That covenant which God made with Abraham he com­maunded [Page 10] to be sealed to him and to all his seede, yea even to in­fants.

But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham, &c.

Therfore that is commanded to be sealed to vs & to our seed, yea even to our infants, for so was that to Abrhams.

The Major can not be denyed, see Gen. 17. 10. 11. 12.

The Minor is likewise as true, for the Apostle speaking of this covenant, Act. 2. 39 sayth, the promise is made to you and to your children, and to all that are a farre off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant and promise that was made to Abraham, which they that were a far of, that is the Gentiles beleeving, doe receive and were baptised into. And therfore is Abraham called the Father of many nations, Gen. 17. 4. also Gal. 3. 13. 14. Christ is sayd to redeme vs from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit, see vers. 8. 9. Now then if we be partakers of the same covenant, (for other­wise ABRAHAMS covenaunt should not be an ever­lasting covenant, Gen. 17. 7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut off for a tyme, Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20.) it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs, and to our infants, (els it is not the same) & that by the cōmandement of God. For the abolishing of circūcisiō, & the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospell, doth not abrogate or disannul the commaundement of sealing the co­venaunt to the beleeving parents with their infants, which was once commaunded to Abraham, but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe. And therefore as the covenant belōgs to the Gentiles beleeving, so doth the seale thereof to them & [Page 11] to their seede, as it did to Abraham & to his seed: The outward ceremony onely changed.

To this Argument I make answer thus: first distinguishing the two cove­ [...]nts or testaments (for a covenant & testament is all one in the originals though [...]he English words are two): one covenant was made with Abraham and his car­ [...]al seed and of that covenāt was circūcisiō a seale: another covenāt made with Abrahā and his Spirituall seed, and of that covenant the holy spirit of promise is the seale: for [...]he carnall covenant had a carnal seale vpon the carnall seed: the Spirituall covenant had a Spirituall seale vpon the Spirituall seed. For things must be made proportionable, & circumcision which was a carnall seale, could not seale vp the Spirituall covenant to the Spirituall seed, for to say so, is to leap over the hedge, and to make a disproportion betwixt the type and the truth. &c.

Here you say that two covenants were made with Abraham, a carnall & a spirituall, the one with Abraham and his carnall seed, the other with him and his spirituall seed: I answer, first, that God made with Abraham but one covenaunt of salvation, which is, That God would be his God, and the God of his seed. Gen. 17. 7. Luk. 1. 72. And this covenant was Gen. 17. 10. 11. R [...] 4. 11. sealed with cir­cumcision, and it is the same covenant that is established by the 2 Cor. 16 Heb. 8. 10 12. bloud of Christ vnto all the faithfull seed sealed vnder the Gospell Mat. 19. by baptisme in stead of circumcision. Other covenant that was given for salvation to Abraham and his seed, the scripture knoweth none. In this covenant is promised through Iesus Christ, remission of sinnes, iustification, life e­verlasting with all saving graces to all that Heb. 8. [...] Ier. 31. 34. Act. 13. 38. 39. Heb. 9. 15. 1 Cor. 1 30. Rom. 4. 11. beleeve. And that this is so, the Apostle doth witnesse, saying, Gal. 3. 17 and this I say that the covenant which was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ, the law which was 430 yere after cannot disannull. Where it is to be noted, 1. that this covenant that was given to Abraham was but one: 2. that it was in respect of Christ, & therefore was that spirituall covenant 3. that it was confirmed vnto him, which is more then a bare offer.

Secondly, I deny that God ever made any carnal covenant, eyther with Abraham, or with the Israelites, seing he made but two testament [...] all with his people, and both of them spirituall, the new Testament yo [...] graunt to be spirituall, and that the old is so, the Apostle doth witnesse, c [...] ling the law (which is a part of the old Testament) both † holy and spirit [...] Rom. 7. [...]. 14. all. This law covenant or old Testament God gave to Israel and they di [...] * promise to keepe it, and so were bound to the observation of a spiritua [...] Exod. 19. [...]. and not of a carnal covenant. Besides this first Testament was not made with Abraham, seing it can not be shewed that he or the fathers did vn­dertake the keeping thereof vnder penaltie of the curse, as † Israel did. Deut. 27. [...]5-26. And as for the promise of Canaan, which Abraham beleeved that his seed should inherite, it was annexed vnto that covenant made with him in Christ as saith the Apostle. that † Godlynes hath the promise of the life present, and of [...] Tim. 4. that which is to come: And therefore can no more be called a carnall cove­nant, or be said to be sealed with circumcision then the promise of the life present vnto vs, may be called carnall, or to be sealed with baptisme And that circumcision was not given as a seale to confirme vnto Abraham and his seed onely the land of Canaan, (as you affirme in your answere to my second argument, Reason, 1.) but to seale vnto him and to his seed the covenant of salvatiô; as may be gathered from that very place of Gen. 17. 8. 9. Where Moses having set downe the sume of the covenaunt that concernes Abraham and his seed, ver. 7. in vers. 8. repeates that promise of Canaan before made vnto him, Gen. 13. 15. and with all sayth, I will be their God, which is that spirituall covenaunt here againe purposely repea­ted; because he would shewe that the commaundement of circumcision, which followes in the next vers. was given for a seale thereof, ver. 11. And that it is so to be vnderstood, the spirit, (who knoweth the minde of the Lord) so expoundeth it; Rom. 4. 11. saying, after he received the signe of circumcision the seale of the righteousnes of fayth, &c. by which place it is evi­dent that circumcision was a signe of the spirituall covenant made with Abraham, and not of an other different from this, called by you a car­nall covenant. The covenaunt in Christ made to Abraham, was confirmed vnto him: Gal. 3. 17. and there is no mention of any other signe given vn­to him but of circumcision. ergo.

Againe if God gave circumcision to be a seale to Abraham and his car­ [...] seed, as you affirme, what had the Proselites to do with this signe? [...]y were they to be circumcised, seing they were not of Abrahams carnal [...]d? this signe could not seale vnto them the land of Canaan, who had [...] promise thereof; yet were they circumcised, Exod. 12. 48, there­ [...]e they were partakers of that covenant wherof circumcisiō was a signe: [...]t concerning Canaan it was promised onely to Abrahams seed after the [...]sh, and so you say, then must it needs follow that the Proselites were [...]artakers of the spirituall covenant, and so received circumcision as a seal thereof. And thus it is manifest that circumcision was no signe of any [...]carnall covenant made to Abraham as you affirme.

Also that to Abraham was made but one covenant, the very phrase of the holy Ghost intimates so much, for in speaking thereof the scripture u­seth the Gen. 17. 4. 7. Gal. 17. singular number; neyther do we read of any moe testaments or covenants but two, the old & the new, the former given vnto Israel in the wildernes a long time after that God had made his covenant with Abra­ham in the Messiah to come.

Further you say, that circumcision being a carnall seale, could not seale a spiri­tuall covenant but the seale therof must be the spirit. &c. I require of you what you meane by a carnal seale, if you mind that circumcision is carnall, be­cause of the cutting of the foreskinne, I graunt that there was a cutting of the flesh; or if you mean carnal because it was an external signe, who wil de­ny it. But what is this to the purpose, for the flesh of Christ was lanched & persed with nailes, yet for all that it was a spirituall sacrifice; and the sacra­ments of the new testament, be outward and visible thinges, yet are they signes of spirituall things: and so circumcision though it was externall & by incision of the flesh, yet was it a visible signe of an invisible grace, & of that spirituall covenaunt made with Abraham. Againe, concerning your devised carnall covenant with circumcision, which you say, is a type of the spirituall covenant and spirit; I answer, that circumcision and Canaan, typed out spirituall things promised, but were not a carnal covenaunt to type out the spirituall, which was already made with Abraham: neither doth the scripture teach us that God did make a carnal covenant with him and his seed, thereby to accept them to be his people, for that could not be by a­ny other covenant, then onely by that in Christ, there being no reconci­ [...]ation to God 2 Cor. 5. 19. but in him. And although the spirrit be the Rō. 8. 15. 16. 2 Cor. 1. 22. & 5 5. Gal. 4. 6 Ephe. 1. 14. earnest or [Page 14] pledge of Gods promises in our harts, yet for the further strength [...] [...] and confirming of our weak faith, the Lord both before the Law to A [...] ham, and so vnder the Law, and likewise vnder the gospel hath to his [...] venant annexed certayne outward signes as seales thereof.

And thus you having set downe your distinction of two covena [...] Wish that they may be remembred and orderly applyed, and the argument say y [...] will appeare of no valew &c.

There can be no orderly applying of disorderly things, your distin [...] on brings all out of order, and therefore this double covenaunt being de­nied and not by you proved, my argument stands firme in all the parts thereof. And the maior vnderstood of that spirituall covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed, the Minor is truly assumed out of the Maior, and so is no sophisme.

Furthermore the crosse of Christ hath not abolished the covenant made vnto Abraham but cōfirmed it, nor yet abrogated the sealing thereof save onely changed the outward signe that therby he might put some differēce 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. [...]. 8. 11— [...]4. Rō. 10. [...]. 7. 8. [...]er. 4. 4. Esay 51. 1 - [...]. 1 Cor. 10 [...]. 4. Gal. 3 4. 16. 22. [...]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 [Page 15] [...] [...]egorie of Abraham and his two wives, shadowing out there­ [...] [...]at there can be no agreement betweene the law and the gospel in [...]atter of iustification, the law ingendring bondage & requiring strict [...]dience, without which is no salvation; but the gospel freeth from * Deut. 2 [...] 26. [...]egall bondage, and requireth to Rō. 10. 6 [...] 11. Rom. [...] 16. 17. beleeve and so promiseth salvation; [...]o Paul speaking to them that would be vnder the law, doth shew them [...] foolish they are, which by the gospel are set Act. 13. 38. free from the curse of [...]w and legall ceremonies; do frustrate that freedome, by subiecting [...]mselves againe to the law, which could never make them Act. 13. 39. righteous; [...]d so become like vnto Ismael sonnes of the bond woman; whereas all [...]hey that are vnder the gospel are free from all that bondage of the law & [...]eas Isaac sonnes by promise of Sarah the free woman. Now this being [...]he purpose or scope of the Apostle, this allegorie setting downe the di­ [...]rs states of them that be vnder the law or old testament, & vnder the gospel or new testament, concerning iustification and salvation, doth [...]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 [...]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, 1 [...] disannull the covenāt 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 [...]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 [...]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 co­ [...]nant of the lawe sealed vp vnto him by circumcision, for sure I am moe [Page 16] covenaunts or Testaments the scripture s [...]s not of, but [...] Heb. 8. [...]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 understād 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 covenāt, seing both these Testamēts 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 [Page 17] [...] carnall things vnder 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 & [...], Ierusalem, and her children, which [...] and sonnes by promise, [...]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, [...]pe thereby to be instified, as by applying this doctrine to the Galathians [...]ppeareth. But you say, Hagar and Ismael typed the carnall seed after the flesh [...] All that the Apostle sayth is this, that he that was borne of the servant [...]e after the [...], meaning thereby that he was not born [...] by promise [...] mo­ther that was free, as Isaac was, and so did typ [...] [...]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▪ [...] [...]. [...] Gal. [...] Gen. [...] 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 cōmon 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 Abrahā: 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 [Page 18] 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 [...] 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 hatte [...] of [...], but externally [...] the [...] cheth the same. Heb. 8. [...] Mat. 28. 15. so doth he both inwardly [...] outwardly seale the s [...]me promise to them vnto whom it belongs. T [...] * spirit and circ [...]on are seales of the same covenaunt of grace & righ­teousnes [...] Gor. 1. [...]. 21. 22. [...]he. 1. 13. [...]erd with [...]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 foun­dati [...] ▪

[...] 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 [...] 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 [Page 19] [...]ning the matter of their iustification. Now if it did seale to Abraham the [...]uall covenaunt, then is circumcision a seale of the covenannt of salva­ [...], and not of a carnall covenaunt, as you affirme. And if circumcisi­ [...] a [...], Abraham of this heavenly promise, then is it so to all his [...] God put no difference in commaunding him and his seed to [...]cumcised, as to say to Abraham▪ that this sacrament, should seale vn­ [...] [...]im the covenaunt of grace, and to his seed a carnall covenaunt, but [...]d thus to Abraham, Gen. 17. 9. 10. thou also shalt keep my co [...] thou and thy seed af­ [...] thee in their generations. But say you, he was sealed vp to [...] the father of the faith­ [...]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 [...]e father of the faithful, is not denyed, but to affirme that circumcision [...]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 frō [...]ther, which is no conscionable dealing, seing you cannot but [...], that Paul having affirmed that Abrahams faith was imputed to him [...] [...] 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 i [...] vayne, but was given of God, and by him received as a seale of the righ [...] [...] 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 as to him.

The next scripture is Act. 2. 39. whereto you answer, that the promise is Act. 2. 3 [...]ffred to the impenitent Iewes, and to their posteritie, and to the Gentiles a farre off, and that was exhibited onely to so many as yeelded obedience to the faith, charging me with adding to the text, &c.

First, I confesse the word ( made) is not in that place, but added by the translater to make the sense more plaine, the text may thus be read, for [...] you is the promise, and to your children, yet the word ( made) added in the translation, is no adding to the sense, as may be proved, Gen. 17. 2. 7. where in the second verse, the Lord vseth this word, ( give) saying, & I will give my covenaunt between me and thee, [Page 20] and in the 7. verse, I will make or establish my covenaunt, the [...] also in vers. 21. in the giving of the covenaunt. This word ( [...]) word equivalent vnto it, is vsed in Deut. 29. 14. I will make or cut o [...] covenaunt with you, vsing a borrowed speach which signifies [...] [...] naunt, because in old times covenants were * confirmed by [...] Gen. 15. [...]. Ier. 34. of living beasts and fowles. The same word is likewise in Gen. 15. [...]. [...]. so Act. 13. 32. the words are, that touching the promise made to the fathers [...] which place the word ( made) is expressed; so is it in Act. 26. 6. & Ac [...] 25. & Gal. 3. 17. And therefore though the Apostle leave it out in rehea [...] ­sing the covena [...] yet finding it in the originall graunt, and in other pla­ces, there is no [...]dding to the word, if we expresse the same in our owne tongue. All [...]hich frees me from your sclaunder, of adding to the text. But if the reader [...] minde your writing, this imputation of adding will more iustly be [...]turned vpon your owne head, for you say, the promise is offred to the impenitent Iewes. I desire it may be shewed where this word offred, is in the text, and why you call those Iewes impenitent, which the holy Ghost wit­ [...] to be penitent.

Secondly, you not being able to answer this place of the Actes, post it [...]ver with a distinction of offring and exhibiting, thereby to deceive the sim­ [...]le in putting the thing promised, (which is offred to many by the prea­ [...]ing of the Gospell, but exhibited to the beleevers) for the covenaunt or Gen. 17. 7 [...]eut. 29. [...]—15. Gē. 17. 1. promise it self, which was once † made to Abraham and his seed; now Pe­ters reason was to perswade them to repentance and baptisme, because the Lord had made his promise to them and to their children: and they likewise had entred covenant with him to ‡ walk in his wayes, therefore they should amend and be baptised, & the Lord would pardon their trans­gressions. And note that salvation is offred by the preaching of [...] Christ, continually to them that are within the covenaunt, as wel as to others.

But let me ask you whether that covenaunt which God made to Abraham was but onely offred, or that Abraham received it also, & so God both entred covenaunt with him and he with God? is it not apparāt that Abraham received the covenant, in that he beleeved, and was circū ­cised? Rom. 4. 3. [...]1. and did he not receive it as wel for his * seed, as for himself & be­leeved that God would be the God of his seed? how can you say then, it was but an offer onely. And if it was not made with the Israelites, how [Page 21] [...]l they be blamed for the Hos. 2. 2 [...] & 4. 1. 3. 2 Chro 24. 18. 19 & 30. 6- [...] breach thereof? they might have bene re­ [...]ed for refusing to have received Gods covenant being offred vnto [...] but not for their adulterie, never being maryed vnto the Lord. Israell [...]he Hos. 2. [...] Lords wife, & he her husband, could this be by an offer, and not [...]ring the contract? read Luke, 1. 68. - 74. but if it please you to read [...]. 29. 10-15. where the covenant was renued with Israel, that the [...], women, and children and straunger with them, entred into the cove­ [...]t and othe of the Lord, which he made with them; it will appeare that [...]is was more then a bare offer, for hereby God did establish them a people for him self.

