal the promise or Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins then this their foundation is very false and phantasticall Argu ∣ ment 1 That Seal or Sacrament as they call it which by its institution and the nature of it was not to be administred to some within the Covenant of Grace and yet necessarily to be administred unto others who were known not to be within the covenant of Grace That cannot be the Seal of the covenant of Grace and Remission of sins But this Sacrament of Circumcision was such c. viz. Not to be administred to some evidently within the Covenant of Grace as to LOT 2 Pet. 2.7 8. And yet necessarily to be administred to others who were not within the covenant of Grace and known to be so as to Ishmael c. Joh. 5.6 7 8. Jer. 7.25 26. Therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins Arg. 2 That Seal or Covenant which is in the flesh and belongeth and must needs be administred to all the seed of the flesh whether they be Infants or men of age holy or apparantly prophane knowing or ignorant that cannot be a Seal of Grace and Remission of sins which belongeth and is to be administred to Believers onely Acts 10.43 with Acts 8.37 If thou believest with all thine heart it is lawfull for thee to be dipped else not But this Seal of Circumcision is altogether such Gen. 17.10 11 12 13 14. with Joh. 5. 6 7. And therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of Grace and Remission of sins which belongeth and is onely to be administred to Believers Gal. 38.9 Gen. 12.3 Acts 10.43 with Acts 8.37 Arg. 3 That which bindeth unto the Law and becommeth altogether unprofitable in a man not keeping of the Law that can never be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptisme which confirmeth unto Believers their justification from all sinne Acts 22.16 By a mysteriall burying of them into the death of Christ Rom. 6.4 6 7. with Col. 2.12 13. According to the tenour of the New Covenant Heb. 8.12 Jer. 31. Whereby Believers onely are justified and delivered from the Law Acts 13.39 Rom. 7.4.6 But Circumcision bindeth unto the Law Gal. 5.3 And becommeth altogether unprofitable in a man not keeping the Law Rom. 2.25 Therefore Circumcision cannot be the Seal of the same Covenant with Baptisme which apparantly discovereth all such Obligations and conditions As appeareth by Pauls Epistles exhorting unto duty from the benefit received but never urging to the keeping of the Law as a condition necessarily required that we may hold or reap the benefit of the Covenant The proposition will appear more cleerly if you examine Acts 13.39 Where any Idiot may observe that if Circumcision had sealed the same promise of Grace and Remission of sins whereby all that believe are justified as Dipping doth then that assertion of the Apostle had been false viz. From which ye could not be justified from the Law of Moses For seeing they were circumcised by the authoritie of that Law Joh. 7.23 It must needs follow according unto these men that by the true sence and right use of Circumcision they might have been thereby justified as well as by faith in that Gospell-promise which there he largely openeth Acts 13.32 33.38 Forasmuch as the Righteousnesse of God had been revealed in both for the salvation of every Believer as Paul speaketh Rom. 1.16 17. Arg 4 If Circumcision had been a Seal of the same Covenant of Grace and remission of sinnes whereby Baptisme is then the Apostle cannot be free from the bloud of all men Acts 20.26 No not of the
evident amongst us where all are dipped by vertue of that Covenant Gen. 17. because they are Abrahams seed which yet they cannot be except they be born christians Gal. 3.29 neither young nor old can be Abrahams seeds except they be Christs first If the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins was never intailed upon any man and his seed Arg. 12 but in the whole nature and condition of it relating unto faith only in the partakers then Circumcision can be no seal of that Covenant of Grace But antecedent Assump if true that the Covenant of Grace was never intayled c. seeing it alwayes relateth unto faith only in all partakers Gen. 12.3 with Gal. 3.8 9. Heb. 4. Acts 27.17 18. Rom. 3.25 Rom. 4.22 23.24 Heb. 3.14 Now by these mens fantasie they were made partakers of Christ by Jewish generation and circumcision as their own Infants are supposed to be by birth and baptisme whereas the Scriptures witnesses no promise of Grace and Remission of sins but only to the personall beleivers If here any object Acts 10.43 Acts 2.39 I answer that only concerneth the promise of the spirit which was revealed by Joel cap. 2.28 and doth follow the receivall of the Gospell Ephes 1.13 Gal. 3.14 as shall be plainly and clearly proved to any opposite though it need no proofe being evident from Peters whole speech and the verse preceding the Text therefore the consequence is true also that Circumcision could not be a seale of the Covenant of Grace First that of Paul Object Rom. 4.11 where it is stiled a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith