confirme Their * Deu. 2â— 10 13. “ Gal. 3. â— coâ—enant was to be the Lords people is the same that we are entred into els could not the “ blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise through fayth if that the covenant which we receive were not the same that was made to Abraham and his seed Also Peter affirmes it to be the same Act. 2. 39. If then the Lord required of Israel true holynes and made no other coâ—enant with them wherby he would accept them to be his people but that everlasting covenant and that this is the matter and forme of the church of the new Testament true holynes of the members and communion in the covenant and Gospel then was not the constitution of the former Ch. a shadow of this but even the same with the church under the new Test I speak of the substance of this covenant and not of the outward administration thereof which was divers wherein there might be some type or shadow in the former of this latter Concerning the scriptures which you quote for the proof of your Assumption Heb. 10 â— In the former Heb. 10. 1. the Apostle sheweth that the sacrifices under the law were imperfect because they were yearly renued proveth also that Christs sacrifice is one and perpetual here it must be minded that he speaketh of the administration of the old Testament differing from the new not to teach that the church of the Iewes had in regard of their coÌ„stitution no spiritual promise but onely carnal typical things Heb. 9 â—â— 23. In that other scripture Heb. 9. 19. 23. Paul sets down the proportion between the type and the thing typed between the legal sacrifices and purifyings the purging of synne by the blood of Iesus Christ between the old Testament and the new c and so shewing how the truth answereth unto the type concludeth that Christ hath taken away the sinnes of many by the sacrifice of himself And this is that which the Apostle intendeth and not to shevv that the constitution of the old church vvas the tipe of the constitution of the nevv 3. That which was not nor could not be accomplished performed effected â— produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament was not required or exacted or presupposed to the constitution of the church of the old Testâ—â— Iustification and fayth and sanctification and repentance were not effected performed accomplished or produced by the walking or communion of the church of the old Testament Heb 9. 9. Gal. 2. 15. 16. Ergo c. Deut. 29. â— Ier. 13. â— â— Luk. 1. â— 74. 1 pet â—â— 9. 10. â— 2. 12. â— 22. Gen. 17. 7 â—om 4. 11 â—a 26. â— Heb. 4. 2 â— 11. 30. â— Cor. 10. 3 â— Ezech. 18 â— 32. Ioel. â— 3. â—b 9. 9. â—â— 2. 15 The assumption is denyed and the contrary is proved before for the members of that church might have and had fayth repentance justification sanctification seeing the †Lord was their God in that standing he is God to none but to them that are his in * Christ therfore it must follow that they were partakers of fayth justification c. in that their coÌ„munion Again as the covenant was geven to Abraham so was “ it to his seed but to Abraham it was geven †for justification therefore to his seed I mean the Israelites and people of God that were before and under the old Test Also I have proved * before that God required of the Israelites “ fayth and repentance and that they did repent beleev so consequently justification sanctification were effected accomplished in the members of that church in the communion thereof and required in the constitutioÌ„ Touching Heb. 9. 9. you may be satisfied in my answer to your second Argument yet this I will further add that the Apostle having described the partes of the Tabernacle c. in ver 9. sheweth the use of those things to be a figure for the present preaching unto them spiritual things in Christ in whom they beleeved the same to be fulfilled And here it must be observed that these ordinances whereof the Apostle speaketh were such as by Moses were given to that church long after the constitution thereof In that other scripture Gal. 2. 15. 16. Paul reasons not about the constitution of the Ch. of the Iewes whether justification was required therein but having to deal against the false teachers that taught the Galathians could not be justified without the works of the law affirmeth the contrary in these two verses saying we Jewes by nature know that a man is not iustified by the works of the law but by the fayth of Jesus Ch. c. This being the purpose of the Apostle to establish justification by fayth without works doth not deny the church before the coÌ„ming of Christ to be justified by fayth but teacheth that both that church and this under the Gospel were saved not by works but by the free promise of God in Christ received by fayth And thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire 4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members presupposed not â—â—th and repentance to the members and so not real or true holynes But the old Test â—e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the â—hurch of the old Test Heb 7. 19. Gal. 3. 21. Erg. c. First concerning the major The old Testament though it brought not perfection yet did it require fayth in Christ to come 2. Touching your â—inor first I require what you mean by the old Testament whether the books thereof or the covenant of works whereof Moses was the Mediator if the former then is your minor false for those books conteyn as wel Gospel as law the promise made unto the fathers in Christ to the receyving whereof was required at al tymes fayth and repentance aswell before Christs incarnation as since But iâ— you â—ind it †Rom. â— Heb. 10. of the law onely administration of Moses it is true that perfection and life came not by the law nor by the obedience or ceremonies of the law but withal you must know that the Iewes were also partakers of the everlasting covenant in Christ as * pa. 23. ◠“ Gen. 3. â— 12. 3. â— 17. 7. 21. Esa 1. â— 7. 14. â— 9. 6 GeÌ„ â— 10. Numâ— 24. 17. Gâ— 3. 8. 14 before is proved 3 For the church of the old Testament it could bring or publish life to the members thereof seing it had the promises “ of the Gospel and so presupposed fayth repentance true holynes as you speak To the scriptures first to Heb. 7. 19. I answer that the law indeed maketh nothing perfect nor could give lyfe but I have told you againe and