But, say you, it was exhibited onely to so many as yelded obedience to the fayth. I answere, these Iewes whom you call impenitent, many of them did Act. 2. 4 [...] repent and had received the covenant in Abraham their father, were circumcised and had right to the Rō. 9. 4 [...] promises, were to be esteemed Act. 3. 25. children of the covenant, vntil by Act. 13. 45. 46. & 18. 6. Rom. 11. 2 infidelitie and impenitency they were cut off. And here­in you are deceived, that because many of the Iewes through infidelitie fell away, that therfore the covenant was not made with them, it is true, that it did not profite the Heb. 4. [...] vnbeleevers, & that was their own fault (no more doth it now profite hypocrites in the Church,) yet was it made with thē, & they externally received it, in that they did partake of the signes therof, and pro­fessed to be Abrahams sonnes, Joh. 8. 33. The Lords supper offred, & ex­ternally received of the vnworthy, profits them not, yet they partaking but in the outward signes are held 1 Cor. 1 [...] 27. guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ.

Further you say, Whereas you seeming to assume that the covenaunt was made to Abraham and his infants, it is therefore made to vs and our infants, I deny that ever the covenaunt spirituall was made that is conferd to all Abrahams Infants ac­cording to the flesh, &c.

First, you deny that the spirituall covenaunt was made, that is con­ferd to all Abrahams infants. But I ask you whether was it given to any of them or no? because you say, it was not conferd to all, if to none, I pray you tell me how any of them, so dying infants were saved? so also you say, neither is it conferd to all our infants, can you shew me which of our infants are except, if it be not conferred vnto all. That it was conferred or made on the Lords behalf, cannot be denied: but that every one to whome it is conefrred doth effectually receive it, who doth so affirme? you runne here [Page 22] to the secrete counsel of God, where in, all are not † [...] [...]om: 9. 7 [...]. 8 44. because they are the seed of Abraham, the which is not denyed, but [...] the posterity of Abraham after the flesh, many were not of the * elec [...] [...]om: 11. but this is not to the purpose, for we do not hold that every one of A [...] hams naturall seed is saved, nor all the posterity of beleeving paren [...] in the electiō: but this we beleeve, that God of his free grace gave his [...] venant to Abraham and to his seed, and he by fayth received the same him self and his seed indefinitely, as we also doo beleeve that God will [...] our God, and the God of our seed, because he hath so promised, and there­fore doo we in assurance hereof cause our Infants to be baptised according to the * cōmandement of Christ: if any of them cōming to yeres do ma­nifest Mat: 28. by their vnbeleef, that they are reprobate, then are we to take notice that they ‡ were not of vs, but till then we are to account them as children Io: 2. 19. of the Covenant, as well as we do those that being hypocrites, do outward­ly Act. 8. 13. professe the fayth & so are baptised, as Symō Magus.

Secondly, you say, The spirituall covenant was offerred to all Abrahams seed vnder the carnall &c.

How Gods covenant was geven to Abraham and his seed, & not bare­ly offerred, I have shewed before, so also have I answered to your carnal covenant and confesse, that the Lord vnder types & figures did teach and shadow forth vnto Israell diverse particulars of the Messiah as of his † sacri­ficing, Heb. 8. 5. & 9. 8. 9. [...]c. & 10. [...] &c. Col. [...] 17. Heb. [...]—9. & [...] chap. [...] Cor. 10. 1.—6. death, resurrection, Preisthood and such like, and of good things to come to his Church vnder the Gopell, and of the Kingdome of heaven, but that there was a carnal covenant or Testament made with Abraham over & besides the covenant of grace, sealed vnto him and his carnal seed by cir­cumcision all your learning can never prove it.

You cōclude That as it was offred to Abrahās seed, so to ours. This I hope thē if it be proved that the spirituall covenant was not onely offerred, but gevē to Abrahās carnall seed (I meane the Israelites) that the same covenāt is givē to our childrē, vnlesse the grace of God be lessened vnder the gospel. to prove the former, viz: that the spiritual covenāt was givē to the Israelites besydes that which hath bene formerly observed I will add some sew rea­sons moe to confirme the same.

1. Deu: 29. 10-15. Moses speaking vnto all Israel, sayth, ye stand [Page 23] [...]y every one of you before the Lord your God, your heads of your tribes, your [...] and your officers,▪ all the men of Israell, your children, your wives &c. that [...]houldest passe into the covenaunt of the Lord thy God, and into his othe [...] he maketh with thee this day, &c. neither make I this covenaunt with you [...] but with him that standeth here with vs this day, as with him that is not here [...] vs this day, &c. Which covenaunt is the Deut. 2 13. conf [...] with Gen 17. 1. 2. 7 19. & 2 [...] 3. same that was made to [...]raham, and renued both on Gods behalfe and the peoples. Now that [...]venant that God confirmed to Abraham, with an othe is the covenant [...] grace, as Luke, 1. 72. 75. conferd with Gen. 22. 16. Heb. 6. 13. 14. And his covenaunt that was made to Abraham, is the very same that Isra­ [...]l renued with the Lord, for themselves and their posterity. Deut. 19. 13. [...]4. 15. which was not barely offred, but confirmed vnto Abraham & his [...]ed by the Lords oth. Yea in verse 10. 12. it is sayd, ye stand this day to passe [...]r [...] the covenant of the Lord, and into his oth which he maketh with thee this day, for [...] establish thee this day, a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God as [...]e hath sayd vnto thee, and hath sworne vnto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Ia­ [...]ob. And this to be their God, & they to be his people, & their posteritie, was no carnall covenaunt, but the very 2 Cor. 6. 16. same that is made with vs vnder the Gospel.

2. That the Lord made with Israel his spirituall covenaunt, may al­so be proved, Deut. 10. 16. where Moses exhorts them to circumcise the foreskinne of their hart, and by all these exhortations of the Prophets, to repentance. Ier. 3. 14. & 4. 1. 4. & 7. 3. Hosea 10. 12. and 14. 1-7. Ioel 2. 12. 13. Amos 5. 4. 6. Zepha. 2. 1. 2. (which are the conditions of that spirituall covenant that the Lord requires on our part therein) & the promises of pardon annexed therevnto. (which is the other part of the covenant on Gods behalfe.) Now the covenaunt of the law admits of no repentance, nor promiseth any pardon, onely the covenaunt of grace, admits thereof. If therefore they had not had the spirituall covenaunt given vnto them, wherevpon could the Prophets have grounded their ex­hortations, or with such reasons have perswaded them to repentaunce? This was the ground of Peters exhortation of the Iewes to amendement of life, as before is observed out of Act. 2. 38. 39.

And by the Lords requyring of repentance at the hands of the Is [...] it is most cleere, that God required then the same thing, that now [...] † gospel is required of vs: Ergo they were interessed in the same cove [...] Mar. 1. [...] 15. that we have: And therfore not onely the outward observation of ce [...] nies was required of the Iewes, by their covenant, but also the obs [...] of the conditions of the covenant of grace, as to walke before God an [...] be vpright: Gen: 17. 1. to beleeve and repent: And it is a notable err [...] hold the contrarie.

3. Israel were held to be the people of God, and the Lord to be their God, and so God did ‡ account of them. Now I would know if they could [...]r. 23. 2. [...]ay 5. 7. [...]icah. 2. 8. [...] Hos. 11. [...]. Deut. [...]. 8. Gen. [...]. 8. Ehe. 2. [...]. [...]. Cor. 6. [...]. 17. A­ [...] c. 18. 4. be sayd to be his people, and not to be within his covenant of grace; doth God accept of any, by a carnal covenant to be his people, and not in Christ? do not both Iewes & Gētiles become Gods people through Christ? and all that are not within his covenant, are sayd to be * far of and with­out God. But the offring onely of the Gospel or covenant, makes not a people to be Gods people, for the Gospel may be preached to them; that are without, but then are they sayd to be Gods people, when they imbrace his covenant and not before, and such as do receive it are com­manded † to separate themselves from the prophane, which wil not have the Lord to be their God: which separation, argues a difference between a people to whome the promises are offred, and such as have received them for that Gospell that converted some in a false Church, was offerred to moe yet is it received onely of the faithfull, in which respect they are sayd to be the people and Church of God. This resteth then for you to shew that God intituleth any to be his people, which have not eyther themselves or [...]om. 9. 4. [...]. 2. 39. [...]eut. 29. their forefathers received the covenant of grace. And as Israel was cal­led the people of God, because the ‡ covenant belonged vnto them, and they had † passed into that, & received the seale thereof wherehy they testi­fyed themselves and were acknowledged to be Gods people and sheep of his pasture: so are we become the people and Church of God, not because [...]. Rom. 11. [...]6. the gospel is preached vnto vs, but because we have received the promise of God, and entred covenant with him for our selves and also for our chil­dren, for if the ‡ first fruicts be holy, so is the whole lumpe, and if the roote be holy, so are the branches.

4. The Apostle sayth, that the branches; vz. the Iewes were Rom. 11. [...]7. 20. broken of frō the roote and fatnes of the olive through vnbeleefe meaning by the roote, Abra­ham [Page 25] [...]saac and Iacob their forefathers who for themselves and their seed [...] received the covenant: Now it must necessarily follow vpon the Apo­ [...] wordes, that they were before, of the olive, or els could they not be [...]d to be broken of: And this breaking of, was not a ceasing to be their [...]turall seede, (for so continew they stil) but they were broken of from the [...]enant of grace made to Abraham and his seed, as it is apparant by this, [...] they were broken of through vnbeleef, which hath relation to that co­ [...]enant, and not to the covenant of works. Yea and they are sayd to be Rom. [...] 19. 20. broken of from that, wherevnto we are graffed by faith, and into which they may also be vers. 23. graffed in agayne, if they continew not in vnbelief. Now we are graffed into no other covenant but that of grace: And as for the Iewes they cannot againe be graffed into such a carnal covenant as you imagine, seing by your owne doctrine it is disannulled: And if they be to be graffed into an other covenant and not the same that they were in before, how can it be called a graffing in agayne? for this phrase importeth a cove­nant whereof they had bene formerly partakers.

But it wil be objected, that they which are once in Christ and holy, can not be broken of, and therefore such of the Iewes as fell away cannot be sayd to be holy and of the spiritual covenant.

I Answer first, it is trew that they that are graffed in Christ, and per­sonally holy Joh. 10. [...] 27. 28. cannot be broken of: secondly, the Apostle speaking of ho­lynes and saying if the root be holy so are the branches, meaneth not of any per­sonal holynes, but of that right of the covenant whereby they became Gods people, which he calleth holynes that descends from Abrahā to all his seed, as the sap or fatnes of the olive doth from the root ascend to all the branches; And this holynes, or right to the spiritual covenant had all the Iewes, in regard whereof they were separate from all other nations, and called a holy nation. And in this respect are the children of those parents (whereof the one of them beleeveth) called holy. 1. Cor: 7. 14. not that personall holines descendeth from the parent to the childe (for that can­not passe from one to an other) but because through the fayth of the fa­ther beleeving that the promise of salvation is made to him and his seed, the children have now tytle and right to the same covenant by the free and large promise of the grace of God, and so many as are elected are saved (though dying in theire infancy,) by the same covenant.

5. The Apostle affirmeth Act. 15. 11. that both the fathers under [Page 26] the law, as well as we that are under the gospel, are under the same j [...] ing and sanctifying grace of Christ, saying, wee beleeve through the grace o [...] Lord Jesus Christ to be saved as they, meaning their fathers, vers. 10. where [...] on I conclude, that their fathers being under the same grace, were und [...] the same covenant with us, although this grace was not so fully revealed and fulfilled as it is now * to us; for there is no partitipation of the gra [...] Jo. 7. 39. of justification and regeneration, but in this spiritual covenant; therefore to them was given this spirituall covenaunt, and they did receive it as well as we, though amongst them some particular persons did by their perso­nal vnbeleif, cut themselves of from the grace of God, as now some do with us, which neyther then, nor now, can make the covenant given to our Exod. 20. Ps. 89. 28 [...]. Gen. 3. 15 [...] 4. 4. 26. [...] 6. 5. & [...]eb. 11. 4. &c. Heb. 11. [...]. [...] Heb. 11. [...]. 14. 15. [...]. forefathers, to be † void to their posteritie.

6. The spiritual covenant that was given to Abraham and his seed, was before given to “Adam, and the fathers to the time of Abraham; & they received it by faith, (for there is but one covenant of salvation both before & after Christ, & one maner of receiving it, which is by faith:) & Abraham to whom was promised the land of Canaan, did notwithstanding look for a * citie having a foundation whose builder and maker is God. And of these fathers before Abraham his time, doth the Apostle witnesse that they all died in faith, ‘* saw the promises (that is the things promised) a farr off, (though they received them not as then fulfilled,) and beleeved and received thankefully and confessed that they were stangers and pilgrimes on the earth, for they that say such things declare plainly that thoy seek a country, that is an heavenly. And in the first epistle to the Corinthes chap. 10. 1. &c. the Apostle speak­ing of the fathers which were of Abrahams seed, sayth, I would not have you ignorant, that all our fathers were under the clowd, were all baptized unto Moses, did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spirituall drink, for they drunk of the spiritual rock that followed, & the rock was Christ. By which scri­ptures it appeares that the spiritual covenant was given unto them, & that they received it by faith. Heb. 11. [...]. Mat. 17. [...]. 2 Cor. [...]. 19. Rev. 1 [...] & 8. 3. Heb. 13. 15 [...] 1 Tim. 2. [...]. Heb. 13. [...] Eph. 2. [...].

7. If the fathers under the law had not bene within the covenant of grace, all their worship offered unto God could not have been acceptable, seing out of Christ, * God is not pleased with any person, or with any worship; therfore is he sayd to be the Lamb slayn from the begining of the world, & the onely “Mediator between God and man, by whom we have accesse un­to the Father, and † through whom all our sacrifices and worship are plea­sing unto God.

Lastly, it must needs be that the Iewes had the covenant of grace, seing the Apostle sayth †‘ that the Gētiles shalbe coinheritors (meaning with the Iewes) [Page 27] [...] of the same body, and partakrrs of the promises in Christ by the Gospel: for if the [...]wes had not formerly bene a body & inheritors of the promises in Christ, [...]ow could the Gentiles be sayd to be coinheritors with them and of the [...]ame body, see also Ephes. 2. 12. 13. 14. Add hereunto that the Iewes were called the Mat. 8▪ 12. children of the kingdome, and of of the Act. 3. 25. covenant, and unto whom the Act. [...] 32. promise was made.

And now it being proved that this spirituall covenant apperteyned to the Israelites, and the conditions therof required at their hands, I hope you will grant as much to the faythfull and their seed under the Gospel, or els shew vs where and when the hand of Gods grace was shortened, but that I am sure you cannot prove God to be lesse bountiful now, then he was to the Iewes: and therefore as the chidren of Abraham Isaac and Ia­cob were holy and had right to the covenant and were sealed with circum­cision: so are the children now that descends from beleeving parents 1 Cor. 7. 14. ho­ly, and have right to the covenant Mat. 19▪ 14. and kingdome of God, and consequently to baptisme the seal thereof.

But you say, Infants wanting actuall faith, cannot truely be sayd the children of Abraham.

I answer, that actuall faith is required of such of Abrahams children, as Here no [...] that actua [...] faith in al [...] this treatis [...] is put for t [...] actual us [...] faith. are grown to yeares. And therfore you must proove that infants wanting actuall faith cannot be the children of Abraham, and then must you prove that they are not Christs, for if they be Christs they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3. 29.

But are that they are, in secret to the Lord; whatsoever they are.