First Answ it was not given to strengthen the weaknesse but to honour the strength of Abrahams Faith And therefore doth the Apostle Rom. 4. beat them oft from the use of circumcision as being nothing but a fleshly badge bearing witnesse to the spirituall eminency of Abrahams faith he being thereby as it were marked out for an exemplary pattern to all beleevers as father or chiefe of them Those which are but any whit acquainted with the Greek tongue doe know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth an exemplary note to make any man or thing illustrious and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in that sence to enoble by some especial note to which purpose that may be pertinent Iohn 6.27 God the Father is said to seal him making him illustrious by all manner of testimonies Now ponder well that this sign was not given to him meerly because he was faithfull for then it should have been unto Noah long before or at the least to Lot now as well as to Abraham much lesse was it given in any relation to his weaknes seeing that he was so strong that he staggered not Rom 4.20 and therefore not as a seal to confirm but as a badge of honour for to credit as this coherence doth conclude but though it were a speciall favour marking out his faith as exemplary yet its nature and institution sheweth that it confirmeth nothing to him and his seed but the land of Canaan Gen. 13.15 with cap. 17.8 9 10. and Psalm 105.11 and Acts 7.5.8 where all may observe it a seal of a covenant concerning an outward blessing Genes 28.41 distinct from that Gospell-promise Genes 12.3 which is received by Faith onely Gallathians 1.8.9.14 Genesis 15.5 6. with Rom. 4.13.18 Gallathians 3.16.19 Now that Circumcision is no seal of the righteousnesse of Faith I will prove it byan unanswerable argument viz. if Circumcision bea seal of the righteousnesse of Faith in their sence then the Inheritance commeth as well by the Law as by the Promise the reason is because Circumcision is nothing and by consequence no seal at all except a man keep the Law Rom. 2.25 1 Cor. 7.19 But that the Inheritance should any way come by the Law as by the Promise is most contrary to Paul Romans 4.14 where hee maketh all concurrence of the Law inconsistent with Faith and the Promise so farre as it concerneth our eternall inheritance And therefore that sence is blasphemously contradictory to Pauls discourse and destructive to the pure doctrine of Iustification now whereas some have conceited that Circumcision did over and above its ordinary use seal to the Iewes in generall that Christ should descend of them or their seed in whom only Beleevers should be saved whether they were circumcised or nor It sealed no such matter at all so that if there had been no other Gospell-promise besides Answ Genesis 17. they must have sought salvation in the Law and by the Law onely Gallathians 5.3 1 Corinth 7 19. Acts 15.10 Rom. 2.25 sheweth the perfection of a Beleever buried by dipping into the death of Christ unto which by Circumcision they could not aspire unto The reason of Chamieras as is most unworthy the wit and judgment of so learned and voluminous a writer for quoth he that Covenant whereby God promiseth to be a God to them and their seed must needs be a covenant of grace and remission of sins because as he thinketh God cannot be so but in Christ only It is apparantly false Answ Psal 50.1.8.9 there being divers relations whereby God is stiled the God of people besides that of remission of sinnes through Christ Thus he is stiled the God of the spirit of all flesh Numb 16.22 And as he is stiled the Saviour of all men 1 Tim. 4.10 so why not the God of all men though not by remission of sins in Christ but meerely in relation â—o some other of his works or attributes especially by this typâ—call relation wherein he so often calleth them his people when they were his enemies and hee giving out the bill of divorce against them Hos 4.6 with Mich. 6.3 4 5. And had not his outward covenant in some sence intitled them unto God they could have been no figure fit for ensample to the antitype even the true Israel of God under the new Testament Gal. 6.16 Pet 2.9 1 Cor. 10.6.11 with Jer. 13.11 where you may note also that those who would make circumcision a figure of dipping gaine nothing by it for be sprinkling of Babies for then it will follow that as none were to be circumcised but the seed of Abraham with Srangers Proselâ—â—es and Slaves bâ—nght with mony so none are to bee dipped but those who beleive the doctrine of the Gospell Mark 16.17 or else prosesse the same Faith And as the seed of Isaack and of Iacob only were called to inheâ—â—t in Canaan so those only who have beleived through grace Acts 18.27 as the Eunuch Acts 8.38 and not such as Simon Maguc Acts 8 13. who counterfeit the same confession shall inherit the heavenly Canaan I hope the godly wise will conceive that though the Covenant were the same and the Sacrament also but only for change of the Element as the Baby spâ—inklers bear people in hand so authorizing the prophane abominable abuse of Zaedobiprisme by the command for circumcision yet