the lawe ordeyned to like vse vnto the Iewes 〈…〉 m this placeis that there are two seeds Ismaell of Abra 〈…〉 carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah 〈…〉 seed 〈…〉 this type th 〈…〉 that Hagar Ismael did shadow 〈…〉 lawe with her children 〈…〉 bondage and Sarah â— Ierusalem and her children which 〈◊〉 and sonnes by promise â—nding hereby not onely Abrahams 〈◊〉 seed 〈…〉 e vnder bondage 〈◊〉 through the observation of the law looked for 〈…〉 tion But all o 〈…〉 s whatsoever that by pretending to observe the law â—â—pe thereby to be instified as by applying this doctrine to the Galathians â—ppeareth But you say Hagar and Ismael typed the carnall seed after the flesh â— All that the Apostle sayth is this that he that was borne of the servant 〈…〉 e after the 〈◊〉 meaning thereby that he was not bornâ— by promise 〈◊〉 mother that was free as Isaac was and so did typâ—â—â—t as afore 〈◊〉 the state and condition of them that seek iustification by the works of 〈…〉 what you affirme more then this you must prove 3. You say there are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall 〈…〉 〈◊〉 carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a 〈◊〉 spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed Ephe. 1. 13. First I deny that circumcision is the seale of any other covenant ◠〈◊〉 â— Gal. â— Gen. â— of that †one covenaunt made with Abraham 〈…〉 of Christ w 〈…〉 was confirmed vnto * him and to his seed therby a 〈…〉 spirit calleth circumcision a ‡ Gal. 4. seale of the righteousnes of faith And lastly because Isaac that was borne by * Gal. 4. promise was circumcised who was partaker of the covenaunt of grace and of the righteousnes which is by faith therefore circumcision was a signe and seale thereof But you will obiect that Isaac was of Abrahams carnall seed and in that respect received circumcision as a seale of the carnall covenant which he also had It is true that Isaac was borne to Abraham after the coÌ„mon course of nature and therefore had he thereby this prerogative to be circumcised which no other children had but Abrahams vntil they or their Parents were by faith partakers of the same covenaunt made with AbrahaÌ„ but it is not true that he received this signe of circumcision as the seale of a carnall covenaunt or of the promise of Canaan onely or that it was a seale vpon the carnal children of Abrahams onely seing 〈…〉 Exod. 12. the beleeving Gentiles as before was observed 〈…〉 and Ismael also was circumcised that had no righ 〈…〉 And â— all such as beleeve have received the gospel are sealed 〈…〉 rit of promise is true but as the spirit doth not onely 〈…〉 promise of God in the hatteâ— of 〈◊〉 but externally â—â— the 〈◊〉 cheth the same Heb. 8. 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. 15. so doth he both inwardly â— outwardly seale the sâ—me promise to them vnto whom it belongs Tâ— * spirit and circ 〈…〉 on are seales of the same covenaunt of grace righteousnes â— Gor. 1. â— 21. 22. â—he 1. 13. â—erd with â—om 4. 11. of faith And thus may you see that your distinction of two seales of two severall covenants a carnal and a spiritual is but a devise of your owne invention which wil fall to the ground when Poedobaptistry shall stand firm against 〈◊〉 strongest reasons though you hold it to have a sandy foundatiâ—◠〈…〉 next place you answer to the scriptures by me alleadged to prove 〈◊〉 of my argument and first to that of Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12. you say 〈◊〉 proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenaunt made with 〈…〉 all seed and not a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with the faithful for 〈…〉 it is the seale thereof 〈◊〉 answered you before that circumcision was a seale of the spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham and have proved the same by those places of Rom. 4. 11. and Gen. 17. 7-12 although you labour to infringe the the testimony of the Apostle saying that it is not the scope of the place but this viz. that circumcision had one specialitie in Abraham differring from all other that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the father of all the faithful as concerning the matter of their iustification c. The words of the Apostle are so playne as you cannot shift them off for Paul proving that Abraham was iustified by faith and that faith was imputed vnto him for righteousnes when he was vncircumcised sayth after he received the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith which he had when he was vncircumcised Ram. 4. 9. 10. 11. Doth not the Apostle plainely affirme that circumcision was a seale of the righteousnes of faith which â—â— Cor. 1. 30. Act. 13. 39. 2 Cor. 5. 21. righteousnes what is it else but the matter of Gods spirituall covenaunt made to Abraham for Christ the substance of this covenaunt is this righteousnes by which Abraham and all the faithfull ‡ are iustified And you confesse that by circumcision Abraham was sealed vp to be the father of the faithful 〈…〉 ning the matter of their iustification Now if it did seale to Abraham the â—uall covenaunt then is circumcision a seale of the covenannt of salvaâ— and not of a carnall covenaunt as you affirme And if circumcisiâ— a 〈◊〉 Abraham of this heavenly promise then is it so to all his 〈…〉 God put no difference in commaunding him and his seed to â—cumcised as to say to Abraham that this sacrament should seale vnâ—â—im the covenaunt of grace and to his seed a carnall covenaunt but â—d thus to Abraham †Gen. 17. 9. 10. thou also shalt keep my co 〈…〉 thou and thy seed afâ— thee in their generations But say you he was sealed vp toâ—â— the father of the faithâ—l that as he was iustified by faith so should they be and th◠〈…〉 ltie had circumcision in Abraham differing from all other That Abraham had this prerogative above others to be â—â—e father of the faithful is not denyed but to affirme that circumcision â—â—s not a seale of the spirituall covenant is false and you answer not the Apostle but shift it off with saying this specialtie had circumcision in Abrahan differing froÌ„â—ther which is no conscionable dealing seing you cannot but 〈◊〉 that Paul having affirmed that Abrahams faith was imputed to him 〈…〉 â—ousnes when he was vncircumcised doth prevent this obiection 〈…〉 Abraham was iustified being vncircumcised to what end was he then cir 〈…〉 cised to which the Apostle answers that his circumcision was not iâ— vayne but was given of God and by him received as a seale of the righâ—â—ousnes of his faith so setting downe the vse of circumcision not limitting the same as a specialty to Abrahams fatherhood but as the proper end or vse of the sacrament it self belonging to all others that were circumcised as well