Christ hath sayd playnely, Mar. [...] 14. that of such is the Kingdome of God. And the promise is Act. 2. 3. made to the beleevers and their seede. And you leave them in secrete to the Lord, thus shutting your eies against the cleare light of the truth.

The Scriptures following, (viz: Gal. 3. 13. 4. 8. 9. compared with Gē. 17. 7. Rom. 11. 15. 17. 20. which serve most playnly to prove that the covenant that we have is the same that was made to Abraham,) you leave vnanswered.

Next folow your reasons against poedobaptistrie, the first wherof is this. As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful, so must it be with the children of Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. But Abraham first beleeved actually, and being sealed with the spirit of promise, afterward received the signe of circumcision: Ergo the childrē of Abraham, the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve actually and be sealed with the spirit of promise, and then receive the baptisme of water.

This Argument which you alledge against Paedobaptistrie the very [...] serves to confirm it, for thus we reason for it observing your termes.

As it was with Abraham the father of the faythful, so must it be with th [...] children of Abraham.

But Abraham first beleeved and being sealed with the spirit of promise, afterward received the signe of circumcision, he and his children.

Ergo, the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeve [...] and be sealed with the spirit of promise, and then receive baptisme of wa­ter, they and their children.

Here let the reader consider, yf you by this your owne Argument have not yeelded the cause; for this is that which we stand for, viz: that, As it was with Abraham the father of the faithful so must it be with his chil­dren the beleeving Gentiles. Now Abraham beleeved that God would be his God and the God of his seed. Gen. 17. 7. received circumcision the † seale thereof, he himself, and all his males, yea Isaac of eight dayes old. [...]om. 4. 3 [...] Gen. 17. [...]—14. [...]—27. [...] 21. 4. Ergo the children of Abraham the beleeving Gentiles must first beleeeve, and then receive the seale thereof which is Baptisme, themselves and their children. But if your meaning be this, that as Abraham beleeved first & after was circumcised; so every one of Abrahams seed must first actually be­leeve and then be baptised, then I must intreat you to shew me when and where this difference was put between the seed of Abrahā which descended from him by the course of nature, & his seed that are of the Gentiles, that the former being infants, might notwithstāding first receive the seal before they did actually beleeve: And that the other, viz: the infants of the Gen­tiles must first beleeve and after receive the signe: surely before the com­ming of Christ the Lord put no such difference, but that such of the Gen­tiles as did turne to the faith, “their infants were circumcised, as well as [...]xod. 12. the infants of the Iewes. After Christs comming the Apostle witnesseth, that there is no difference between the Gentiles and the Iewes, for he sayth Ephe. 3. 6 * the Gentiles are coinheritors also (meaning with the Iewes) and of the same bo­dy and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel. And therefore the Apo­stle did not doubt to “baptise the households with the beleeving parents. Act. 16. [...]. 33. Act. 10. [...]. I wil answer you therefore with the words of the Angel unto Peter, * The things that God hath cleansed pollute thou not. God hath purifyed the Gentiles, and our seed in accepting us into the same covenant with Abraham, ther­fore [Page 29] yt is an iniury offered, to pollute, that is, to reject from the cove­ [...]ant, our children, whom the Lord hath received. Your second [...]s this.

As in the old testament the carnal children were carnally circumcised and so admit­ [...]d into the Church of the old testament: so in the new testament, the spirituall children [...]ust be spiritually circumcised, and then be admitted by baptisme into the Church [...]f the new testament. But the first was signified by the type, Ergo the second is [...]rified in the truth.

First, If this Argument should hold proportion, then it would folow, that as circumcision was a seale of the covenant, so should baptisme be a [...]eale likewise, for it is brought in here to answer circumcision, as the dore into the Church: But you deny Chara [...] pag. 9 Baptisme to be a seale of the covenant.

2. I answere that the carnall children of the Israelites were not admit­ted to be members of the Church of the old testament, by circumcision: for they were borne in the Church and so were of it before the eight day, & Gen. 17 the covenant apperteyned unto them, and therfore were they circumci­sed, for none might be circumcised to whom the covenant did not belong.

Also to the Majors consequent, I answer, that they which enter into the Lords covenant be they beleevers or their Infants, we are to hold them 1 Cor. 7. 14. Luk [...] 15. Ier. 1. [...] spiritually circumcised, and therefore to be partakers of baptisme.

Concerning your assumption, as Mat. 3. 8. Act. [...] 12. 37. repentance and profession of faith is required of them that are to be adjoyned to the Church of the new Testa­ment: so was it of Gen. 17 [...] Esra. 6. [...] Abraham, and of them that were Gentiles, and to be adioyned to the Church, of the old Testament, And therefore this man­ner of admitting members into the Church being morall vnder the law so continueth to be vnder the Gospell. And the † “ Deut. 1 [...] 4. [...]. 6. Ier [...] Deut. 30. 6. Circumcision of the hart was commanded and promised then to the Israelites and their seed as wel as now it is to us, and not onely to them that adjoyned to the Church but continually to all the members of the same. And therfore it is no [...] true that theirs was the type onely and ours the truth: seeing the things signifyed by Circumcision were required of the circumcised; as the thing signified by baptisme is also required of vs; and a like enterance into the Church vnder both Testaments.

The third is this; As in the old Testament carnal infants were carnally be­g [...]tten and borne by the mortall seed of generation by their carnal parents, and then [...]ere carnally circūcised, & received into the carnal covenant: so in the new Testament [Page 30] spiritual Infants new borne babes in Christ must be spiritually begotten and [...] the immortall seed of regeneration by spirituall parents, and then being spirit [...] circumcised, they shal by baptisme with water be received into the new Testament▪ But the first was signified by type, Ergo the second was verified in the truth.

This reason is a like to the former and hath answer already. This I add further that circumcision though it was a cuttyng of the foreskinne of the flesh, yet was it an holy action † sealing vnto the beleevers and theire Rō. 4. 11. seed, the righteousnes of faith.

2 I deny that the seed of Abraham after the flesh was by circumci­sion received into a carnall covenant; the covenant is spiritual vnto which Gen. 17. 7 [...] Act. 7. 8. [...]. 4. 11. they were sealed * by circumcision, as before I have proved: for had they bene received into a carnall covenant; then should the Church of the old Testament be also carnall: for according to the nature of the covenant so must the Church be; and GOD must be a carnall GOD, and delited with carnall things, contrary to Psal. 50. 8. 13. Esay. 1. 13. 14. But the Lord required of his people the Israelites more then outward or carnal service and that which stood in ceremonies types and shadowes; Lev. 19. 2 even † holynes, the circumcision of the hart, * repentance, Deut. 10. the service of the hart and soule. And that the Lord did principally require [...]6. Jer. 4. 4. [...] Hos. 14. 2 [...]el 2. 12. [...]3. Ps. 4. 4 [...] Deut. 10. [...]. 6. 4. 5. [...]sa. 1. 11▪ [...] & 58. 2 [...]4. 5. Ps. [...]0. 8.—13. spirituall worship of them, appears by his † rejection of their ceremoniall worship when it was offerred vp without the spirituall, and by exhorting to the spiritual; as Psal. 50. 14. 15. to offer praise and to call vpon him. and Psal. 4. 5. to offer the sacrifice of righteousnes, and in Hoseah. 14. 2. to pray for pardon, and to render vp the calves of their lips, And conse­quently faith in Christ; without Heb. 11. 6 which, all their worship was vnsavory to God. the Psal. discribeth the true members of the Church and dwellers in the Lords Ps. 15. 1. [...]2. 3. &c. & Ps. 24. 3. 4. [...]. Tabernacle not by an outward observacion of legall ceremo­nies, but of their spirituall obedience. The Lord sayth Prov. 23 [...]. [...] Esa. 29. [...]3. my sonn give me thy hart, and reproveth † hipocrisie. By all which testimonies it is ma­nifest, that the members of the old Church were received into a further co­venant with the Lord, then into a bare carnal covenant which hath car­nal conditions onely, as before is proved.

The fourth is this, If the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumci­sed then the carnal infants in the new Testament must not be baptised, because that as circumcision is abolished which was the singe or seal; so the infant is abolished which is the subiect of the signe or seal. And a proportionable infant introduced, which is one regene­rate by the spirit and by the word: But the carnal infāts in the old Testamēt were cir­cumcised: Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the new Testament to be baptised.

The consequent of the major wil not follow, the reason proves it not: For although circumcision be abolished in that there was somewhat [...] [Page 31] [...]t was typical, as the circumcising of the males onely, whereby they were directed vnto Christ by whom our corrupt nature is clensed: yet was [...]t not abolished as it was a seale of the covenant, but the outward ceremo­ [...]ie onely changed: no more is the carnal infant of the beleeving parents abolished or made vncaple of the seal of Gods covenant: for the children of Christians Gal. 3. 29 are Abrahams seed, I say, not in respect of the flesh, but by grace of the covenant comprehending the whole seed of the faithful; and therefore have right as well to the signe of the covenant as had the carnall sede of Abraham.

Towching your proportionable infant (as you term him) it is to be obser­ [...]ed that in the old Church it was required of al that were to be adioyned thervnto that they should Exod. 12 48. Ezr. 6 21. separate from the filthines of the heathē to seek the Lord as now it is vnder the gospel. And therefore it wil not follow that circumcision was a type onely of the time to come? the fift is this.

As in the old Testament when the male appeared the eight day their was a paynful circumcising and mortifying of the foreskin when the party was received into the cove­nant actually: so in the new testament when the Lord Iesus Christ (typed by the male) appointeth that when there is a painful circumcising & mortifying of the superfluous fore [...]kin of the hart, the party so qualifyed should be received into the new testament actual­ly: But the first was signifyed by the type: Ergo, the second is verified in the truth.

First, the covenant to the infants of the Iewes was actually sealed by cir­cūcisiō, but this cānot properly be said a receiving into the covenāt, (wher­in they were before comprehended with their fathers,) but a confirming therof to the parties circumcised. And this appeareth to be so by the Lords threatning to Gen. 1 [...] 14. cut of from his people the vncircumcised male­child. Can he be cut of that was not of his people, or for the refusing cir­cumcision to be be sayd to have broken the Lords covenant?

2. Your simile holds not proportion, for you say, the party circumcised was by circumcision actually received into the covenant, then by your reason (if you will make it proportionable) the parties that are to be received into the new Testament, must be received therin by the mortifying of the su­perfluous forskinne of his hart; or els you must shew some ceremony folow­ing circumcision, by which the Iewish children were received into the co­venant that must type out baptisme by which, say you, the partie so qualified should be received into the new Testament actually, or els shew a reason why this ceremonie of baptisme is added to the truth (as you expound it) and no­thing added to the type to shadowe out baptisme? this is not proportio­able that there must be a ceremonie added to the truth in receving in of members, into the Church now since the cōming of Christ, and not any to the type in receiving in of members into the Church before his coming.

Lastly if you wil keep proportion, you must compare together circum­cision and baptisme, both which do lead to the circumcision of the hart, & are the seales of one and the same covenant, the one appointed for the old Church before Christ, the other for the Church under the Gospel, & then wil your Argument fall out against your self. And thus I have shewed both the weaknes of your answer, & of your reasons grounded therevpon.

Argument. II.

Col. 2. 11. 12. If circumcision belonged to faithful A­braham and his seed, yea to such as were but infants, then doth baptisme also appertayne to all beleevers and to their seed being infants. But the first is true, Gen. 17. 10. Ergo the second.

The consequent wil follow, seing baptisme cōmeth in place of circumcision sealing up unto us and to our seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham and to his seed, Col. 2. 11. 12. and that in as large and ample manner (if not more am­ple) then to the Israelites, for of them onely were the males cir­cumcised, but by baptisme, are both males and females sealed. And this must follow necessarily, or els the covenant by the cō ­ming of Iesus Christ should be more restreyned, then it was un­der the law, who came to ratify and confirm it wholly, as the Apostle sayth, 2 Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him, yea and Amen, &c. For God gave it with the seale thereof, to Abraham and his infants: and if Christ should give it unto us onely and not to our infants, this were to lessen and infringe the covenant, and not to confirm all, but to take away part of that which God before had given.

I answer that this argument is built vpon the same false ground with the former a meer mistaking of the covenant, and seale, and seed: and there is manifest violence cō ­mitted upon the scripture by perverting and wresting it to false consequents: first ther­fore I deny the consequence, and I give reasons of my denyall. &c.

The former Argument is proved to stand upon a true ground and so [...]all it be manifested that there is no mistaking, eyther of the covenant, seale or seed in this reason, nor yet any violence offred to this scripture, by wresting it to false consequences as you affirme. The consequence you deny, but desprove it not, to your reasons I wil answer particularly, which in number are three.

Your first reason because, that circumcision did not appertaine to Abraham & his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant but of the externall temporary cove­nant of Canaan and of obedience to the law of Moses. &c. I have already proved the contrary, both out of Gen: 17. 7. 9. where it is added as a signe vnto that everlasting covenant, and also out of Rom. 4. 11. where it is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith. Furthermore, circumcision did signify the Deut. [...] 16. Ier. [...] Act. 7. 5 [...] in­ward circumcision of the hart; which was not required of them in respect of the promise of Canaā, (the same being required vnder the Gospel,) nor yet of the law, (for it admitts of no repentance,) but as a condition of the e­verlasting covenant made with Abraham and his seede in Christ: also the proselites & Ismael were circumcised, that had no promise of Canaan, nor right to one foot of inheritance in it, for Ios. 14. [...] 16. 17. 18▪ 19. 21. c▪ Canaan was devided by lot to the 12. Tribes, and in every tribe to the several families: and therefore their circumcision did eyther seale vnto them the spirituall covenant, or none at all, as before is observed.

Againe, if by the male circumcised; Christ was typed, as you have affir­med before in your fift reason in your answere to my former Argument, then circumcision was a signe of the spiritual covenant: (For Christ is that which was promised). And if the infant circumcised was a type of him, it must nedes followe that circumcision was asigne of that covenant whereof the child circumcised was the subject, but the infant in becomming a type of Christ, became in this respect, a subiect of the spiritual covenant, and therfore his circumcision a seale thereof, for the type and truth must have relation to the same thing or covenant.

Lastly, Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises unto the fathers. Rom. 15. 8. Also I deny that circumcision was first given as a seale of obedience to the law of Moses, se­ing the law was not given when circumcision was ordeyned, but Gal. 3. 1 [...] 430. yeares after: the thing to be sealed is to go before the seale, or els it is pre­posterous, and the seale without fruit. Neyther was it given to be a seale of a carnall promise: in deed Abraham receiving the covenant of grace, God togither with it promised unto him and his seed the Land of Canaan: but he never appointed circumcision to be the seale thereof; els when Isra­el [Page 34] possessed that land, circumcision should have ceassed, as all Sacraments shall do, when the promises, whereof they be seales, shalbe fully accompli­shed: and circumcision should have bene of no force to them that had no right to Canaan, which yet were circumcised.

Your second reason, because the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the covenant of the new Testament, &c.

I answer, they do thus occupy the place of Abraham, that as he did, so Act. 2. 39 do * they receive the covenant to them, and their children, who through the free promise of God received by the faith of the parents, have entrance into the covenant together with them: and in this regard parents are, & so may be called “fathers of their children, being the meanes whereby they Act. 2. 39 come to this prerogative, And this is not to supply that particular of A­brahams fatherhood, which was extraordinarie.

Your third reason is, because the infants of the faithful doe not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham, but possesse the place of the typical children of Abra­ham according to the flesh, &c.

First, how the infants of the faithful are the children of Abraham, I have shewed, & here, deny that the children of Abraham according to the flesh onely as you mean, were types of the infants of the faithfull; seing the chil­dren of the Proselytes were the children of the faithful: and they were not the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, yea some infants circumcised, should be types, (as the carnal seed of Abraham) and other infants circū ­cised as well as they, (to wit) the children of the Proselytes) should be no types: for you say the infants of the faithful do possesse the place of the typical chil­dren of Abraham according to the flesh. And thus your owne reason agrees not with it self, nor you with the truth.