and destructive to the Gospell which he taught Gall. 2 17 18. with Gall. 5.10 But the spirit doth use the promise of Grace and remission of sins as the best argument to overthrow the Doctrine of circumcision and the practise of it as doth appeare by Pauls argument Assum Gal. 3 8 9 10. 13 14. with Gen. 12.3 His argument is thus if the free promise of blessing by remission of sinnes be received by faith then the practise of Circumcision is pernitious which by binding unto the Law Gall. 5.3 Bringeth under the curse Gall. 3.10 To which those our opinionists would have replied No Paul not so for we hold circumcision to bee or to have beeen a seale of that blessing or righteousnesse which is by saith And if so then ought Paul to have shewed the abolition and not to have so manifestly impunged the very nature and condition of it as pernitiously opposite to the very Gospell-promise every where so that he maketh that of Gen. 22.18 To be an argument also against the doctrine and use of Circumcision as the understanding may observe from Gall. 3.16.18.25 with Cor. 4.3 Ergo the promise of blessâ—dnessâ— by remission of sinnes Gen. 12.3 Is farre different from that Covenant of Gen. 17.7.8 Which was sealed by Circumcision Arg. 8 That which maketh the Kingdome of heaven to bee and to have been holden in fee-taile by Abraham and his seed and now by the faithfull and their seed is false against the Scripture but this opinion maketh even the spirituall blessings Ephes 1.3 to be holden in fee-taile by c. therefore it is a false Commandement against the Scripture the proposition is proved First because the Scripture speaketh only of two generations the one naturall and therefore gendreth unto wrath Ephes 2.12.3 The other spiriruall and ungendreth to the Kingdome Iohn 3.5 And therefore rejecteth the former altogether as no way intituling to the inheritance though one be borne of the bloud of Abraham Iohn 1.12.13 Neither will it availe them to say as Mr. Perkinâ— on Gal. 2. That a man is two wayes considerable either as a sonne of Adam and so he begetteth Children of wrath or as a believer and so his faith intitleth his seed also to the same heavenly inheritance by vertue of the promise Gen. 17. No man doth beget children as a believer Answ for then every believer even the Eunuch Acts 8. Should have done so but man propagateâ— only as the sonne of Adam and if this promise concerne believers as begetting Children Then though the Children be unlawfully begotten even bastard borne to no earthly Inheritance by our common Law yet through their parents Faith and the promise they are borne to an heavenly Inheritance from the which they cannot fall but by actuall infidelity or disobedience and so stand in no need of the seâ—le especially of Baptisme which is mearely theoreticall or doctrinall in the very form and Circumstance of it till they be able to understand to say nothing that this contradicteth the very text Rom. 9 8. Where he maketh a spirituall use of that tipicall singling out the seed of Isack for the land of Canaan viz. the Children of the flâ—sh are not the Children of God except they be by the word of promise begotten spiritually as Isack was by promise borne carnally Gall. 4.28 29 Neither can any with colour of reason contend that God by his Testament thus bequeatheth and sealleth this blessing unto them that they shall admit and receive with consent unto all thankfull acknowledgement and return then it is theirs till they doe reject it and by consequence the spirituall blessing discend upon the seed of the Faithâ—ull dying before yeares of discretion after the manner of temporall lands holden in a Fee-taile That which raiseth the preferment of the Jew far above the spirits intimation answering to thâ— very question concerning the profit of Circumcision Arg. 9 that must neâ—ds be a false and erronious conception forced upon the Scripture Buâ— to mâ—ke it a seal of the Covenant of Grace and Remission of sins â—s to raise the preferment of the Jew by nature far above the spirits intimation answering to the question For Rom. 3. v. 1.2 Upon the questioâ— of the Iewes advantage and the profit of of Circumcision he replyeth â—hat the chiefe advantage is that unto them were committed the Oâ—acles of God which is a great priviledge and a singular preferment a David himselfe conâ—esseth Psal 147.19 20. by which meanes also the fiâ—â—t proffer of Grace was made unto them Luke 24.46 47. with Act. 13.46 But all this doth not to the born Iewes seal the Covenant of Grace no more then our having of the Scriptures doth seal Remission of sins to every soul now born in England whereas the advantage of the Iew and pâ—ofiâ— of Circumcision by this opinion should have been incomparabâ—e and not to be paralleld by any outward privildge in that all born Iewes dying before the same or after Circumcision were deified and assuredly saved And so that which the Scripture hath hid in God with some apparance of the generall hope for consolation of parents should have been