beleevers may and ought to be baptised though they can not by teaching be made disciples 2. to that you answere to my first particular thus I reply That of Abraham his circumcision of the Church of the old Testament I haue spoken before this now I wil adde further that AbrahaÌ„ was an * Iosh 2â— 3. idolater when the Lord took him from beyond the flood and brought him into the Land of Canaan and that it was the great mercy of God that made him a member of the Church As for his faith it was not onely a president or example to others but was also necessarie for him self as the scripture teacheth he beleeved the Lord and it was imputed unto him for righteousnes And being thus iustifyed he afterward received circumcision as a seal of the righteousnes of faith by which he and his seed had sealed unto them this solemne covenant of the Lord to become his peculiar people and to haue him to be their God which at that time the Lord made with him so became the members of the Church of the new Testament being rightly understood And where you say that Circumcision was not a seal of Abrahams iustification c. you give the holy Ghost the lye which testifieth the contrary Rom. 4. 11. As for your reason that he was sealed by the spirit long before it is nothing to the purpose for the spirit was no external seal as circumcision was The spirit sealeth inwardly and is proper onely to the elect yea to all Gods people in Babilon and so is no visible signe of of Gods promises given to the Church visible whereof our dispute is And here remember by the way that Abraham before he was circumcised had the seal of the spirit and so was under the new Testament as also others had Esa 63. 11. Psa 51. 11. Hebr. 11. 4 39. that being the pledge and earnest of the sowles of al the faythfull in al ages of the love of God in Christ But Abrahams iustification in uncircumcision was a type of the iustification of the Gentiles who are uncircumcised And Abrahams circumcision after his iustification sealed him up to be the father of all the beleevers circumcised That Abrahams justification was an example to al that should be justified both of the Iewes and Gentiles I graunt viz. that as he was justified by fayth so should al others that beleeve be likewise justified But as concerning Abrahams circumcision that it should seal him up to be the father Rom. 4. 11 â— 13. of al beleevers circumcised the Apostle sayth thus * Abraham received the signe of circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of fayth which he had when he was uncircumcised c. that he should be the father of al that beleeve not being circumcised c. and the father of circumcision c. In which words I observe 1. that circumcision was a seal of the righteousnes of fayth yea of Abrahams 2 that Abraham was made the father of the uncircumcised beleeving And the father of al the circumcised his posteritie the Israelites and so was father of both sorts of people and of the parents and children 3. In calling Abraham father of the circumcised and uncircumcised he meaneth Mat. 15. â— Act. 25. Rom. â— 4 5. of his spiritual fatherhood in regard of the “ covenant 4. He is called the father of circumcision not onely of beleevers circumcised as you say but of their infants also seeing they were circumcised and in this you deceive your hearers by perswading them that Abraham was the father onely of beleevers circumcised not of their seed whereas Paul sayth he was father of the circumcision And so circumcision had a triple vse one general two special â— Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a patterne of al the beleevers in uncircumcision c. 2. Circumcision sealed up Abrahams forme of iustification to be a paterne to al beleevers in circumcision c. The general use of Abrahams circumâ—…cumcision was common with him to Ismael and al the persons of his familie and al the carnal Israelites viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. You labour by your new devised distinctions to obscure the truth and to shut out of the covenant of grace the infants of the faythful otherwise â—e affirme that both beleeving Iewes and Gentiles are justified and †Hab. 2. 4 Gal. 2. 20. live by their fayth and that the one and the other have but * Rom-4 3. 24. 2 one way of justification as they have but one Christ and one covenant of salvation And as circumcision was a seal hereof to Abraham so was it given to have the same use to al that were circumcised viz. to seal up unto them the everlasting covenant And this did circumcision even to their infants whom we are to account as the justified of God by “ Rom. 3. 2â— his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Concerning that general use of circumcision as you terme it to be common with Abraham and to Ismael and to al the persons of his familie c. is true but the use viz. to seal him up to the old Testament and to the observation of the whole law c. you must prove for God had not then given the law or old Testament It was the covenant in Christ that was sealed by circumcision and not the law or covenant of works And whereas it was the Apostles purpose to shew that †Rom. 4â— c. Abraham was not justified by works he hath not proved it but confirmed it by this your distinction of circumcision if Abraham received it to seal him up to the old Testament to the observation of the law Now for the place of Rom. 4. 11. which I am assured you wil ground your assertion upon I say it is both falsly translated expounded for tes en acrâ—bustia is usually translated which Abraham had when he was uncircumcised and this I say is a false translation for this is the true translation viz. which is or was or shal be in the uncircumcision meaning that circumcision upon Abraham c. was a seal of iustification to al the uncircumcision that beleeve and the end of his circumcision is the fatherhood of the faythful Here you pick a quarrel against the translation before it was alleadged and so it pleaseth you to set downe an other with your own exposition to this scripture Rom. 4. 11. and by your glosse corrupts the text You 〈◊〉 4. 11. fault the Translator for saying which he had c. and you put in which is or was or shal be The text is which in the uncircumcision the verbe being omitted Now I ask you what warrant you havâ— more for your addition then the Translator had for his the scope of the Apostles words makes it plain that the Translator saw his