Secondly, I ask you if the children of Abraham according to the flesh were not the children of the faithful? Paul sayth, * that all our fathers were un­der the clowd, were all baptised unto Moses and did all eat the same spirituall meat, 1 Cor. 10. [...] 5. & drank the same spirituall drink &c. And in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, cap. 11. the faith of the fathers is commended, and after the enumeration of many particulars, the Apostle sayth, all these through faith obteyned good report. Which scriptures do prove that the infants circumcised were the children of the faithful, & if infāts of the faithful, then were they types of thēselves.

3. These that you call typicall children of Abraham, as Isaac, Iacob, &c. [Page 35] were the true children of Abraham, Heb. 11. 9. all the posteritie of Iacob were children of Abraham after the flesh, & Rom. [...] 16. 17. 19▪ 20. 23. [...] cōferd w [...] Gen. 17. [...] 9. 13. Jo [...] 44. sonnes of the promise of life, so to be reputed, as the like we are to esteeme of all the children of belee­ [...]ers.

But say you, If you wil make true consequents, you must reason from the type to the truth, and not from the type to the type, neyther must you confound the covenants and seales as you do, &c.

And I answer you, neyther must you devise other covenants and seales then the Lord hath appointed. But as for my confounding of the cove­nants and seales, that is your bare affirmation, and what you have sayd for establishing of your two covenants or Testaments made to Abraham, & for your carnal and spirituall infants, is answered before.

Next you proceed to examine the reasons of the consequence of my ar­gument, and of the scriptures produced for the confirmation therof. And first you deny baptisme to come in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to us and our seed, then you undertake to prove the contra­ry, saying, That the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumci­sing the flesh, Rom. 2. 29. and circumcision made without hands, commeth in place of cir­cumcision made with hands, Collos. 2. 11. compared with Ephe. 2. 11.

By this reasoning you deny the fathers before Christ to be circumcised in hart, and yet to them as well as unto us was commaunded and promi­sed the Deut. 1 [...] 16. & 30. circumcision of the hart, and the hart of their seed, as before is shewed, and they had the grace together with the outward signe, & therefore your reason is insufficient, and the scriptures you pervert from their true mea­ning.

Towching the place of the Romaines, 2. 29. the Apostle having con­vinced Rom. 2 [...] the Iewes of syn, vers. 17.—24. they might object, what, doth our circumcision nothing profit us, that thou equallest us to the sinners of the Gentiles? yea sayth he, if thou keep the law, els thy circumcision is made uncircumcision: vers. 25. And so preferreth uncircumcision keeping the law, before circumcision transgressing the law, vers. 26, 27. then by distin­guishing between such as are true Iewes and hypocrites, & the inward and outward circumcision, sheweth who is a true Iew (not before men) but be­fore God, viz: he that is one within, wherein is no guyle, And that circumcision is avaylable to salvation, which is not onely outward but of the hart: [Page 36] this is the Apostles meaning, and not to teach, that the circumcision of the hart succeedeth in place of the circumcision of the flesh, &c. as you affirm.

That other place, Col. 2. 11. maketh no more to your purpose then the [...]2. 11. former, for the Apostle in that chapter dealeth against false teachers that urged the Iewish religion to be ioyned with the gospel, in this verse he de­nyeth that we have need of the circumcision of the flesh, (which was spe­cially urged) seing we are inwardly circumcised by the vertue of Christs death, and withal teacheth that our baptisme is a most effectual pledge, seal, and witnes, of our inward renuing, or regeneration; therefore having bap­tisme to confirme these graces vnto them, need not the use of outward circumcision. And as for Ephe. 2. 11. the Apostle having before taught [...]e. 2. 11. that they were saved by grace through faith not of works, verses 8. 9. 10. applyeth the same doctrine to the Ephesians, shewing that they were not onely as the Iewes, by nature corrupt, but also after an especiall manner, strangers, & without God, &c. and therefore ought so much the rather to remember the same to move them to greater thankfulnes. And thus you may see how unfitly you haue alledged these scriptures.

And circumcision the seal of the flesh hath the holy spirit of promise, which is the spi­rituall seale to succeed in place therof. Ephe. 1. 13. 14.

Although circumcision was set in the flesh, yet was it not a seale of the flesh, but of the * spirituall covenant: and the holy spirit of promise suc­ceedes Rō. 4. 11. not in place of circumcision as you understand it: for the beleeving Iewes had both the spirit inwardly sealing up unto them, that heavenly co­venant of salvation, as they had circumcision sealing the same outwardly: as in Abraham, Isaac, Iacob and the rest: yea, the spirit in the Proselites went before circumcision, for they being converted were after circumcised: Abraham before he had the outward seale was inwardly “assured by the [...]om. 4. [...]. 21. 22. spirit and confirmed of the certaintie of the promise. But to prove that the spirit of promise succeedeth in place of circumcision, you quote Ephes. 1. 13. 14. which scripture is misalledged; for the Apostle entendeth to shew that the Ephesians were equall to the Iewes, because they were called by the same gospel, which they imbraced by fayth, and sealed up by the same spi­rit, which is the earnest of our inheritance: And not to teach that the spirit succeedeth circumcision. Againe the spirit being invisible, is not given to us for a visible seale of the covenant.

Further you say, I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new te [...]sta­ment [Page 37] though I cannot deny that the Baptisme of the holy Ghost is a seal. I say there­fore that the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water, and as all the or­dinances of the new testament are spiritual and yet visible, so is the seale of the new Te­stament, spiritual, and yet visible, and thereupon men being visibly sealed by the spi­rit, as Cornelius company was, Act. 10. 47. may chalenge the baptisme with water, as Peter there teacheth. This visible seale of the new testament is confession, as in the [...]d testament circumcision was their confession, and baptisme is not a seale, but a ma­nifestation of the seale.

First, you deny a principle of religion, and that which formerly you held, for in your book of Difference, &c. pag. 3. you call both breaking of bread and baptisme seales of the covenant: these are your words. The publishing of the covenant of grace and the putting too of the seales is onely one con­crete action &c. for the publishing of the covenant giveth being to the seales, otherwise breaking of bread and baptising are but putting of seales to a blank. And thus un­stable are you in your wayes.

2. What if baptisme be not called a seale? yet if it can be proved by scri­pture that it is a seale, we ought so to receive it. The sacraments given of God unto the Israelites were called seales, as Rom. 4. & 15. 8. circumcision by the Apo­stle is called, a seale of the righteousnes of faith. And when God made with A­braham his covenant to be his God and the God of his seed, he gave him Gen. 17. 10. 11. 1 [...] circumcision a signe thereof, which did confirme unto him and to his seed that which God did promise, as before the Lord had done to Noah to whō he gave the Gen. 9. 9-17. rayn-bowe as a signe of his promise, that the world should be no more destroyed with water: so the Passeover is called a signe, Exod. 13. 9. Now if circumcision be a signe and seale of Gods cove­nant, as the Apostle testifieth, then it must needs be granted that baptisme succeeding circumcision is also a seale of the Lords covenant, though the very word ( seale) be not expressely set downe in the scripture. And this the Apostle intimates, Act. 2. 39. where he exhorteth the beleevers to be bap­tised every one in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes, for the promise is to you and to your children. The Lord commanding his Mat. 2. 19. Gos­pel to be preached to all nations, commanded them also to be baptised, confirming by this outward signe, his covenant to all the beleeving Gen­tiles and their seed, as he had done to Abraham and his seed the same co­venant by circumcision. [Page 38] * Paul, † Cornelius, “Lydia and the Gaylor, after they beleeved and had [...]ct. 9. 17 received the covenant were baptised, which confirmed unto them the free * forgivenes of all their synnes by the death of Christ. And this is plain­ly Act. 10. taught us by Peter 1. Epistle 3, 21. where he sayth, that baptisme now al­so saveth us: Baptisme cannot be sayd to save, as any cause thereof, Act. 16. [...] 31. [...]k. 3. 3. [...]ct. 2. 38. [...]. 6. 3. [...]al. 3. 16 [...]om. 7. 11 Mar. 16. but in this respect, that it witnesseth and sealeth unto us from God, our sal­vation, that which circumcision did type out to come, the same doth bap­tisme now signifie to be fulfilled in Christ the true † seed, of Abraham. And as by “circumcisiion the righteousnes of faith was sealed: so by Baptisme salvation is sealed, as Christ sayth * he that beleeveth and is baptised shalbe saved.

Againe, Rom. 6. 3. Paul sayth, all we that have been baptized into Iesus Christ have beene baptized into his death. In which words the Apostle giveth vs to understand, that by baptisme, the benefits of the death of Christ, are on the Lords behalf confirmed unto us. And if this be not the significa­tion of baptisme, let it be shewed out of the word what els is minded by these phrases, baptised into the death of Christ, and buried with him, by baptisme in­to his death?

Thus have I shewed that baptisme is a seal of the new Testament, which you deny, affirming a new kind of seale thereof, viz: Confession, & say, the seale of the spirit, must go before baptisme. Which two in my understanding dif­fer farre one from another, for confeession, is the act of man, as the Apostle sayth, * with the mouth man confesseth unto salvation, & proveth sometime to be Rom. 10. [...] Act. 8. 13 hypocriticall, as that of Symon Magus was: But the baptisme of the holy Ghost is an action of God, and is eyther an internall work of the spirit, as Mat. 3. 11. or els external, by some visible signes and extraordinary guifts, Act. 1. 8. & 2. 2. 3. 4. and 10. 44. - 47. This latter now ceasseth; be­ing then given of God, for the further confirming of the Gospel in the Churches newly planted, until the faith of Christ was fully established a­mongst the Gentiles, and therefore is no ordinary seale of the new Testament given by Christ to be continued unto the end of the world, though I confesse those extraordinary giftes of the spirit, miracles & works done by the Apostles and other of the servants of Christ, have still their use in the Church to confirme the truth of God by them published.

And as for mens confession of the faith, that can be no seale of the [...]ew Testament; because it is imperfect, and oftentimes hypocriticall, many falling away from the truth which formerly they professed, as Demas, Nicholas the Deacon, and those mentioned in the first epistle of Iohn, chap. 2. 19. Now that which must seale Gods covenant unto us, for the confirmation of our faith must be certayne and perfect, and that from God, because it is he that promiseth salvation to all that beleeve, there­fore it is he that onely can give assurance of his owne covenant, And as [...]or our confession, it is but an outward testification of the grace of God bestowed upon us, it can no more be a seale of the new Testament, then the profession of the Iewes was of the old. And as you require of me [...]here in all the scripture baptisme is called a seale? so more justly may I demand of you where in all the new Testament that confession is called a seale. Be­sides if confession be a seale of the new Testament, then a man may be par taker of the scale, that is not of the Church, as they that confesse their faith and yet are not admitted members of the communion of Saints.

3. That the seale of the spirit must go before the baptisme of water, &c. Vnderstanding it as you do (of confession) then I graunt, that such as were never of the Church, ar first to make cōfessiō of their faith, & to testify their repentance before they can be admitted members of the Church and be baptised. Act. 8. 37. 38. but neyther is such confession required of their infants, neyther is it a seale of the new Testament, as before I have proved. Otherwise understanding the seale of the spirit, as the Apostle doth, Rom. 8, 15. 16. & Ephe. 1, 13. 14. so goeth it before and together with Bap­tisme in all the elect of God whether infants or of yeares.

As for that sealing with the spirit, of Cornelius company, which you instance, Act. 10. 47. whereby you seeme to understand, confession, you cannot but know, that the spirit which came upon Cornelius and his com­pany by the hearing of Peters words, was the extraordinary geving of the spirit, wherewith he and the rest were indued, and not onely that ordina­ry confession of the faith required of each true beleever, as by the text is plainly to be seen, which sayth, that they of the circumcision were astonied as ma­ny as came with Peter, because on the Gentiles was powred out the gift of the H. Ghost, [Page 40] For they heard them speak with tongues. And chapter 11. 15. Peter sayth, as I beganne to speak the holy Ghost fell on them, even as upon us at the beginning. Now Act. 2. 3. 4. it is written concerning the Apostles how the holy Ghost came upon them, viz: there appeared unto them cloven tongues like fyre, and it sat vpon each of them, and they were filled with the holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them vtterance. This descending of the spirit up­on the Apostles was extraordinarie, (for he came not so upon all that were baptised. Act. 8. 36, 37. & 16. 14. 15. 33,) seing * the multitude was asto­nished [...]ct. 2. 6. [...].—12. wondred all and marveyled. Therefore that comming of the spirit upō Cornelius and his company, was extraordinary: for Peter sayth, The ho­ly Ghost fel on them as on us at the beginning: also Peter distinguisheth between the holy Ghost that fel on them, & baptisme; for he seing them partakers of the spirit, sayth, can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised that have received the holy Ghost as wel as we?

This visible seale seale of the new Testament, (say you) is confession, as in the old Testament, circumcision was their confession.

That confession, is not the seale of the new Testament I have already pro­ved. And as for circumcision to be their confession in the old Testamēt, thus farre may be granted, that it was a signe separating them from the Gentiles, and whereby they were known to be Gods peculiar inheritance, and so is baptisme now to us, a signe distinguishing us from Iewes and Pa­gans, but as we do not only confesse the Lord to be our God by our bap­tisme; Act. 19. [...]. Rom. 10 10. King. 18 [...]. Exo. 19. [...]. Psa. 107. [...]. 21. 31. Esa. 29. 13. [...]e Dā. ch. 9 Exo. 12. [...]8. Act. [...]. 27. &c. Ezr. 6. 21. but also by * professing of his name and truth: even so did the Iewes confesse the Lord to be their God, and his truth not onely by circumcisi­sion, but also † with words to his praise. And I make no question, but the Proselytes before they were “circūcised made confession of their faith.

Baptisme is not a seale, but a manifestation of the seale.

I pray you Sir, of what seale is baptisme the manifestation? Confession you say, is the visible seale of the new testament. Doth it manifest our confes­sion? it needs not, for that is visible. If you meane that it signifyeth the inward grace, it is true, but thereby we are assured of Gods promise, and so is the visible seale thereof.

Next you proceed to answer unto the scriptures which I alledged to cō ­firme the consequence of my Argument: the first whereof is, Collos. 2. 11. 12. to prove that baptisme cōmeth in the rome of circumcision, this you deny so to be construed, and say:

That the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Christs circumcision and baptisme which is mortifying and burying of syn and resurrection from sinne, and not to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth circumcision, &c.

That baptisme succeedeth circumcision as a seale to the same covenant of grace wherof circumcisiō was the seale, I wil further manifest & prove both out of this place of the Collossians, and also by other reasons. First as Coll. 2. 1 12. touching Col. 2. 11. The Apostle reasoning against ioyning of legal ceremo­nies with the Gospel, proveth that the Church stands no need therof, seing they are fully furnished with all things in Christ: and because the adversa­ries did especially urge circumcision as necesarie to salvatiō, he answereth, that neyther needed they to be circumcised, because they were spiritually circumcised. And whereas the Collossions might have objected, that they that were under the law were inwardly circumcised, yet had they withall outward circumcision the seale thereof, which if we want, our state is not so good as their was: yea sayth Paul that it is, for in stead of outward cir­cumcision, you have baptisme ordayned of God to seale vnto you and your children, under the Gospel, the same things that circumcision did seale unto the Iewes and their seed: this is the meaning of the Apo­stle, and therefore it is truely gathered from this place that baptisme suc­ceedeth circumcision: Now I vvil prove also by other reasons that Baptism succeedeth Circumcision as a seale of the same covenant.

First, the sacraments of the nevv Testament have the same end & scope in respect of the thing signified, with the sacraments under the law. For as Paul attributed the same vertue, efficacy, and effect of our baptisme & the Lords supper 1 Cor. 1. 2. 3. 4. to the fathers: so doth he ascribe to the beleevers un­der the gospel, the efficacy of the Cor. [...] Pascall lambe, Col. 2. 1 [...] 12. and circumcision; ther­fore in respect of the thing signed, there is no difference, the same Christ, was the Lambe Rev. 13. slaine from the beginning of the world. Also the same instrument and meanes of application, the same Rom. 4, 16. &c. faith, end and effect, one and the same righteousnes of faith, the same Gal. 3. 9 blessing with faithful Abraham, the same spirituall circumcision of the hart, both of the fathers under der the law and of vs vnder the gospel: so that in all these things there is no difference; which plainely argues, that our sacraments succeed in place of the former sacraments.