confirmed unto them by particular assurance Therefore this opinion must needs be a false and erronious conception forced upon the Scripture c. Arg. 10 If Circumcâ—sion be a seal of the Covenant of Grace then the Covenant of Gâ—ace is not a Testament bequeathing benefit only to all who by Faith admit and recâ—ive the same but is a part or burthensome compact hanging upon some actuall conditions absolutely required in the not doing or performance whereof the Covenant becometh voyd and disanulled to both the parties concerned Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. in that Covenant And by this reason if Pauls beleiving wife have an Idolatrous husband which will not suffer the Infants to be dipped the Covenant of Grace is disanulled to them both And whether shee ought to kill her child let them determine who plead for bloody violence to be inflicted on some by the auâ—hrity of Moses his Testament Pact But the Covenant of Grace is no such but a meer Testament bequeathing freely matter of benefit to all who receive and admit it by Faith only Therefore Circumcision cannot be a seal of that Covenant of Grace That which necessarily imployeth falling from Grace Argum. these men cannot deny to be a false and wicked opinion But this conceit Assump c. necessarily implyeth falling from grace for either it belongeth to them in generall viz. If they will beleive it and so the promise of remission of sins belongeth to every man alive Mark 16.15 or it appertaineth to them and their children in speciall till by actuall unbeleise and disobedience they fall away and reject it And so if there be no falling away all their nation as well as ours must needs have been saved Ergo these men cannot deny it to be a false wicked opinion Rom. 9.27 The assumption is more
upon that câ—nceit if it were granted no such conclusion can truly be drawn to the absolute dishonour of Christ and contradiction of his express Will and Testament But that foundation being rotten and false then all the building must fall And I doubt not but all men of apprehension will easily discern from the precedent arguments how the Apostle in all his disputations against circumcision yieldeth it And by consequence that covenant of Genesis the 17. As a priviledge pecultar to the naturall seed of Abraham Rom. 2.17 25. the chiesest profit whereof was their being born and bred under the Oracles of God Rom. 3.1.2 But that spirituall so different from the carnall Gen. 17. Acts 7. Covenant of blessing or righteousnesse by remission of sins Gen. 12.3 with cap. 15.6 Paul alleadgeth and proveth promiscuously or without difference Rom. 3.21 22 23 24 25. appertaining unto the uncircumcised also Rom 4.3.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. wherein he leaveth Abraham no seed but spirituall Gal 3.7 8.29 acknowledging neither naturall Jew nor sonne of Abraham but only those who are made so by the will of God through the word of truth Iohn 1.12 13. with Iames 1.10 compared with Rom. 2.28 29. Luk. 19.9 And as the Scripture vehemently rejecteth all concurrence of works in Iustification so doth it as plainly abtenounce all Birth priviledge Iohn 1.13 Eph. 2. Iohn 3.5.6 as no way intitling to much lesse in eressing in the benefit of the covenant of grace or promise of salvation Now to convince any considerate man of this there is one or two argument truly a Podescticall and as unanswerable as any of the former Arg. 13 That which by its own nature and use was an intollerable yoak both to the Iewes and to their fore fathers that could never in its true nature and use be a seal of the righteousnesse of Faith or of the covenant of grace or remission of sinnes The undeniable reason of this Proposition is from a principall granted by all who have any light either of naturall reason or dialect call learning oppotsia non possunt eidem attribui secundum idem ad idem codem tempore things opposite viz. to seale righteousnesse and forgivenesse of sinnes and to bind unto the Law Gal. 5.3 can never bee attributed to one and the same thing as namely circumcision Secundem eidem in respect of one and the same part viz. the spirit or conscience ad idem in relation to one and the same persons they are therefore Fathers eodem tempore at one and the same time whether after the Law or under it But circumcision in its true nature and use Assunsp was an intollerable yoak both to the Iewes and their fore fathers Acts 15.10 Ergo it could never be in its true nature and use any seal of righteousnesse or of the covenant of grace or remission of sins for then it should be matter of benefit and not matter of burthen which the Scripture setteth in opposition incompatible making them to be really and essentially different For what is by its own nature a burthen or bondage to the spirit is formally different from that which is a matter of puâ—e liberty and benefit to the spirit as the seale of righteousnesse is and must alwayes be Rom. 6.4.14 15. compared with Rom. 7.1.4.5 6. Arg. 14 If the Covenant or Law oâ— ciâ—cumcision were the only thing whereby boasting was