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 righteousnâ—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 coÌ„mon acceptatioÌ„ 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 AbrahaÌ„ 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 femalâ—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 â—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 â—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 coÌ„maundement 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 covenaÌ„t 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 coÌ„mandemeÌ„t 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 coÌ„prehended under the general For the 2. difference that the â—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
differeÌ„ce externally betweene the times of Christ promised to come and his manifestation in the flesh and accomplishment of his promise And as * we have 30. â— 8. 11 â—4 RoÌ„ 10. â— 7. 8. â—er 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 â— 1 Cor. 10 â— 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. â—â—k 1. 74. the spirituall covenant and spirit so had the faithfull vnder the law and therefore it is false to say that they had the carnall covenant and wee the spirituall typed by the carnall for although vnder the Law the Lord did traine vp his people vnder many ceremonies which were types of things to come yet did he never ordeyne any carnall covenant with a seale therof as you devise But let vs see your proofes for all these particulars First that there are two Testaments made with Abraham you alledge Gal. 4 24. saying Agar that is the old Testament and Sara that is the new both married to Abraham 2. There are two seeds Ismael of Abraham and Hagar who typed the carnall seed and Isaac of Abraham and Sarah who typed the spirituall seed ver 23. 3. There are two seales circumcision a seale of the carnall covenant vpon the carnall children Gen. 17. 11. and the holy spirit of promise a seale of the spirituall covenant vpon the spirituall seed 2 Cor. 1. 22. Ephe. 1. 13. c. First for the place of the Gal. 4. whereon you build your carnall covenant that nothing fits your purpose for there the Apostle had to deal with the false Apostles who vrged the works of the law for iustification and taught the people that vnlesse they wer circumcised Christ could not profit them whom after he had confuted with divers reasons he inferreth to the same 〈◊〉 â—â—egorie of Abraham and his two wives shadowing out there 〈◊〉 â—at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in â—atter of iustification the law ingendring bondage requiring strict â—dience without which is no salvation but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2â— 26. â—egall bondage and requireth to †RoÌ„ 10. 6â— 11. Rom. â— 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation â—o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law doth shew them â— foolish they are which by the gospel are set * Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of â—w and legall ceremonies do frustrate that freedome by subiecting â—mselves againe to the law which could never make them †Act. 13. 39. righteous â—d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman whereas all â—hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law â—eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman Now this being â—he purpose or scope of the Apostle this allegorie setting downe the diâ—â—rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament vnder the gospel or new testament concerning iustification and salvation doth â—either prove that these two covenaunts or Testaments were made to Abraham or yet that the Iewes were so vnder the lawe that also they were â—ot free by faith in Christ for if we consider the times wherein the law was given 430 yeres after the promise it will appeare that the law or old testament was not given to Abraham or yet that it did * Gal. 3 1â— disannull the covenaÌ„t to dispossesse his seed of that estate which they obtayned by that promise made vnto him And it is to be noted that aswell vnder the â—ew testament as vnder the old all they are in bondage with Hagars sonns that seek by the workes of the law to be iustified 2. I answer more particularly to your proofes whereof the two former are drawen from this place of the Galathians chap. 4. 24. the first because the Apostle calls Hagar Sarah the two testaments vers 24. and both â—â—re married to Abraham therefore to Abraham were made two testaments True it is that Hagar and Sarah were types of the two testaments the one of the old the other of the new But the Apostle applyes them to set out thereby the different estate of them that be vnder grace from such as be vnder the lawe of works Now to Abraham was not the lawe given whereof Hagar is made a type and therefore could not have that coâ—nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision for sure I am moe covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s 〈…〉 s not of but 〈…〉 Heb. 8. â—3 new the one abrogated by Christ his comming the other co 〈…〉 And that the Apostle meaneth of these two testaments it may be s 〈…〉 playnely out of the text it self for speaking of the lawe he saith thu 〈…〉 one which is Hagar of mount Sina which gendereth vnto bondage making 〈…〉 tion purposely of Sinai because that covenant of works or law was 〈…〉 in that mountaine whereof Hagar was a shadow ver 25. And 〈…〉 king of the other testament or covenant of grace sayth but Jerusalem 〈…〉 is above is free c. ver 26. 28. meaning that such as were children 〈…〉 of were free after the manner of Isaac But here it is well to be minded if these two Testaments be not one and the same be sayd to be two in respect of the tymes and diverse administration thereof and then your carnall covenant cannot stand Certaynly the Lord made one eternal vnchangable covenant to his Church instructing and dispensing his benefites otherwise in the time of the Law then now he doth under the Gospel And in this respect the Scripture speaking of one and the same covenant ot Testament may well speak in regard of the dispensation therof as of two And so understand by the old Testament that spiritual doctrine of grace delivered by Moses the Prophets to the Fathers promising eternal life openly under condition of perfect obedience of the Law threatning of the curse if they did not perform it together with that intollerable burden of legal rites yoke of Moses politie and covertly under condition of repentance fayth in the Messiah to come prefigured under types shadowes ceremonies that by this meanes the Iewes as by a Schoolmaster might be lead unto Christ And by the new Testament understaÌ„d the same spiritual doctrine of grace now revealed by Christ his Apostles manifestly without shadowes and legal rites promising righteousnes life to al both Iewes Gentils that shal beleeve in Christ already come And this being the meaning of the Apostle in speaking of two Testaments in this place this scripture serves nothing for your carnal covenaÌ„t seing both these TestameÌ„ts are spiritual though some carnal things wer commaunded in the old testament Yet those makes it no more a carnall covenant then water in Baptisme bread wine in the Lords supper the receiving of them which al are carnal things do make the new Testament carnall they being given to signifie vnto us spiritual things as were 〈◊〉 carnall things vnder