2, This may be further shewed by comparing circumcision and bap­tisme together in their special vses and ends. There is the same principal [Page 42] use and end of circumcision and baptisme, viz: to * be signes of the co­venant [...]o. 4. 11. [...]. &c. Gal [...]6. Mar. [...]. 16. con­ [...]d with [...]om. 4. 11 Deut. 10. [...]. & 30. 6 [...]it. 3. 5. [...]er. 4. 4. [...]l. 2. 11. [...]uk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38 [...]. 6. 4. 6. [...]om. 2. 29. [...]hil. 2. 3. Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 6. 1. Ephe. 5. 6. 1. Joh. 1 [...]. Exo. 12. [...]. Act. 8. [...]. & 16. [...]. 33. [...]at. 28. 19 Ephe. 2. 11 [...]2. 1 Cor. [...]2. 13. of the righteousnes of faith in Christ: both of the sacraments of † regeneration, “requiring repentance and mortification, both signifying that we are corrupt, and by the ¶ blood of Christ, to be clensed, by both of them such as were * without, were received into the communion of the Church. And by both of them Gods people were † discerned from o­ther prophane companies: And neither of them might be iterated. By which proportion and agrement we may see, that the one followes the o­ther.

Lastly, as circumcision was given as a signe of the covenant, when the Lord chose Abraham and his seed to be his people: so baptisme was givē together with the publishing of this covenant to the Gentiles, when cir­cumcision was to ceasse, the partition wall removed, and both Iewes and Gentiles were made alike partakers of the covenant and of baptisme the signe thereof. Which argueth that the mind of the Lord was to give to his Church, Baptisme, to confirme unto it, those things which before he had witnessed to Abraham by circumcision. And thus I have proved Baptisme to succeed Circumcision, and so answered your mista­king of that place of the Collos. 2. 11. 12.

Againe you say that I would insinuate a restraint in the new Testament if baptisme be not due to infants; seing circumcision was due to infants in the old testament, whereunto you answer many wayes, saying,

1. Seing Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision, this allegation is nothing to the purpose. 2. seing baptisme is both to male and female it is larger then circumcision which was onely vpon the male 3. Seing baptisme is both to Jew and Gentile, ther­fore more large then circumcision, but these things are almost nothing to the purpose: but now I say more pertinently, that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, is now as large as ever it was, for it was never made with Abrahā and all his carnall children, but onely with Abraham and the faithful, and so that conti­nueth in the same tenure stil, and it is inlarged now since Christs comming onely in re­spect of the clearer and more vniversall publication of it, &c.

Concerning the first particular of your answer, I have already proved Baptisme to succeed circumcision, & then my allegation is to purpose you [Page 43] [...]nnot deny. To the second, I answer, that though baptisme be both to [...]ale and female, and circumcision onely to the male, yet is not the seal­ [...]g of the covenant so large under the gospel as under the law, if infants [...]e excluded from it: for though women were not circumcised, yet were [...]hey comprehended in the covenant with the males, and their state was as [...] they had been circumcised. Gen. 34. 14. And though baptisme be [...]o women, yet denying it to children, it makes a restraynt: for to place [...]omen in the stead of children is not an inlarging, but a change.

To the third particular of your answer, that baptisme is both of Iewe and [...]entile, and therefore more large. I answer, so was circumcision to Iewe and Gentile, for all the Gentiles might have been circumcised, if they had pro­ [...]ssed the faith: therefore it wil folow that you do restrayn the seale of Gods covenant by denying it to infants. But these things, you say, are almost [...]thing to the purpose: therefore to your second answer, that you say, is more [...]rtinent, viz: that God never made the spiritual covenant with Abraham and al [...]is carnall seed, but onely with Abraham and the faithful. It is certaine that God made his covenant with Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17. 7. and to that seed of his to whom was promised and given the land of Canaan, to that Gen. 17 8. seed did God promise to be their God: but to Abrahams natural seed was promised and given the land of Canaan, Ergo to them did God promise to be their God & so made with them his covenant of grace in Christ then to come. The same may be seen by the Deut. [...] 10.—15; renuing of this covenant, as for­merly hath bene shewed.

I affirme, that circumcision was never a seale of Gods covenant made with A­braham in respect of Christ, &c.

I have proved the contrarie before, and have also shewed that the confession “ pag. 12. of beleevers under the Gospel is not the seale of the new Testament, then is it not so large as circūcisiō: for that infants were circūcised, but Confessiō is onely of them that are growne to yeares. As for your opposing of true beleevers, to the carnal Israelites circumcised, it is not a iust and equall op­position, for actuall beleevers are onely of persons growne to yeares, but the circumcised were not onely of such, but also their infants. And thus you lessen both the covenant and seale thereof, if things be taken in their due proportion, though you pretend the contrary, deceived by your owne devised definitions and distinctions.

Lastly, to 2 Cor. 1. 20. you answer, saying, this place is strayned to the [...]or. 1. 20 proving thereof; for the meaning of it is that unto the faithful, all the Lords promises are verified, but his promise was never, that all their carnall seed should have bap­tisme as a seale of life and salvation, but that all beleevers should have the spirit of pro­mise which is the new Testaments seale.

You grant that the meaning of this scripture is that all the Lords promi­ses are verified to the faithfull, and further then this I do not streyne it: but do affirme, that this promise of life in Christ, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed * was made to faithful Abraham and his seed: which pro­mise Gen. 17. 7. he received that he should be the father of circumcision, and the father of all that beleeve, not being circumcised, Rom. 4. 12. 11. But where you say the pro­mise was never that their carnal seed should have baptisme as a seale of life. I answer, that those whom you call carnal seed, being the infants of the faithful, are a † holy seed, in respect of that title and right which they have Cor. 7. 14 Pet. 2. 9. [...]. 11. 16 to the covenant received by their parents, though they be carnall, inasmuch as they are begotten and born of them after the common course of nature. And therefore being holy, and children of the covenant, have also a right to Baptisme, as hath beene, and shalbe further proved in the resi­dew of the arguments following. Here also out of your answer you set downe five arguments against Poedobaptistrie.

1. If all the carnall infants of Abraham were never actually under the everlasting co­venant in respect of the actuall possession of it, then they never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant. But all the carnall infants were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it, seing Abrahams children according to his actuall faith were onely under it. Rom. 4. 11. Ergo, &c.

I answer, unto the major, that to be under the everlasting covenant, is to be considered two wayes, 1. according to the Lords externall dispensa­tion, thereof, who of his free grace “maketh his everlasting covenant Act. 2. 39 with the faithful and their seed. 2. according to Gods secret election; in the former sense, all the carnall infants of Abraham were, and all the in­fants of the faithful are, under the covenant. * For if the root be holy, so Rom. 11. [...]. Gen. 17. 7 [...] 11. 12. [...]at. 28. 19 are the branches: And therefore as the infants have right to the covenant, through the free grace and large promise of God: so have they † to the seal thereof, which is administred by the commandement of God, according to the outward dispensation of his covenant, and not after his secret electi­on, according to which election, neyther all the carnall infants of Abra­ham, [Page 45] or all the seed of the faithfull, or yet all that make 1 Io. [...] visible profes­sion of their faith and stand members of true Churches, are under the co­venant, save onely the elect. But thus to vnderstand, to be vnder the actu­all possession of it, as it is proper onely to the true children of Abraham, so the certaine knowledge thereof 2 Tim▪ 19. belongs onely to God. And thus you see the majors consequent, in a right understanding of the covenant doth not follow.

Your second is this, If Baptisme doth not succeed circumcision, then Baptisme doth not perteyne to carnall infants. But Baptisme doth not succeed Circumcision, because the seale of the spirit is correspondent to the typicall seale of the flesh, and Bap­tisme with water is onely the manifestation of the seale. Ergo, &c.

The consequent of the major of this argument is not necessarily true, for though baptisme should not succeed circumcision, yet may it pertayne to the naturall children of beleevers by vertue of the commandement of God. But I deny the minor, and do affirme that Baptisme doth succeed circumcision, as I have formerly proved. The reason of your assumption is also before disproved, for the spirit as you vnderstand it, for our confes­sion, is not correspondent to circumcision, seing infants are excluded.

Your third is this, If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants (then by your proportion) baptisme doth not seale up the everlasting covenant to the faithful & their carnal infants. But circumcisiō did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his carnall infants. Ergo, &c.

The Assumption is false being rightly vnderstood, viz: in respect of their outward standing; and the contrarie is proved before, to wit, that circum­cision did seale up visibly the everlasting covenant to Abraham and all his seed. Gen. 17. 7. &c.

Your fourth is this, If beleeving Parents do not stand in Abrahams roome to conveigh the covenant to their infants, then though they be baptised themselves yet their children shall not. But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rowme to conveigh the covenant to their infants, for no man is the father of the faithfull, as A­braham was, and he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnall infants▪ Ergo, &c.

For conveighing of the everlasting covenant, this is that which we say, that it is conveighed to the children, by the free grace and disposing of the Lord, who giveth his covenant both to the beleevers and to their seed,

And although the beleeving parents stand not in Abrahams rowme to be the father of many nations; yet stand they in Abrahams rowme in this, that as * God did conveigh his everlasting covenant by Abraham be­leeving [...]. 17. 7 [...]. 2. 39 [...]. 7. 14 [...]. 11. 9.▪ to his seed: so dooth the Lord conveigh † his covenant, to the chil­dren of beleevers: for this is common to Abraham with all the faithfull, To beleeve God to be their God and the God of their seed; and thus entred Abra­hams carnall seed, (as you call them) into the everlasting covenat, as before is proved. And be it that all their seed are not within Gods election, (yet leaving secret things to the Lord) we are to beleeve the promise to be established to all our seed indefinitely, and not to put difference, before the time, that they by their works do manifest that they are not the true seed of Abraham. Amongest them that confesse Iesus Christ, and “are mem­bers [...]oh. 2. of the visible Church many depart away, yet we account them childrē of the covenant vntill their hypocrisie be discovered: and so in like man­ner are we to esteem of the infants of the beleevers as * holy, vntill the cō ­trary [...]or. 7. appeare.

Your fift argument is this: If infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of true beleevers children of Abraham: but onely occupy the place of carnal children, then although the true children of Abraham in the actual beleevers be baptized, yet the infants shall not which cannot beleeve actually.

But the infants of the faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of A­braham: seing the children of Abraham do the workes of Abraham, Joh. [...]. 39. which infants cannot do. Ergo, &c.

First, it is denyed that the infants of the faithful do onely occupy the place of the carnal children as you vnderstand it; for they are also the † chil­dren [...]ct. 3. 32 [...]at. [...]. of the covenant, and of the “kingdome. Secondly, the consequent of the major (according to the true meaning of the termes therein used) is also denyed, the contrary is proved before, viz: that infants are to be baptised though they have not the actuall use of fayth. To the minor I answer, that children so far as we can see do occupy the place of the Act. 2. 29 [...]t. 29. [...] 15. true children of Abraham, for to * them is the promise, and in that respect children of Abraham, as hath been sayd.

Your reason drawne from Iohn 8. 39. to prove that infants do not oc­cupy the place of true children, is not truely gathered from that scripture, for Christ there proveth, that the Iewes living wickedly were not the chil­dren of Abraham as they pretended to be, seing they did not the deeds of Abraham: and he speaketh to men of yeares, of whom the practise of [Page 47] [...]ith is required. Now to apply this against infants of whom God requires [...]o such works, is like as if one should reason from 2. Thes. 3. 6. that be­cause children cannot work, therefore they must not eat. And such is [...]our absurd reasoning from this place. Now when children of belee­vers do come to yeares to manifest their infidelitie by their works, we are accordingly to iudge of them, after the example of Christ, and not before. Thus much to your five reasons, whereof not one is of weight to prove that infants ought not to be baptised.

Argument III.

‘ Marc. 10. 13. 14. & Mat. 19. 13. 14.’

They that are of the kingdome of God have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging, and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive.

But the infants of beleeving parēts are of the kingdom of God. Therefore the infants of beleeving parents have right and title to all the holy things thereto belonging, and may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receive and consequently of baptisme, seing they are capable of it.

The major Proposition I think will not be denyed, it is writ­ten, 1 Cor. 3, 21. 22. All things are yours, Rom. 9. 4.

The assumption is Mat. 19. 13.—17. For of such is the king­dome of God, meaning that his kingdome stood not onely of such as being of yeares that beleeved, but also of their infants. And this he declareth not onely in this saying, but also by his displeasure against his Disciples for hindering their comming unto him: also by cōmaunding to suffer them to come, and by putting his hands vpon them, and blessing them. Mat. 19. 13. 14. 15. For would Christ have blessed them that were not of [Page 48] his kingdome? or do not the blessings apperteyne onely to the children of the kingdom, even to the seed of Abrahā, Gal. 3. 8. 18.

If it be objected that children are not capable of baptisme, I answer, they are as capable thereof, as the infants of Israel were of circumcision, being both partakers of the same promises with them, and in all respects as capable of the outward seales of the covenant as they were. And therefore the infants of be­leevers are to be baptised.

To this Argument of yours I make answer diversly: First you have not pro­ved that the visible Church and all the ordinances thereof perteyne to infants of the faithful: for the infants of the Iewes that were presented to Christ were not infants of beleevers &c.

You answer, (you say) diversly, but yet your answer would have been more direct and playne to my understanding if you had denyed ey­ther proposition or distinguished; in stead whereof you demannd divers questions; deny the sequele of the conclusion, and pretend absurdities to follow; notwithstanding I will answer to your particulars.

And first, where you say, I have not proved that the visible Church, and all the ordinances thereof perteyned to infants, &c. I have proved that which I vn­dertook, viz: both the parts of my argument, and you deny neyther, but say I have not proved the conclusion, which if the Argument be in mood and figure must necessarily follow upon true premisses,

Next you say, the infants that were presented to Christ, were not infants of beleevers for ought that I see, &c.

Neyther have you any likelihood to judge thē to be infāts of any others [...]at. 10. [...]. Mat. [...]. 13. 14. that were not either of the Iewes or Proselytes: for would Christ receive the infants of the vnbeleeving Gentiles, and to say of them, of such is the king­dome of God? therefore it cannot be that they were the children of unbelee­vers, unlesse we shall imagine that Christ did practise contrary to the course [Page 49] [...] hath set downe for the receiving of them, into his covenant that are without, also this was in Mar. [...] 1. Iudah by the far syde of Iorden whether the peo­ple resorted unto him again Mar [...] 10. Mat▪ 1. after he was come out of Gallily, And though the text mencion not who they were that brought the infāts to Christ, nor [...]hose they were (as it was not needful for vs to know) yet by the circum­stance of the place and persons comming then vnto him, it cannot other­wise be thought, but that they were of the children of the Iewes or prose­lytes; and as for your likelihood to the contrary, it is no likelihood at all, seing the Disciples fayled in many things: Luk. 9. 54. 55. they also besought him to send the Cananitish away, yet he received her. Now the cause why the Disci­ples would have had the Canaanite sent away, was for that she cried after * Mat. 1 [...] 22. 23. 2 [...] them, and it may be this was the reason why the disciples rebuked them that brought the infants, because they troubled them, or it may be they thought infants uncapable of knowledge and so could not profit by the word preached, but this matters not, for by Christs reproving of them, it is manifest that they erred in so doing: & that they ought not to have for­bidden children to have bene brought vnto him.

You say, it may be they were the children of some of the Romane souldiers or some Ca [...]anish persons.

So it may be the parents of these infants were proselytes and most like­ly they were Iewes: but what is this to the purpose; answer to the argu­gument, for this is but to seek shifts when you cannot find a sufficient an­swer. But suppose (say you) they were children of the Jewes how is it prooved that their parents were beleevers, seing the Iewes for the most part were stiffenecked and uncircumcised in hart.