occasioned and that law of Faith which by dipping is confirmed to beleevers the only thing whereby boasting was excluded then that Covenant of Gen. 17. cannot be the same with that new Testament of grace and remission of sins whereof Christ is the mediatour Heb. 8. For then circumcision should not have occasioned as Paul granteth it did Reason boasting but have utterly disanulled all disdain towards the uncircumcised as the law of faith and covenant of grace are declared to doe Acts 10.15.28 with cap. 15.9 where Peter affirmeth circumcision to make such a difference as the law of faith doth destroy abolish and disanull Rom. 3 27. But the covenant or law of circumcision Assump was the only thing whereby boasting was occasioned Rom. 2.17.25 with cap. 3 12. and the law of faith the only thing whereby boasting was excluded Rom. 3 27. Therefore the covenant of Genesis 17. cannot be the same with that covenant or new Testament whereof Christ is the Mediatour If any object that Christ is called the Minister of circumcision Object Romans 15.18 He was made the servant of circumcision Answ when he was made of a woman and so made under the law Gallathians 4.4 5. that suffering Gallathians 3 13. as a cursed sinner by the imputation of our iniquities he might confirm the truth of God and the promises made to the Fathers Genesis 12.3 Acts 13.32 with Hebrewes 9.14 15. Romans 15.8 Arg. 15 Those two covenants which differ in the object Secondly in the matmatter Thirdly in the forme Fourthly in the end Fiftly in the effect those are not onely as some grant really but formally and effectually different But the covenant of Genesis 17. which is ratified by circumcision Assump differeth from that of Ier. 31.33 34. with Heb. 8.6 which is confirmed to every beleever by Baptisme Gallathians 3.17 27. with Isai 42.6 and Acts 2 38 cap. 22 16 First in the object for that of Genesis 17. respecteth the carnall seed in their generations verse 7 9. But that Genesis 12 13. and Ier. 31 respecteth the spirituall seed only Gallathians 3.7 8 9 Secondly in matter for that of Genesis 17 containeth an outward blessing concerning the possession of and protection in an earthly inheritance verse 8. cap. 28.4 Acts 7.5.6 whereas this Covenant of grace Isa 42.6 containeth spirituall blessings only Ephes 13. even Remission of sins Rom. 4.6 7 8 9. the free donation of an undefiled inheritance following upon the same Acts 26.18 Thirdly in the forme for that of Gen. 17. is onely Pactum a certain pact suspended altogether upon a legall duty or condition exacted under penalty of severe temporall punishment Gen. 17.10 11 12 14. whereas this is Testamentum a Testament bequeathing all benefit Heb. 8.12 but requiring nothing besides faith which it also begetteth Acts 26.18 with cap. 18.27 Fourthly in their ends for that of Gen. 17. was together a nationall Church Deut. 4.34 with v. 37. Ier. 13.11 God hath assayed to take unto a nation c. And because he hath loved their Fathers therefore he hath chosen their seed called the Church in the wildernesse Acts 7.38 which people were carnally or typically holy Exod. 19.6 with Esai 9.2 Acts 10.28 appointed to a typicall land which God had espyed out for them Ezek 20.5 6. holden under the carnall rites and typicall ordinances imposed on them by way of burthen till the time of reformation Heb 9.10 with Gal. 4.9 where circumcision is reckoned as a beggetly Element that so they might be a type of figure of every true visible
from v 5.10 v. 11. who now is an Antechrist the Papists as well as we confesse Christ to become in the flesh who then deny it they that doe not set up Iesus the Christ Kâ—ng Priest and Prophet of his Church will not be ruled by his lawes submit not to his teaching make him not the only Priest and sacrifice these deny Christ to be come in the flesh and therein are Antichristian 1 Iohn 4.3 The Papists deny him in his Priestly office and I wish too many oâ—hers doe not in his Propheticall and Kingly office see the danger of it Deut. 18.18 19 Acts 3.23 Luke 19.17 It is a fearfull thing to fall into the hands of the living God Heb. 12.29 Oh that the Lord would perswade his people to search the Scriptures diligently that they may not hang their religion upon any creature so long as I did least they smart so severely for it as I have done for he will not only render vengeance to them that know him not but to them which obey him not 2 Thessalonians 18. The Lord in mercy awaken his people for Christ his sake AMEN Arg. 1 That which makes the Traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God ought in no wise to be Matthew 15 6 Mark 7 7. But the Baptisme of Infants thoug of beleeving parents doth so Ergo That ought not to be The Minor is thus provided That which is an action of Religion performed and not one jot or tittle of the word requiring the same that makes the traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God but the Baptisme of Infants though of beleevers is an action of Religion supposed to be performed and not one jot or title of the word requiring the same Ergo