that is which by the works thereof †seek justification â—l 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. â—or 3. 7. and so were some members of the old church under the law as the Pharisees that * sought to justifie themselves as now they ar that do the like but to hold that the whole church was under condemnation without faith in Christ is an error to be abhord That scripture 2 Cor. 3. 7. intendeth no such thing for the Apostle speaking of the ministration of death coÌ„pareth the ministerie of the Gospel with the ministerie of the law shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that coÌ„tinued not in al things to fulfil it then much more the ministration of righteousnes shal exceed in glorie which bringeth salvation to them that beleev This is the meaning of the Apost and not to shew that Israel was under condemnation seeing they were partakers of the covenant in Christ And as they so wee under the Gospel have the law to accuse condemn us if we transgresse it but as we throgh repentance and fayth in Christ are freed from the curse of the law so were the Iewes also Now the law is the ministration of death not to the chur eyther before or since Christ but to the “ faythlesse and disobedient both â—s 1 Tim. 1. â— 10. under the old Testament and under the Gospel Finally you say the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes and Galathians concerning iustification by fayth in Christ without works of the law doth evidently confirme this excellent truth teaching that the utmost obedience of the law did not effect iustification Therefore the law or old Testament did not presuppose it That excellent truth which you labour to confirme by the disputation of Paul concerning justification is a notable error For where Paul reasoneth against such as mainteyned justification by the works of the law he doth not teach thereby that the old Testament did not presuppose true holynes for albeit some of the Iewes fel into this error to hold justification by works of the law yet did the church look unto Christ for justification then as wel as now And though the utmost obedience of the law could not effect justification yet fayth in Christ could effect it which I have proved that the old church had in that they had the pomise of salvation in Christ For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could â—ot preserve and produce that which was in them in their first constitution wherefore I do defend against all men that the church of the old Testament iâ— the matter or constitution of it was not really holy but onely typically c. I have shewed already that the law was given to the old Church to teach them holynes not to make them holy and so it did produce or effect that wherefore it was given and therefore your bould defence against al men that the constitution of the church of the old Testament was not really holy but typically hath in it more boldnes then truth the contrary is proved †pag. 23. c. before And therefore your inference is false fiz that the members thereof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or in possession of that everlasting covenant c. but onely under the offer of it in that typical testament given to Abraham and afterward assumed written â—mplified by Moses Ioh. 7. 19-23 with Heb. 8. 8. 9. That the everlasting covenant was given to Abraham and his seed see pag. 20. c. concerning these scriptures in the former Christ charging Iohn 7. 19-23 the Iewes with breach of the law who were angry against him for making a man whole on the sabboth day proveth his fact lawfull from their owne practise reasoning thus if you may circumcise on the Sabboth and not break the law then why may not I as lawfully heal a man this is that Ch. intendeth now because it is sayd ver 22. that Moses gave them circumcision c. it seemes you would gather withal that the ordinances of Moses or old Test were given first to Abraham and afterward assumed written by Moses but thaâ— cannot be proved by this place For circumcision was a signe of the promise in Christ not of the law as before is proved In that of Hebr. 8. 8. 9. the Apostle sheweth that Christ is the Heb. 8. 8. Mediator of a better covenant then were the Levitical Priests and ther fore his ministerie more excellent then theirs this first hee proveth because this covenant was established upon better promises and then he sheweth the excellency of it compared with the former And that God made it with his people he proves by the Testimony of Ieremy Now concerning the first Testam it was made with the church when the Lord gave his law in Sinai the people did covenant with him saying Al that the Lord hath commanded we wil do of Abraham we do not finde that he did promise the keeping of the law under the curse as Israel did Deut. 27. 26. and therefore the law the covenant of works or old Testament was not first made with him and after examplified by Moses but â—xo 19. 5 24. 3. Lev. 34. â— Dâ—u 5. â— Heb. 9. â— 23. it was †made with Israel as further also may be shewed by the description thereof in Heb. 9. 1-10 which can not be referred to Abrahams tyme. Agayn the Apostle * sayth when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law he toke the blood of calves and of goates and sprinckled al the people saying this is the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed unto you c. Also the confirmation of this Testament was by the ministerie of Moses And Paul sayth that the law was 430. yeares after the covenant that was confirmed afore of God to Abraham his seed in respect of Christ Now if the law had been geven to Abraham the Apostles Argument taken from the distance of tyme had been of no force And thus much for answer to your Argumenrs Next followes your answer to my objections wherein stil you afferme That the nation of the Iewes was not truly holy but tipically that their holynes was this that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted they were trained or schooled to Christ c. What is here sayd is answered elswhere here I deny that the Iewes holines was onely typical though I deny not that they were by types and ceremonies lead unto true holynes in Christ whereof also they were partakers by the covenant of grace Concerning Exod. 19. 6. alledged to prove that Israel was called a holy â—od 19. 6 people you answer thus I say that eyther the meaning is that they were typically holy treaned up to holynes or that they by atteyning the end of the law should attayne true holynes in Christ so that this place