Although some of the Iewes wer stiffenecked, yet how is it proved that these were the infants of such? seing many of the Ioh. 7. [...] people beleeved in him: nay rather the contrary appeares by Mar [...] 10. 1. 13. their comming to heare Christ and the bringing of their infants unto him, that they were not of those that were stiffenecked, for would they have sought to Christ to blesse their children if they had dispised him? And although the parents of these infants might be such as yet were not fully instructed that the Messiah was come whom they looked for, (the contrarie is more probable) yet did they professe the Lord to be their God whom they ought to worship, & there­fore were in externall account, beleevers and members of the Church.

If they had been the children of beleeving Iewes that were baptised by John [...] Christs disciples▪ &c

Whether these Infants or their Parents were baptised by Iohn or Chr. disciples the scripture mentioneth not, neither is it greatly material for us to know, els the spirit had reveyled it: that they were blessed of Christ ther is no question. But say you, if they were baptised what need was there to bring them to Christ, except i [...] were for popish confirmation. The Scripture sets down the end why, viz. that † Christ should lay his hands on them, and pray for [...]uk. 18. [...]. Mat. [...], 13. Gen. 48. [...]—20. Mar. 7. [...]. Luk. 4. [...]. Act. 9. 17. Act. 8. [...]—19. Act. 19. [...]6. them, or blesse them. The laying hands on the partie blessed, was practi­sed by the * fathers, when they would pray for, or blesse their children. Christ used it in “working of miracles, for they that brought the deaf man prayed him to put his hands upon him: all they that had sick of di­verse diseases brought them unto him, and he layed his hands on every of them and healed them. Also Christs disciples practised this laying on of hands & pray­ing, not onely in † curing the diseased, but also * upon them that were baptised. And Paul “layed his hands upon those twelve at Ephesus who wer baptised with Iohns Baptisme.

If the Apostles might lay their hands upon them that were already bap­tised and pray for them, (and this I hope was no popish confirmation) might not our Saviour do this to these Infants if they were baptised, but it must be a needlesse thing to bring them unto him thus to be blessed? And though you say, I cannot from hence conclude Baptisme, yet from hence I do conclude that Christ performed that action to Infants, that his disci­ples did afterward unto such as were baptised, viz. laying on of hands and prayer: & likewise I can conclude that Christ admitted of Infants to come to him, and that he prayed for them, And “he prayes not for the world. [...]oh. 17. 9. M [...]r. 10. And that also he pronounceth, that † of such is the kingdome of God. And therfore whether Baptisme can be denyed to such let the godly reader judge.

I avouch constantly against you that eyther they were not the children of the Iewes, or they were not the Infants of beleeving Iewes, or if their parents beleeved, yet it followeth not tha [...] those Infants were of the kingdome of God or to be baptised: for Christ doth not say of these, but of such is the kingdome of God.

Although you do so constantly avouch against me, yet it is but your stout denyal, without any reason or probabilitie to the contrary. That [Page 51] these Infants which were brought to Christ were of the Iewes, I have shew­ed my reasons before.

But not beleeving (say you) I answer, how dare you deny them to be pro­fessors? (of the hart we are no judge) stood they not members of the visi­ble church? and are they not so long to be accounted for beleevers? nay, they came to hear Christ, and by presenting their children unto him, and desiring him to pray, testifyed their fayth in him, and 1 Cor. 1 [...] 7. charitie binds us to esteem of such in the better part.

If their parents beleeved, yet it followeth not that therefore these Infants were of the kingdome of God, or to be baptised &c.

It doth follow that these infants were of the kingdome of God, in that Christ prayed for them Mar. 10. 16. conferred with Mar. 19. 13. but he Joh. 17, [...] prayed not for them that are not of his kingdome.

Yea, Christ sayth not of these, (say you) but of such.

And do you not think in your conscience that Christ in these words ( of such) included those infants? would he include others like to them & ex­dude them? As cōcerning that place of Mat. 18. 3. 6. which you alledge to crosse my interpretatiō of these words, it gaynes you nothing: for the dis­ciples coming to Christ and asking who is the greatest in the kingdome of heaven, he teaching them humblenes, called a little child (not a man of years) and set him in the midest of them saying, except ye be converted & be­come as little children, ye shal not enter into the kingdome of heaven, using the same word in this place for little children, Mat. 18. 3. that is in Mark. 10. 15. In Mat. 18. 6. for ( little ones) is used another word, that wil as wel agree to men of yeares, so they be humble, as to children. And in verse the third Christ doth not deny children to be of the kingdome of God, but teach­eth his disciples by a simile to be humble mynded as little children, or els they could not enter into the kingdome of God, Esa, 66. 3 [...] Jam. 4. 6. 10. 1 Pet. [...]. 5. 6. who regards the low­ly, and giveth grace to such. And this doth rather confirm my exposition, in teaching none can enter into the kingdome, but such as shal be like to infants.

Besides, how can you prove that by the kingdome of God Christ understandeth the visible Church of the new Testament?

First for answer to this question, I wil send you to Mr. Smyth in his printed A. 1609. Paralels, Censures and Observations, pag. 22. who sayth, That the true visible Church is CHRISTS sheepfold, his kingdome, &c. [Page 52] Also pag. 15. of the same book, The true Church in the scripture is called the howse of God, the Temple of God the howsehould of faith and the kingdome of heaven, of Christ and of God. And in 17. pag. of the same book these are your words they that are not of a constituted Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome, and pag. 16. you say, that the visible Church is the onely kingdome of Christ, & that therefore they who are not members of Christs true visible Church are no subiects of Christs kingdome, the like is affirmed in pag. 18. 19. considering there­fore what you have written, I marvel you demaund this question, for by your owne words you insinuate that the kingdome of Christ or of God, is the onely visible Church, in that you say, they are not of Christs kingdome that are not members of a true constituted Church, and then must it needs follow that by kingdome of God in this place, is understood the visible Church Rev. 18. 4 Luk. 19. [...]. 12. Act. 3. Mat. 5. [...]. Gen. 17. [...]. Psal. 73. [...]. Psal. 147 [...]. Rom. 9. Esa. 28. [...]6. & 51. 3 [...]. chap. 54 [...]s. 132. 13 [...]—17. Ps. 128. 1- [...]. Ps. 1-3 [...] 112. 1. 2 & 119. 1 [...]. 92. 13 & 4. 4. 5. [...]at. 5. 1— [...]. Eph. 5. 25 of the new Testament, seing you say, it is the onely kingdome of Christ. but I do not consent unto you herein, for there be many of the kingdome of God, that are no members of a true cōstituted visible Church, as * Gods people in Babylon, and those seven thousand in Israel that never bowed their knee to Baall. The kingdome of God extends more largely, (though invisibly) then to the visible Church.

2. To your question, I answer, that the visible † Church of the new Testament is the kingdome of God: and so to understand it in this place of Ma [...]k 10. 14. 15. is nothing repugnant to the circumstance and scope thereof, although the kingdome of glorie is also intended, both which are but one, yet diversly considered. And he that hath right to the one part hath right also to the other: and therefore Christ saying, of such is the kindome of God he meaneth his whol kingdome of grace and glorie.

Or how can you prove that Christ blessed none but members of the visible Church?

First, I never did affirme that Christ blesseth none but the members of the visible Church, and therefore you have no reason to require the proof thereof at my hands. 2. If your question be of Gods general blessings, then I answer, that the Lord causeth “ the sunne to shine upon the iust and un­iust, and the rayne to fall vpon the good and evil; all nations and people are partakers of many temporall blessings. But if you speak of spirituall blessings and of those that are purchased by Christs death then I say, * such blessings apperteyne to the Church, and to the † true members thereof whether visible or invisible, because “Christ is given onely to his Church, [Page 53] [...] 1 Cor. [...] 2 Cor. 1. [...] 21. 22. whom all the promises of God are yea and in him, Amen.

Or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham, apperteyneth onely to the members of the visible Church, &c.

And I ask you, why you put me to the proof of it, seing I never held any such thing. Nay, I deny that the blessing of God reacheth no further then to the members of the visible Church, for the Churches King. 18. Rev. 4. mem­bers are many invisible, but that the blessing of Abraham perteyneth to the visible Church, I hope you wil not deny, see Ephe. 2. 11-22. & 3. 6- 19. & 4. 8.-14. 2 Cor. 4. 9. Col. 1. 3-6. 1 Thes. 1. 2. - 10. in all which places & in divers others, it doth appeare that these visible Churches had received the blessing of Abraham.

Or that from this particular of Christs praying for infants, Mar. 10. 13. bap­tising of infants to follow.

My argument from this place of Mat. 10. 13. 14. to prove that bap­tisme belongs to the infants of beleevers, you have already, and have not answered it, why require you it againe. I have proved that infants are of the Kingdome of God, as also that the holy things of God, as baptisme, &c. belong to all the members of this kingdome: But further to satisfie your desire, thus I prove baptisme to belong to infants, from this particu­lar of Christs praying for them:

For whom Christ prayed, they were of his everlasting covenant, for he prayed for them Ioh. 17. 10. 20. which were given him, and not for the world.

But Christ prayed for these infants, Mat. 19. 13.

Therefore these infants were of his everlasting covenant, and so conse­quently baptisme the signe thereof belonged vnto them, seing God both in making Gen. 17 7.-10. this covenant with Abraham, gave to him and to his seed to­gether with it circumcision the seale thereof. And also in commanding the Mat. 2 [...] 19. publishing of the same covenant to all nations did withall command baptisme to be administred.

Againe, those whom Christ blesseth, he blesseth with the blessing of A­braham, Gal. 3. 14. conferd with vers. 8. 16. 9.

But Christ blesseth these infants: Mar. 10. 16.

Therefore Christ blesseth them with the blessing of Abraham, and so consequently these infants were capable of baptisme, because the Lord hath [Page 54] ioyned together the blessing or covenant, and the signe or seale thereof, as before hath bene shewed.

Or how cā you prove that Christ obtayned for thē, & prayed for remissiō of sinnes, the holy Ghost, fayth, everlasting life, for many were brought to Christ for releife of bodily infirmities.

And I demande of you againe, for what other things should Christ pray for these Infants, but for spirituall graces; there is no mention that they were brought for the curing of any bodily infirmitie in them, and if they had been diseased it is like the Apostles would not have hindered their Mat: 19. [...]. comming to Christ, & the end of their † bringing of their infants to him was to put his hands vpon them and to pray. The reason that Christ yeel­deth why they should suffer little children to come to him, ( because of such is the kingdome of God) doth argue of what nature the things were he prayed for. Againe, where Christ prayed for the curing of any corporall disease, Mat: 8. 4. 15. & [...]. 28. 29. [...]. Mat: 8. [...]6. it is recorded with what * infirmitie they that he prayed for, were troubled; that so the miracle might be knowen, which was the end of his doing of great works. The “Centurion requiring Christ for his servant, shewed his disease: but those that brought the infants, mention no corporall infirmi­ty, for which they should desire him to pray for them.

Thus you having made all these questions, you proceed to a second an­swer saying,

I deny that it followeth because Christ blessed some of the infants of the Iewes or Gentiles vpon speciall intreatie, therefore that it may hence be concluded, that gene­rally the covenant and the seal of the covenant (as you call baptisme) doth apperteyne to them, for there is not the same reason of all infants as of some specially blessed, as Iohn Baptist, Ieremy, Sampson.

I marvel greatly, that you will thus shift off: doth not my reason prove, that the covenant and seal therof apperteyneth to the infants of the faithfull, seing of such is the kingdome of God? Doth Christ say these infants are blessed onely, because they alone are of the kingdom of God? Nay, sayth he not of such (including other infants also) is the kingdome of God? And dooth not the reason which our Saviour useth here, why these in­fants should come to him inferre so much? for they that brought them, being stayed, he reasons thus against his disciples why they ought not to [Page 55] hinder them, because of such (as these are,) is the Kingdome of God, meaning, not all infants, but the infants of beleevers as these were.

But in that you say, there is not the same reason of all infants, as of some spe­ [...]lly blessed, &c.

Neyther doo we reason for such speciall blessings or callings, as were [...]iven to John Baptist, Jeremy or Sampson, but for the right of the covenant [...]o appertayne to all the seed of the faithfull: for although God do out of [...]he seede of beleevers chose some whome he wil imploy to speciall service a­ [...]ove others, and therefore doth bestowe on them more then ordinary [...]iftes, yet this hinders not the rest of the infants of the faythfull from [...]heir right to Gods covenant or cōmon salvation.

Neyther indeed can you prove, that these infants which were blessed of Christ, were blessed with any extraordinary blessings or callings, for no [...]ch things is recorded of them, therefore to compare them & their bles­ [...]nge with these three extraordinarie servants of God, John Baptist Ieremy [...]d Sampson, is not to make an equall comparison.

Thirdly, If Baptisme doth appertaine to infants because Christ blesseth some parti­ [...]ular infants, and because Christ saith the Kingdome of God appertaines to such, then the lords supper also.

I answer, that doth not follow; the ordinances of Christ belong to the members of the Church and they are to partake of them as they are capa­ble.

The infantes of the Iewes could receive circumcision at eight dayes of age, but could not eat the passeover: so likewise the children of Christians are capable of Baptisme the first day of their birth, but not of the Lords [...]pper because the Lord Iesus, of such as participates therof, requires 1. Cor. 11 26-31. to ex­amine themselves, to shew forth the Lords death &c. which children can­not performe in regard of their yeares. And therefore it wil not follow that if infants are to be baptised, therefore to receive the Lords supper. And though you would prevent this answer, by saying. They must have it (meaning the Lords supper) as sone as they can eat it; I grant as much, as sone as they can eate it, as the Lord hath 1. Cor. 11 27. commanded,

They cannot confesse their sinnes and faith, and so cannot be baptised.

To this objection sufficient answer is given already, and further occa­sion of answer wil follow.

4. I would know, why the Apostles put infants back, and why Christ did not command them to be baptised, &c.

Why would you know that which is not written? that the Apostles did not well in putting them back, Christ his rebuking of them, doth ma­nifest: What may be coniectured hath bene noted before. And as fo [...] Christ his not commanding them to be baptised, I answer, Christ per­formed that which they required of him, the text doth not mention that they came to desire baptisme, and therefore there was no cause that he should command them to be baptised.

Next you labour to weaken such proves as I brought from the scrip­tures to confirme my Argument withall, saying.

You see by that which hath bene answered, that both your maior and minor ar weak, and the scriptures alledged by you do not confirme them, for the place, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. declareth that all things are yours, that is theirs that actually beleeve and are baptized, &c.

My major and minor are so weak, that you can disprove neyther of thē. As touching your answer to this scripture, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 22. you apply it Cor. 3. 21 [...]2. onely to them that actually beleeve, which the text sayth not, the Apostles meaning in this place is, that all such helpes as the Lord Iesus hath appoin­ted for the benefit of his people are theirs, whether they be men of yeares, or infants for he speakes to the whol Church inclusively whereof the chil­dren are members, † as hath bene proved. But you say, I must prove Mat. 8. 12 Act. 13. 32 Gen. 12. 3. Mar. 10. 14 [...] that infants have the use of all. I have answered that they are to have the use of so many of Gods ordinances, as they in regard of their yeares and knowledge are able to partake of. But not satisfyed herewith, you demand further saying,

Do you think that the members of the Churches are not capable of all the means of salvation, &c.