the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers makes the traditions of men of equall authority with the Law of God and consequently ought in no wise to be Arg. 3 Every affirmative command of Christ hath its negative so that whosoever Christ hath commanded to be baptized ought so to be and if oâ—hers prohibited but the affirmative command of Christ to his Apostles Mat. 28.18 in that they should teach all nations baptizing them that is those that are taught by themselves or some other Ergo The Apostles were prohibited from baptizing any that were not first taught if the Apostles were prohibited in the negative of Christs command touching Baptisme from baptizing any that were not first taught either by themselves or others then ought not the infants no not of beleevers to be baptized because the Apostles or other Ministers could not nor cannot know them to be so taught in their infancie seeing they make no profession of faith and repentance But the Apostles were prohibited from baptizâ—ng any that were not first taught either by themselves or other in the negative of Christs command touching Baptisme by consequence of the former argument Ergo The infants though of beleevers ought not to be baptized Arg 3 That which overthrowes the nature of the Covenant of Grace ought in no wise to bee But the baptisme of infants though of beleevers doth so Ergo the Baptisme of infants ought in no wise to be The proof the minor That which is administred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of Grace without Faith in the person so interested that overthrowes the nature of the covenant of grace because persons have interest therein no otherwise then by Faith Romans 4.16 Gallathians 3.9.29 any thing else concluded so makes the promise or covenant void Rom. 4.14 Gal. 3.18 But the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers is administred upon a supposed interest in the covenant of grace without faith in the person so interested viz the faith of their parents Ergo The Baptisme of infants though of beleevers overthrowes the nature of the covenant of grace and consequently ought in no wise to be Arg. 4 That which overthrows the nature of Christs true visible Church ought in no wise to be But the Baptism of infants though of beleevers doth so Ergo it ought in no wise to be If the matter of the church be only regenerat persons and the matter of the visible Church such only as appeare so by the profession of faith and repentance then to baptize infants is to contradict this and to overthrow the nature thereof seeing they are borne in sinne and make no appearance to the contrary but that they so remain But the matter of the Church are onely regenerate persons Iohn 3.3.5 and the matter of the visible Church only such as appeare so by the profession of faith and repentance as all the Epistles of Paul written to the Churches doe prove Rom. 8.15 1 Cor. 4.15 as these instances instead of many doe make it appear Therefore to baptize infants though of beleevers is to overthrow the nature thereof and consequently ought in no wise to be Arg. 5 That which makes Religion subsist in the deed done now in the time of the Gospell ought in no wise to be Phil. 3.3 Iohn 4.23.24 But the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers doth so Ergo it ought in no wise to be The minor is thus proved That which is an action of Religion done and no faith in the person of the doer required in the doing of that thing that makes Religion to subsist in the deed done but the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers is an action of Religion performed and no faith required in the person of the doer in the doing of that thing Ergo the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers makes Religion to subsist in the deed done in the time of the Gospell and consequently ought in no wise to be Arg. 6 That which reviveth Iudaisme and so denieth Christ to bee come in the flesh ought in no wise to be 1 Iohn 4.3 2 Iohn 7. But the Baptisme of Infants though of beleevers doth so therefore c. The second Proposition proved thus That practice which is grounded upon the typicall seed which typed out Christ the true promised seed and ceased at his coming â—hat practice now in respect of the ground of that practice reviveth Iudaisme in the Type and denieth Christ the truth of the type to become in the flesh But the Baptisme of infants though of beleevers is grounded upon the typicall seed which typed out Christ the true promised seed and ceased at his coming Gal. 3.16.19 Therefore that being practised now reviveth Iudaisme in the type and denyeth Christ the truth of the type to become in the flesh and consequently ought in no wise to be Arg. 7 That which makes the world and the Church all one and confounds the distinction that ought to be betwixt them ought in no wise to be Col. 4.5 1 Pet. 2.12 Col. 2.20 2 Cor. 6.14 But the baptisme of Infants though of beleevers doth so therefore it ought not to be The second proposition is thus proved those which administer the speciall priviledge the Ordinance of