of thy seed I deny it utterly God sayd that onely to Abraham Gen. 17. 7. and whethâ—r you expound it literally or spiritually I avouch confidently against you and al men that the meaning of it is not that God made his covenant with the faithful man or faithful woman and their infooâ—â—s begotten of their bodies but that literally the meaning is I wil be God unto thee Abraham and thy seed according to the flesh to give them the land of Canaan Gen. 17. 8. and spiritually the meaning is I will give unto Abraham the father of the faithful and al that are his spiritual seed everlasting life You deny a manifest truth as it is your manner to establish your heresies I have proved already that the spiritual covenant is given to the faithful and their seed as it was to Abraham and his seed and further confirm it thus 1. That promise that was made to Abraham †is the same that belongs Gal. 3. 14. to al the faythful and therefore as God did apply it to AbrahaÌ„ saying I wil be thy God and the God of thy seed so is it to be applyed to every beleever as Gen. 17. 19. God speaking of Isaac sayd of him as before of Abraham that he would establish his covenant with him and with his seed And Act. 2. 39. the same promise was applyed to the Iewes that were present Ex. 39. 45 â—ev 26. 12 Deut. 29. â— 15. Jer. â—1 1. 33. Ps 44. 15. Hos â— 10. 2. â—3 Heb. 8. â— 10. 2 Cor. â— 16. Rev. â—1 3. Gen. â—2 3. at Peters preaching and to their children and this application are the words following to have And to as manie as the Lord God shal cal viz. to so many and their seed Secondly if the covenant was not made to the faythful and their seed then are not the faythful partakers of the same covenant with Abraham for it was to Abraham and his seed and so by your doctrine we have not the same covenant and gospel that was preached to Abraham and consequently no promise of salvation Thirdly that this promise I wil be thy God and the God of thy seed is made to al the faythful and their seed see these †scriptures quoted in the margine Lastly the applying of this promise to Abraham and his seed doth teach us so to apply it to every faythful man and his seed the Apostle thus applies the like promise in Heb. 13. 5. for comfort to al the faythful that God in particuler had made to Ioshuah in Iosh 1. 5. which was this I will not leave thee nor forsake thee And David did so apply it to himself Psalm 118. 6. whose examples teaches how to apply Gods promises Concerning your exposition of this promise I wil be thy God c. applying it onely to Abraham you pervert thereby the Lords meaning he made his everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen 17. â—7 promised also unto him and his seed the land of Canaan Genes 17. 8. adjoyning this promise of Canaan to that everlasting covenant with this copulative and the everlasting covenant being common to Abraham with al the faythful and their seed but this promise of Canaan proper to such of his seed as according to the course of nature should proceed out of his loynes and therefore it cannot be that this covenant and the promise of Canaan should be one and the same as you expound it Besides God made this promise to Abraham concerning Canaan and confirmed the same unto him Gen. 15. 7. 18. therteen yeares at the least before circumcision was commanded Gen. 15. 14. and 16. 2. 3. 4. 16. compared with Gen. 17. 1. 10. 23-26 and that solemne establishing of that everlasting covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. at which tyme indeed this promise of Canaan was agayn renued Also it is further to be noted that Canaan was to Abraham and his seed a type and as it were a sacrament of the promise of the heavenly country which they sought after Heb. 4. 8. 11. and 11. 9. 10. 13. 16. 39. for els had their possessing of it made them in no better estate then the Canaanites before them nay not in so good an estate as divers other peoples which injoyed their countries more quietly then they did Canaan And shew me say you that God said to every faithfull man and woman c. that he wil be God unto them and their seed I have shewed it before that so the promise is to be applyed so did Lidia the gaylor apply it as by the sealing of their families with baptisme together with theÌ„selves appeareth And concerning women the Apostle saith in Ch. * Gal. 3. 2â— ye are al one there is neither Iew nor Grecian there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female wherby it appears that God in giving his cov hath no respect of sex be they male or female al is one in C. therfore P. administred the seal to Lidia being a womaÌ„ to her familie as wel as to Stephanus the gaylor You say It is false doctrine to saie that the covenant doth passe unto the infants of the faithful because of their fathers faith c. How the covenant passeth to the infants of the faythful by the free gift of God is shewed before pag. 77. one mans fayth cannot conveigh the covenant of iustification to another nor one 〈◊〉 sinne cut off another from the covenant but the soul that sinneth shal die Although that one mans fayth caÌ„not by any natural operation or qualitie as a medicine doth health to the bodie conveigh the covenant to an other nor actually apply justification to the sowl of an other in that sense as the Apostle speaketh thereof Gal. 2. 20. yet according to the Lords dispensation of his covenant the promise is received by the fayth of the Parents to themselves and their seed as it was by Abraham Gen. 17. 7. 23. Heb. 11. 17. Rom. 4. 11. And this would be no mysterie unto you if you did distinguish between the outward manner of Gods dispensation of his covenant under which al the faythfull and their seed are comprehended and accounted Gods people and the inward and hidden application of the things promised whereof none yong nor old are partakers save †the Mat. 3 11 â—â— 3. 5. 7. 8 â—â— 11. 7. elect no not the aged though they be held for saincts in the sight of men As for one mans sinne to cut off another we hold it not in that sense as you mean yet in some sense it is not altogether untrue for did not such of Corahs children as departed not from their fathers synne perish with him Numb 16. 27. 32. and God sayth I wil visit the sinnes of the fathers upon the children of them that hate him in justice withdrawing his grace from the seed of the wicked but that the personal synne of one shall cutt off an other as the prophet