I answer, that all the members of the Church are capable and par­takers Eph. 5. 25 [...]6. 27. Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 10 Act. 4. 12. of all the meanes of their * salvation, which is Iesus Christ, yea chil­dren, † els can they not be saved. But as concerning the outward ordinan­ces of the Church, as the ministerie of the word, Sacraments and such like, though they be necessarie in their due place, yet the use of them is not at [Page 57] all tymes and of all persons required; the Israelites borne in the wildernes were not circumcised by the space of fortye yeares, neyther was the Passe­over commanded to infantes, to offer sacrifice or the like, (though D [...]. 12. Rev. 7. Heb. 2. Act. 31. Jer. [...]. Mar. 10. these were necessarily required of them that were growne to yeares;) so that tyme and age doth priveledge some from the practise of those things which o­therwise they are bound to observe;

The next Scripture is, Rom. 9. 4. wherein you except against the Kom. 9. word ( appertayneth) and say. It is put into the text and perverteth the meaning [...]f the Apostle. For your excepting against the word, ( appertayneth) saying, it is [...] into the text, you seeme to contend, before you be provoked, I onely quo­ [...]ed that place of Rom. 9. 4. and did not set downe the wordes. And there­fore to strive about a word added in the translation, is to strive against your owne shadow, I defend no words added, whereby the text is misconstrued. But although no verbe be expressed in the original, yet gramatical cōstruc­tion requires some verbe to be vnderstood▪ as this verbe ( is,) or appertain­ [...]th, or some such like, and if ( is) be vnderstood, it is the same, in sense with ( appertayneth).

But you say, Paul intendeth not to prove that the carnall Israelites were actually within the covenent of grace &c.

Paul intends to set downe the dignitie and prerogative of the people which he had chosen to him selfe to be his inheritance, and to shew that Gods word is true, although Israel be cast of, he performeth his promise to so many of them as he had chosen in his secrete counsel. And this is all that the Apostle intendeth. To your carnal covenant, and to the offer of the spiritual, I have answered before.

Lastly, whereas I did affirme that infants vnder the Gospel were as capable of baptisme, as children vnder the lawe, you answer. That baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Testament, as Circumcision was the seale of the old Testament, and that infantes of the old Testament were capable absolutely, seing that to be circumcised, there was nothing requyred, but a foreskin apt to be cut of: but to baptisme in the new Testament, there is required actual fayth, repentance confessed by the mouth Mat. 5. 6. Act. 8. 37. and 10. 47.

That pag. 37. Baptisme is the seale of the new Testament is proved before, & also that circumcisiō was pag. 12. a seale of the same spiritual covenāt to the Israelites, and that our infants are as capable of baptisme, as the Iewes were of cir­cumcision, your reasons alledged to the contrary are of no force for the [Page 58] difference you put between the two sacraments of circumcision and bap­tisme, is but a florish, for as the profession of actual fayth, and repentance is [...]zra. 6. 21. [...]ter 8. 17. required of all them that are of yeares to baptisme, so † was it of the pro­selytes, to circumcision. And if you would compare Infants with Infants, and men of yeares with such like, then shall you see, that there is no more required of our infantes that are to be baptised, then of the chil­dren of the Iewes and proselites; nor lesse looked for of men of yeares vn­der the old Testament, then now vnder the new. As for the scriptures that you alledg, they witnes what is required of the elder sort to be received in­to the visible Church, and not of infants. Out of this your answer you col­lect 5 arguments against Paedobaptistry, the first is this.

They that are not members of the visible Church, have no title to the holy things of God, and therefore are vncapable of them: and so of baptisme.

Infantes of the faythful are not actually members of the visible Church: for these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. do not prove that the parents of these in­fantes were beleeving Iewes, or if they were beleevers their infantes were already bap­tized with their parents according to your doctrine, and so Christ cannot intend baptis­me to appertayne to them, but the rest of the ordinances. Ergo &c.

I deny the minor, the reason proves it not, & do affirm, that the infants of the faythful are mēbers of the same Church with their parēts, & have right to the holy things therof; as may thus be shewed: first Abrahās house was a visible Church of God, the infantes of Abraham and of his servantes are Gen. 17. [...]2. sayd to “be born in his house: wherevpon I conclude that they were part of Abrahams family: for in that very place the holy Ghost distinguisheth be­tween such as were borne in the house and bought with mony, as between them that were by their birth of the family; & of those that being bought, were received into his house.

Secondly; the children of belevers be eyther members of the Church Ephe. 2. 12. and within the covenant, or els without, if without, then are † they aliants from the comon welth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, without Christ, without hope, and without God in this world: for this the Apostle sets downe to be the state of them that are without: but thus Christ did not esteme of infantes, (who sayd “ suffer litle children to come to me, for of such is the king­dome Marc. 10 13. 14. of God, nor Pau, 1 Cor. 7. [...]4. that sayd, but now are they holy, speaking of the chil­dren of belevers. Concerning the parēts of these childrē that were brought to Christ, which you say, cannot be proved belevers by these places Marc. 10. 13. 14. [Page 59] Mat. 19. 13. 14. I have shewed before what I thought of them. But if they [...]re baptised, say you, Christ cannot intend baptisme vnto them.

Who labours to prove that Christ in blessing them did intend Baptis­me vnto them. This I sayd that such as are of the Kingdome of God, and capable of the blessing of Christ are not to be denyed baptisme. And that infantes are such, I have proved from these scriptures. Marc. 10. 13. 14. Mat. 19. 13. 14. And therefore baptisme not to be denyed them.

2. If the Apostles by putting back infantes presented to Christ declare playnely that infants were not to be brought to be baptised by Christ the infantes were not to be baptised by Christ nor cōmanded to be baptised by him. But the first is true, Ergo &c.

The assumption is denyed, for if the children were not brought to be baptised, how can the Apostles putting them back signifie that infants are not to be baptized? the bringers of them did expresse their mind where­fore they brought them. Agayne if the Apostles by putting the infants back did erre, and by Christ are thereof rebuked, what can you conclude from their example, but this, not to judge them vnworthy of Christ and of his ordinances, whome he approveth & receiveth. The Scripture speakes not one word, that they did put them back, as judging them vnfit for bap­tisme.

3. If the persons presenting Infants to be blessed and prayed for, do not desire bap­tisme for them, then they knew no such custome used by Christ to baptise them. But the first is true, Ergo &c.

Whether they knew any such custome or not, it is not to the purpose, Christ did as occasion was offerred, he satisfyed them according to their desire.

4. If Christ receiving infants, praying for them, bl [...]ssing them, doth neyther bap­tise them, nor cōmaund his disciples to baptise them, then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptised, or els he forgat his duetie, in not teaching baptisme of In­fants upon so iust an occasion. But Christ did neyther baptise them, nor command his disciples to baptise them, neyther did he forget his dutie, &c. Ergo.

I answer, the consequent followes not. Christ his pleasure was not a­gainst that Gē. 17. 1 [...] general commandement given first to Abraham for the setting of the seale unto his covenant, to all the faithful and their seed. Also, Christ performed as much as they intreated for at his hands, and though he taught not all things at one time, yet was it no forgetting of his dutie, [...]eing in due time he taught all things.

5. They that are not actually possessed of the promises or covenant, are not actual­ly to be invested with baptisme. Infants are not actually possessed in the co [...] ­nant seing they performe not the condition, viz. confession of their sinnes and their faith actually, Ergo, &c.

If you mean (by actually possessed) such a state, right or possession, as the Lord of his free grace hath infeoffed his people withall, by vertue of the [...]en. 17. 9. [...]1. Act. 39. 1 Cor. 14. graunt of his covenant to Abraham, I deny the minor, and say, that in­fants of beleevers are † children of the covenant and of the kingdome, and actually possessed thereof. As concerning the reason annexed to the minor it is answered before, that the Lord requires the actuall vse of faith and repentance of them that are of yeares, and not of infants. And thus much for confirmation of my third reason.

Argument IIII.

1 Cor. 7. 14. If the children of beleeving parents be holy, then are they within the covenant of Abraham, and so consequent­ly have right to the seale thereof.

But the first is true, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Ergo, the second.

Touching the former proposition. I take it, that none will af­firme holynes in any that are not of the covenant, for in that respect Israel was called an holy nation. Exod. 19. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. and all others vncleane, Act. 11. 3. and 10. 15. that were without. If infants be within the covenant, then cannot the seale be denyed to such, seing the Lord hath joyned the pro­mise and seale together, Gen. 17. 10. which no man may or ought to separate, Mat. 19. 6.

What can be objected against the assumption, I see not, se­ing the Apostle playnly affirmes; but now are your children ho­ly. Vnlesse it may be sayd, as of some I have heard, that as the vnbeleeving wife is sanctified to the husband, so are the children viz: to the use of their Father: but this to affirme is a great abu­sing of the scripture. For the Apostle in that place answering an [Page 61] obiection that the faithfull is defiled by the societie of the un­faithful: proveth that the faithful husband may with good con­science use the vessel of his unfaithful wife, by an Argument frō the effects, namely, because their children, which are borne of them, are accounted holy, or within the promise, God having sayd to all the faithful, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. As for that other strange exposition, that the Children of a beleeving father are no otherwise sanctified thē the unbeleeving wife is unto her husband, viz: to their fathers use onely, that can not stand with the meaning & purpose of the Apostle. For so much may be sayd of an unbeleeving servant, that he is for the vse of his master to do him service: if children be no more holy then so, then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father, neither is the objectiō removed by this answer.

If it be further pressed that the unbeleeving wife is sayd to be holy, as well as the children, yet is she not within the covenāt. I answer that she indeed is not holy, as be her children, for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant, and therefore she is sayd to be sanctified to her husband, the Apostle respecting their mariage, which though it was contracted before eyther party be­leeved, yet stands firme and not desolved when eyther of them is called to the faith, so that the beleeving husband may lawful­ly use her as his wife, if she be content to dwel with him, 1 Cor. 7. 12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or separated to such use to their father, as the wife is to her husband. And there­fore are the children called holy, because they are the seed of a beleeving father.

I answer, first denying your maiors consequent: Seing that all the nation of the Jewes were holy, and yet not within the covenant of Abraham. I meane as you do of the [Page 62] everlasting covenant in respect of Christ: that they were not all within that covenant is playne, Rom. 9. 6. all they are not Israel which are of Israel: verse, 7. neyther are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham, ver. 12. God revealed, that the elder should serve the younger, Act. 7. 51. yee have alwayes resisted the holy Ghost, as your forefathers haue done so do you: &c.

This is a strange opinion of yours, that a people of God can be holy, & be without the covenant in Christ. Is there a people called out and sepa­rated from the world to offer sacrifices and to worship God, which may be called and are a holy people considered out of Christ? The covenant made with Abraham, and his seed in Christ to come (which Abraham re­ceived) caused that the Israelites were called * a holy natiō or a holy people, Exod. 19. Rom. 11. [...]. H [...]b. 4. 2. Rom. 11. [...]6. collectiuely, being separate from the nations to be the house & kingdome of God. And although † many of the Iewes by vnbeleefe cut of themselves from the priveledges of Abraham: yet considering the rest of that peo­ple as his seed, and the generall face of that Church in the true constitution therof, they were holy as the Apostle sayth, “ if the root be holy so ar the branches, and if the first frutes be holy, so is the whole lumpe. As it is one thing to consider of a Church in respect of the whole, as it is one body of Christ; and another thing, to consider thereof, according to every particular member: so is it one thing to call a people, holy, respecting theire co­venant in Christ into which they have solemnely entred. Deu. 29. 10. - 15. and promised to be Gods people: and another, to consider thereof ac­cording to the personal holynes of every particuler member: the Church hath the denominatiō of holines, of the former, & not of the latter, (though this also be required) for the personall holines of any particular members, causeth not the whol multitude to be called a holy people, (els might ma­ny assemblies be called holy, for that there may be and are some particular persons in the same indued with personall holynes) but their joynt enter­ing into Gods covenant and felowship in the same: & therefore let divers holy persons come together to serve the Lord entermingled with an Anti­christian assembly, that congregation, shall not be called holy, because there Philip. 1. 2 Cor. 6. [...]6. 17. is not a separation of the cleane from the vncleane, and a joyning together of the godly in one body or “felowship of the Gospel, neyther can you ever [Page 63] prove that any people or congregation is called holy, with whom the Lord hath not made his covenant of salvation. But let vs see how you reason.

All the nation of the Iewes (say you) were holy, yet not within the covenant of Abraham &c.

You reason not ad idem, for in saying that all the nation of the Iewes were called holy, here you speak of them, as they were a people separated from o­ther nations, and had Deut. 10,-15. entred covenant with God to be his people, as he with them to be their God, in which respect they were called, holy, but in saying, that all were not with in the covenant, you intend it of some particular members of the body of that people, being considered a part from the whole, and so the Scriptures by you alledged do import.

For neyther Paul to the Romanes. cha. 9. 6. nor Steven in the Act. cha. 7. 51. do speake of the whole nation, but of particular persons who by their vnbeleiffe and evil workes, did manyfest themselves to be no true Is­raelites.

Concerning that place of rom. 9. 6. the Apostle speaking of the rejecti­on Rom. 9. [...] of the Iewes (which might there vpon charge God that if he did reject them he kept not promise with their fathers,) labours to remove all such Calumnies, saying, it cannot be that the word of God should take none effect & proveth withal, that the promise is not cut of, though the Iewes for their vnbeleife be rejected, seing the promise is sure to the elect. The Apostle thus speaking, not of the body of the people, but of some particulars that sel away, is falsly alledged, to prove, that all the natiō of the Iewes were not within the covenant of salvation. And that some of them that were of Israel, were not true Israelites, who wil deny, but that many of them discovered them­selves to be no true sonnes of Abraham? yet this proves not that the whol Church in respect of the visible face of it, was not within the covenant.

But you will reply, that you sayd, that they were not all within the covenant, and I answer agayn, if you reason not concerning the face of that people of Israel, but of Gods secret election, and reprobation, it is not to the purpose, for so disputing, you answer not the Argument. And so may you reason against the visible Church under the Gospel, that not all there­in, are within the covenant, because Luk. 1 [...] 25. 26. 27 1. Ioh. 2. 19 many prove hypocrites. And so by your reasoning neither the Church of the new Testament nor of the old, in respect of the generall face thereof, are under the covenant of grace which is the thing controverted, and not the state of particular persons. [Page 64] As towchting that place of Act. 7. 51. Steven spake to the Ie [...]es there present to accuse him, but in so speaking did not accuse the whole body of the church vnder the old Testament, but those his persecuters, and there forefathers who also persecuted the Prophets before them, brake Gods covenant and * so manifested themselves to be of their father the Divil. [...]oh. 8. 44.

Now to reason thus, from the example of those wicked Iewes, and to say, many of the Iewes brake the covenant and became rebellious (for al did not) therefore the body of the people was never within the cove­nant, is to conclude upon a false ground.

If it be objected that the place of the Romanes is spoken in respect of Gods secret election and not of mans knowledg, I answer the twelft verse is pl [...]yne of that which was reveled vnto the church, and yet Esau was holy and circumcised, being not vnder the covenant of Abraham in respect of Christ.

The place I have expounded before, and have shewed that the Apostle handles there no such thing as you do gather.

As for the reveyling of this division of the son [...]s of Isaac which you say was to the church; indeed thus much was reveiled to Rebecca, Gen. 25. 23. it was told her that two nations are in thy wombe and two maner of peo­ple sho [...]ld be devided out of thy bowels, and the one people should be mightier then the other, & the Elder shall serve the yonger, meaning that they that should des­cend of the Elder brother, should serve them that came of the yonger▪ see the blessing of Isaac to his two sonns. Gen. 27. 27. 28. 29, 39. 40: Abdi. 10. but that the personal reprobatiō of Esau was revealed then to Rebecca or to the church, doth not appear in these words before rehersed: can any say that none of Esau his posterty was in Gods secret electiō? & if this scripture wil not warrant any so to judg, then neyther would it warrant Rebecca so to apply it to her sonne being so generally spoken.

The personal rejection eyther of Ismael or Esau was not reveled, vntil by their evil workes they manyfested themselues, and therefore these children being borne in the church, as Esau was in Iacobs house, were to be reputed holy, to be circumcised and held of the covenant, vntil there wickednes threw them out.

That the whole church of the Jewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ, but onely vnder the offer of it, I use these reasons, first, the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament. Fayth and [Page 65] [...]tance is the condition and obedience of the matter and members of the new Testa­ [...]: Mar. 1. 15. Ergo, fayth and repentance is not the condition or obedience of [...] matter or members of the old Testament.