Lactantius whom you also cyte are generall of yong old whose testimonie may serve to fil up the number but proves not your desire his words you set downe thus Candiduâ— egreditur nitidis exerâ—itus undis atque vetus vitium purgat in amne novo which may be understood of infants as well as of the elder sort Concerning Lodovicus Vives vpon August de Civit. Dei cap. 27. if â—dovicus â—ves floâ—â— anno â—4â— â—â—d in R. 〈…〉 r. 8. his â—â— as did â—â— Erasm he have words tending to any such purpose for which you alledge him seing he is but a late writer I would know out of which of the Auncients he proveth that he sayth certainly froÌ„ that place of Augustine he can gather no such thing as you set downe in his name Lastly you cite Erasmus in his annotations vpon the fift of the Romanes to say That in Pauls time it was not received that infants should be baptised Erasmus brings no proof for that he sayth and therefore being of so late time what is his witnes against so many fathers testifying the contrarie Thus in alledging of him and the rest you shew the weaknes of your cause that have not one auncient father directly to vvitnes with you but are driven to call them to vvitnes that in this thing vvere of contrary judgment to your selfe REASONS AGAINST Baptising of infants answered R. Clifton Now let vs come to consider of the reasons alledged to the coÌ„trarye the first of them is this 1. Reason Because there is neyther precept nor example in the new Testament of any infants that were baptised by Iohn or Christs Disciples only they that did confesse their sinnes and confesse their faith were baptised Mar. 1. 4. 5. Act. 8. 37. Answer 1. This reasoÌ„ being brought into form wil bewray the weaknes therof for suppose it should be granted that there was neither a speciall comandement or example in the practise of Iohn or Christs Disciples for the baptising of infants yet it may not withstaÌ„ding be lawfull to baptise them namely if by sound coÌ„sequeÌ„ce it may be gathered out of the Scripture And this may be done by good warraÌ„t froÌ„ the exaÌ„ple of our Saviour Christ Mat. 22. 31. 32 who reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection proves it by Argument necessarily drawen from Exod. 3. 6. where no such thing was expresâ—ly mentioned and thus he taught usually and refuted his adversaries as the historie of the Gospel witnesseth After the same manner doth Paul in his epistles to the ROMANES and GALATHIANS prove iustification by faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in all the old testament in playne termes affirming so much but by conclusion of necessarie consequence from the scriptures And to this purpose might divers other instances be alledged So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the old and new testament though wee can not shew any playne precept or example yet may upon warrant thereof not feare to baptise them For the author of this reason himselfe can not deny that both he and we must beleeve divers things which we gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence that we shal not find in expresse words as that there be 3 persons in one Godhead that the son is Homousius that is of the same substance with the father now such expresse words cannot be shewed in the scripture And many such like 2. Also if this Argument be sufficient to barr children from the Sacrament of Baptisme then is it as sufficient to keepe back women from the Lords Supper but the lawfulnes thereof is onely proved by consequence because they are within the covenaÌ„t and are partakers of the Sacrament of baptisme Thus the weaknes of this reason being manifested I wil thirdly answer vnto it 3. That there is both precept by Christ and example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the lawfulnes of baptising of Infants Commandement I say Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach al nations baptising them where is no exception of the Children of faithfull parents And therefore there being a lawe once geven that the covenant should be sealed to the infants as well as to the beleving parents the same lawe of sealing the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties though the outward signe be changed except the lawemaker do repeal it or have set downe some ground for the repeale thereof which must be shewed or els this commandement doth bind vs and our infants to receave this feale of the covenant And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptised Lidia her household Act. 16. 15. and the Gayler and al that belonged vnto him vers 33. both which seming to be great housholds it is not likely that they were without children though the Evangelist meÌ„tioÌ„ them not But the exceptioÌ„ is that only such as did coÌ„fesse their sins confesse their fayth were baptised CoÌ„cerning Iohn he was sent to call the people to repentance and so to prepare the waye of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. and so many as did repent and confesse their sins he baptised but did Iohn refuse their children if they broughâ— them to him but it wil be sayd there is no mention made that he did baptise them no more say I is there that they were offered unto him There is no mention that the disciples of Christ were baptised and yet it were too bold a part and no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptised All things that Iohn did nor that Christ did in the particulars are written Ioh. 20. 30. but the summe thereof And therefore to gather an Argument from hence because there is no mention that children were baptised of Iohn therefore they ought not to be baptised is a larger conclusion then the premisses will bear and so that reason taken from the baptising of the Eunuch Philip baptised no childen when he baptised the Eunuch is of no weight to prove that therefore children ought not to be baptised Was not the Eunuch a stranger farr from his country now in iourney homeward therefore not like that he should have his children with him specially in such a tedious iourney not knowing of this accident M. Smyth Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments against baptising of infants to the first argument you say if it be brought into forme it wil bewray the weaknes of it wel I wil bring it into forme c. That which hath neyther precept nor example is not to be done Baptising of infants hath neyther precept nor example Ergo. c. Againe another part of my argument may be brought into forme thus That which hath precept and example must be practised Baptising of persons confessing their sins and their sayth is commanded and was practised by Christ
and in earth Esa 3. 14. 15. of this scripture also is spoken before Though infants could hear and beleeve it is nothing to me except they can shew me their fayth I say therefore that al infants are carnal to me Rom. 9. 8. If you be not carnal to your self also it is wel But thus you confesse that you have no word of God that children can be saved The scripture requires confession as I have sayd of persons growen to yeares which are to enter into the Church not of their Infants It was required of the Gaylor himself that he should beleeve and the promise was that †he and all Act. 16. â—1 â—â—ck 19 â— 8. 9. his howse should be saved And Zacheus receiving Christ and professing his repentance Iesus sayd to him * this day is salvation come to this howse Note he sayth not onely salvation is come to him but to his howse And he adds a reason thereof forasmuch as he is also become the sonne of Abraham And therefore as want of confession in Zacheus Familie in Lidias Stephanas c. hindered not salvation to come to their howses no more shal it hinder any other families of the faythful Touching that of Rom. 9. 8. which you alleadge to prove that infants â—m 9. 8. are carnal I have expounded before pag. 63. have shewed that it makes not for your purpose And where you tel me that I sayd that every infant of Abraham and so of the faythful was borne spiritual as wel as carnal and that here the Apostle is contrarie to my aserâ—ion Although being well understood it may so be sayd yet this was that I sayd that I did thus conceive of the seed of the faythful that it is carnal and spiritual in divers respects And so I say still nether doth this scripture contradict it for those that the Apostle calls children of the flesh he meanes not thereby al the circumcised but such of them as became carnal by their works as those in Ioh. 8. 44. and such as for their unbeleif were rejected and “ broken off from the olive tree until â—oÌ„ 11. 20 which tyme they are to be held the children of the covenant so was Iudas accounted of by his fellow disciples to be one of them although God in his secret counsel know them for none of his And so Paul doth not deny the natural sonnes of Abraham to be accounted his spiritual seed in respect of Gods covenant but that of * Ioh. â— 41. 37. these so externally estemed there were of them carnal sonnes manifesting themselves in tyme through unbeleef to have been in shew that they were not in deed as Iohn speaketh †1 Ioh. â— of the hypocrites of his tyme. And thus these impossible contraâ—ictions as you cal them are easily reconciled And where I sayd that children of the flesh can never be the children of the promise in that sense as the Apostle opposeth the one to the other Rom. â— 8. 13. You answer that al the children of the Jewes were borne according to the flâ—sh Gal. 4. 23 24 25. and so were carnal and so are the children of the faythful and yet as many of the Iewes were afterward regenerate so many of the infants of the faythful may prove children of the promise but I confesse that Esau can never be Iacob c. If you wil thus understand being borne according to the flesh and so being carnal you speak not to the Apostles meaning And Abraham Isaac and Iaacob al the faythful are so borne as you intend of which point I have spoken before And I have already answered to “ pag. 14. Gal. 4. 2â— 24. 25. that place of Gal 4. 23 25. that by that allegorie is described two sorts of children whereof the one seeks by the workes of the law to be justified the other by the covenant in Christ seek after salvation through fayth in him typed out by the two mothers and their two sonnes Now take this scripture in his true sense and it can not be gathered from hence that eyther al the children of the Iewes were thus borne after the flesh and in this sense to be called carnal as the Apostle meaneth nor yet that the childreÌ„ of the faythful are thus to be held of us to be carnal For they seek not by workes justification and therefore makes not themselves children of the bond-woman I mean of the covenant of works or of the law for this falleth â—ut by an action of the parties themselves that refuse the doctrine of free justification by fayth and seek salvation by the law And this is that the Apostle reproves the Galathians for because †Gal. 3. 3â— after they had begunne in the spirit they would be made perfect by the flesh Carnal corruption doth hinder infants from baptisme more then men of yeares because men of yeares make confession of their sinnes and their â—ayth and so declare their mortification and regeneration but infants can not or do not so at al to us and so with them we have nothing to doe But the covenant of God hath to doe with them and therefoâ—e we also if we wil walke according to it Also your comparison is not equâ—l for infants nede not to make such confession of their sinnes and fayth as men of yeares are to do seing they are already to vs within the covenant of God 2. The Scripture gives nether precept not example to require an actuall confession of their fayth of al that are baptised except of such as are of yeares and to be added to the Church but †examples of the contrary â— Cor. 1 â— Act. 16. â— 31. 33. And therefore to make a general rule of such particulers thereby to exclude the seed of the faithful is contrary to the meaning of the Scripture But where as I did affirme that natural corruption is not imputed to infants no more then to men beleeving you answer That I cannot defend that without the opinion of vniversal redemption And then if all infants of the faithful being delivered from their natural corruption may therefore be baptised then all infants partakers of the same benefite shal be baptised even the infants of the Turkes As concerning that opinion of general redemption I reiect as an error but as touching the imputing of natural corruptioÌ„ to infants thus I mean that as the children of the faithful are to vs within Gods covenant as wel as their parents because of the promise made to the faithful and their seed So of vs they are to be estemed of as pertakers of the promise whereof * Heb. 10 17 the not imputing of sinne is one But whereas you would inferre herevpon that infants of the Turkes partakers of the same benifit may therefore be baptised as wel as the infants of beleevers I deny that eyther they are partakers of the same benyfite I meane the covenant in Christ or may be baptised if