Your proposition is not true, you exclude fayth and repentance from [...]he members of the old Testament, as if by their covenant they were not [...]ound to beleev and obey his commandements, which is contrary to these [...]criptures. Gen. 17, 1. 6. Rom. 4. 3. 13. Heb. 11. 17. Iam. 2. 21. - 23. Deu. 19. 9-20. & 10. 12. 13. 20. That repentance was required of the Iewes, not onely the prophets often exhorting of them to repētance, do witnes, as be­fore is observed: but also in that their repètance Iud. 2. [...] 1 Sā. 7. 3 [...] Ezr. ca. 1 [...] Neh. cap. [...] Deut. 9. 10. Esa. 1 [...] 16. 17. turned away Gods anger from them: and the conditional Esa. 1. 1 [...] Jer. 3. 22. Hos. 6. 1. [...] 3. & 14 [...] Ioel. 2. 13 promises of pardon if they did repent: Also Gods threatning of judgments against them if they repented not.

And that fayth was also required of them, see al these scriptures. Psal. [...]8. 5. 6. 7. 22. 2 Chro. 20. 20. Esa. 53. 1. and 7. 9. Hab. 2. 4. Act. 26. 6. 7. Heb. 11. 13. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4.

And thus you see that that condition and obedience of the members of the new Testament, which you say, is fayth and repentance, was also the con­dition and obedience of the members of the old Test.

The reason of the maior is evident &c. seeing that as the ministerie, worship & goverment of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature, then the mini­sterie worship and goverment of the new Testament is: so the condition, viz. the mat­ter and forme of the Church of the old Testament was of an other nature, then the con­stitution, that is, the matter and forme of the new Testament, &c. Heb. 7. 16. Gal, 5. 3.

I answer first, that it is not simply true, that the ministerie & worship of the church of the old Test. is of another nature from that of the Gospel. For although in their worship and ministerie were many things typical & ceremonial: yet vvithal God required of them spiritual vvorship & obe­dience, without which their Esa. 1. 12. - 15. G [...] 4. 5 ceremonial was abhominable. Also, if preach­ing of the word and prayer &c. be of a spiritual nature, then was their mi­nisterie and worship more then carnal. The prophet Esa. 56. 1 [...] complaynes of neg­lect of teaching in the Preists, which argueth that they were bound by their calling to instruct the people. Malachy sayth Mal. 2. [...] 6. 7. The Priests lips shal preserve knowledge &c. they shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts: and this was by office, for the Lord sayth, My covenant was with Levi of life and peace, &c. the law of truth was in his mouth. And in Ieremy the Lord complaynes of the Preists, saying, they that should minister the law [...]ow me not: promising unto the people if they repent: that he would give [Page 66] them “Pastors according to his owne hart, which should feed them with [...]r. 3. 15. [...]eh. 8. [...] Act. 13. [...] [...] Act. 15. [...] knowledg and understanding. And in Nehemiah it is written, that the Priests and Levites † read in the book of the law and gave the sense, and caused the people to understand the reading, and this by their office. Lev. 10. 11. The Iewes had the * lectures of the law and Prophets in their Synagogues. And “Moses had them of old tyme in every citie that did preach him.

Thus we see that the opening of the law and preaching of the scrip­tures Lev. 9. 22 [...]. Num. [...] 23. - 27. [...]. 9. 4 13 [...] & 10. 1. [...]h. 8. 6. [...]l. 1. 14. [...] 2. 16. 17. was a part of the ministerie of the Priests and Levites, and of their publick worship on the sabboth. Also the Priests † gave thanks unto God for the people, blessed them and prayed. The Temple was called the howse af prayer, Math. 21. 13. also they had certaine howres of meeting at the Tem­ple, which were called howres of prayer. Act. 3. 1. And they were cōman­ded spiritual sacrifices, as Ps. 4. 5. &. 50. 14. 15. 23. as formerly is observed.

Concerning the goverment of the Church of the old Testament: which was by the Priests and Levites, Elders, I know no great difference in nature of th [...]t church, and of this under the Gospel.

The former was governed ecclesiastically by the Priests & Elders: Mat. 26. 47. Luk. 22. 66, Act. 23. 14. and 6. 12. and 13. 15. & 18. 8. 2 Chro. 19. 8. And so the churches of the New Testament are to be governed by the Mat. 18. [...]5. 16. 17. [...] Cor. 5. 3. - 5 [...] Exo. 19, 6. [...] Exod 22. [...]1. Lev. 14 [...]. & 11. 44 [...]d 20. 7. [...] Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 11. 16 [...] Deu. 4. 20 & 5. 2. Psa. [...]0. 3. 4. Deu. 14. 2. Rom. 11. [...]-19, 23. [...] 27. ministers and Elders. Act. 20. 28. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 1 Thes. 5. 12. Hebr. 13, 8. The censures ecclesiastical under the old Testament, were admonition & casting out of the Synagogue: Lev. 19. 17. Ezr. 10. 8. Ioh. 9. 22. and 22. 42. and 16. 2. Lev. 22. 3. Num. 9. 13. & 19. 13. Exod. 22. 19. so are these the censures of the churches under the Gospel. Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. 5.

Secondly, for the constitution of the Church of the old Testament, which you say, was of another nature then that of the new.

I answer, that former church was of an heavenly constitution, a † king­dome of Preists and a “holy nation, the people * saincts, as wel as the mem­bers of the church of the new Testament. And this people being separate from al other nations, & called out to be the Lords “peculiar people were united into one body by covenant between the Lord and them: and so be­came the people, church and kingdome of God, as in renuing of their co­venant is manifest. Deut. 29. 9-15. Exod. 14. 8. They were † natural branches of that root and olive tree wherinto we of the Gentiles are graf­fed [Page 67] grounded by fayth on Christ then to come, in whom they beleeved, 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. their covenant leading them to Christ for salvation. Gal. 3. [...]6. Luk. 1, 68-75. This old church by their constitution admitted of no prophane person to be a member therof, but such as professed holynes. They were for every transgression appointed to offer sacrifices and to con­ [...] their syn, Lev. 1. 2. 4. ch. & 5. 5. Nū. 14. 40. & to make satisfaction to that man whom they had wronged. Num. 5. 7.

Now let the constitution of the church under the new testament be cō ­ [...]idered and compared in the matter and forme thereof, with that of the [...]d, and there wil be no such difference in substance between them, as you pretend, the matter of them both being holy and living stones: and the forme, an holy uniting together in the covenant of God, to walk in al his commandements, els could not the Gentiles be made one body, and co­ [...]heriters with the Iewes, Eph. 2. 14. and 3. 6. and partakers of his pro­mises in Christ, if the constitution of the Iewes church had ben carnal and not spiritual.

Therfore fayth and repentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament, [...] onely a carnal holynes, viz. the circumcision of the foreskin. &c.

I have already proved, that of the Israelites God did require spiritual holynes, Lev. 11. 44. saying, I am the Lord your God be sanctified therefore and [...]e holy, for I am holy. Here it is to be minded that they must be holy after Gods example, who neither is carnally holy, or yet delites in carnal holy­nes without the spiritual. Psal. 50. 7-23. Esa, 1. 11-20. & chap. 50.

And here M. Smyth I observe how you contradict not onely the truth, but your self: for here you affirme that the forme of the Church of the old Testament was carnal their covenant carnal, & holynes carnal: yet in your Differenc [...] pag. 10. book of Differences, you say, that the Septuagint Translation was a gree­ [...] synn, for the covenant of Grace ought not to have been preached unto the Gentiles. So by your own confession, Israel had the covenant of grace, els could they not have prophaned it by preaching of it to the Gentiles, what witch hath turned this into a carnal covenant? can not your hearers mynd how unstable a leader they follow.

Wel, let us consider those Scriptures which you produce for the pro­ving [Page] of your carnal covenant, the first is Hebr. 7. 16. To which I answer, that the Apostle, by the law of carnal commandement, intendeth not thereby to teach that the cōstitution of the old church was carnal, but sheweth the diversitie of Christs priesthood from Aarons, understanding by carnal com­mandement, those frayl and transitorie things, which the † law commanded [...]. 24. 1. [...]sa. 61. 1. [...]. 45. 7. in the consecration of the Levitical Preists: so called in respect of Christ his anoynting, which was “spiritual.

Touching Gal. 5. 3. the Apostle reasoning against them that would joyne the works of the law with fayth for justification, exhorteth the Ga­lathians chap. 5. 1. &c. to stand fast in the libertie wherewith Christ hath mad [...] [...]. 5. 3. us free &c. testifying to every man, that if he be circumcised, he is bound to keep the whole law. Noting circumcision especially, because the false teachers did urge it by name for justification. And he reasoneth against it, not as it was in it self by the ordinance of God: but according to that opinion that his enemies had of it, which made circumcision a part of their salvation. And he that so esteemes of it as a work to justifie, must also (sayth Paul) keep al the rest of the commandements. For the law requireth of such as seek to be justified by works and legal ordinances, the whole observation ther­of, Deut. 27. [...]6. Gal. 3. [...]. Rō. 3. 20. [...]al. 2. 16. Gal. 4. 9. els doth it promise no * life. And because no man can be “justifyed by the works of the law, therfore doth the Apostle reject circumcision being urged to that end, And when the ceremonies be thus used the Apostle speaketh basely of them, and calleth them † beggerly rudiments. And now if a papist or any other should contend, that a man is justified by Bap­tisme, as by a work wrought, we might so speak to them, as the Apostle doth here to the Galathians, that if you receive baptisme to be made righ­teous thereby, ex opere operato, you are bound to keep the whole law: for baptisme being made a work to justifie, is perverted.

And that Paul meaneth by Circumcision, in this place as a work urged to justification, the very next verse, viz. ver, 4. sheweth, wherein he sayth, ye are abolished from Christ whosoever are iustified by the law.

And thus much for answer to your first Arg. the second followeth.

2. The type, shadow, figure, similitude of a thing, is not the truth, the substance the thing it self: true is nature and reason. The constitution, viz. the matter & forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type &c. the constitution or the matter and forme of the church of the new Test. is the truth &c. Heb. 10. 1. & 9. 19. 23.

I answer, first, to your Major, that one and the same thing may both be [Page 69] the type and the truth; for Isaac was a type of the faythful, as your self doth affirme; yet was he also faythful, and so was both the type and the truth. Secondly to your Minor, the constitution, viz. the matter and forme of the old church is not the type &c. of the church of the new Testament, in that sense as you take matter and forme: for the matter of that former Ch. [...]as not to be ceremonially, but truly holy, as before I have proved, and these Deu. 2 [...] 9. & 14. [...] Esa. 5. 4. [...] 15. & 24. 3. 4. 5. Es [...] 58. 2, - 7. [...] 14. Deu. [...] 12, 16. scriptures quoted in the margent do further confirme. Their Deu. 2 [...] 10, - 13. “Gal. 3. [...] co­ [...]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 co­ [...]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, [...] 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 cōstitution no spiritual promise, but onely carnal & typical things. Heb. 9, [...] 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▪ [...] 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 Test [...]. 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. [...]. Ier. 13. [...]. [...] Luk. 1. [...] 74. 1 pet [...]. 9. 10. [...]. 2. 12. [...] 22. Gen. 17. 7 [...]om. 4. 11 [...]a. 26. & [...]. Heb. 4. 2 [...] 11. 30. - [...]. Cor. 10. 3 [...] Ezech. 18 [...]. 32. Ioel. [...] 3. [...]b. 9. 9. [...] [...]. 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 cōmunion. 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 constitutiō: 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 cōming 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 [Page 81] thus you see neyther of these scriptures proves your desire.

4 That which brought not perfection and life to the members, presupposed not [...]th and repentance to the members, and so not real or true holynes: But the old Test. [...]e law and obedience of the law brought not perfection and life to the members of the [...]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 [...]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 i [...] you [...]ind it Rom. [...] 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. [...] & 12. 3. [...] 17. 7. 21. Esa. 1. [...] & 7. 14. [...] 9. 6 Gē. [...] 10. Num [...] 24. 17. G [...] 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 a­gaine, that the law was not that proper & onely form of the Iewish church, but the covenant in Christ received by Abraham.

Concerning Gal. 3. 21. The Apostle teacheth that if the law could have given life, righteousnes should have bene by the law, & this who denyeth: but with al you ought to observe that he sayth, the law is not against the promises: & these Luk. 1. 69. - 74. Rom. 9. Ephe. 2. [...] & 3. 6. promises were geven to the old church: as wel as the law was given, & thereby they might have & had life under the old Testament.

5 That which was a schoolmaster onely to teach Christ did not presuppose that the schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ, which is onely done by fayth [...]d repentance: The law or old testament was a schoolmaster onely to teach Christ Gal. 3. 24. Rom. 10. 3. 4. Ergo &c.

The major is not simply true, for a scholler may have learned somethings by his schoolmaster, and yet continue vnder him stil to be further instru­cted. And so the lawe might lead them to Christ (lawe being taken in that Place for al the ordinances of Moses) and they by fayth put on Christ to come.

But I answer to the minor, That the lawe was a schoolemaster to teach Christ, I say it was, that they might be made righteous by fayth: but can a school­master teach Christ without teaching fayth in Christ? & if they were taught fayth, did they not learne fayth? The Apostle Gal. 3. 24▪ setts downe the use [...]d. 3. 24. of the lawe or legal oeconomy, 1. That the Iewes thereby might be kept as it were by a garison, shut up unto the fayth which after should be revealed. verse. 23. Secondly, that they might be instructed of righteousnes and salvation by Christ, vers. 24. for during the legal oeconomy their hope was nourished by the Prophets, which prophesied of Christs comming.

Also by the ceremonies and sacrifices they were instructed; by circumcisiō that Christ should be borne of the seed of Abraham, that by his death and spirit should † circumcise their harts: by the paschal lamb they were taught [...] Col. 2. 11. [...]2. [...] Ioh. 1. 29. that Christ as * an innocent lamb, should be slayne to take away their sins: and by the other sacrifices, and sprinkling of blood, and washings; was signified the offering up of Christ to come, & the applycation of his death to the purging of them from al their syns, whereof they were partakers by fayth. Thirdly, this Argument may thus be returned upon you: That which was a schoolmaster to teach Christ doth presuppose that the schol­lers should learn Christ, and put him one by fayth and repentance: But the law or old Testament was a schoolmaster to teach Christ. Therefore the law or old Testament did presuppose that the schollers should learne Christ, and put him on by fayth &c.

Touching the other scripture Rom. 10. 3: 4. The Apostle there layeth out Rō. 10. 3. 4. the blind zeale of the Iewes, that being ignorant of the righteousnes of God which is by fayth, sought to establish their owne righteousnes which is of works, and submitted not to the righteousnes of God, this he re­proves in them: and then vers. 4. setts downe the reason of their ignorance of the righteousnes of fayth, because they did dispise the end of the law which is Christ, so called, because the Mat. 5. [...]7. Col 2. [...]4. Mat. 3 [...]5. 1 Pet. 2 [...]2. Heb. 7. 26. 27. Gal. [...]. 13. 1 Pet. 1. 19: 22. 23. Tit 3. 5. Ioh. 3. 5. law is fulfilled onely in him.

Thus you may see the Apostle speaks not against the cōstitution of that [Page 83] former church, but against the corruption of some members of the same.

6. That which was hidden, & kept secret was a mysterie and not reveyled, the [...]embers of the old testament in their constitution were not indued withal. Fayth or [...]bedience to the Gospel was a mysterie and not reveyled, but kept secret from the begin­ [...]g. Gal. 3. 23. Rom. 16. 25. Ergo &c

There is a fallacy in your setting down of this word Fayth, you conclude Gal. 2. 23▪ that which is not in the propositions, or els your Argument is not to the purpose. For Fayth, in the second proposition according to the meaning of the Apostle. Gal. 3. 23. which you cyte for proof thereof, is not put for the gift of fayth, which is given to al true beleevers whereby they are justi­fied, as in Gal. 2. 16. 20. and 3, 6. 8, 9, 11, 12, 14. but for the things be­leeved, or fulfilling of the promises of God: for in the tyme of the law was sayth, els the former church could not have been saved, seeing the prophet sayth, Hab. 2. [...] the iust shal live by fayth, & the Gospel was preached to them, (with­out Rom. 10▪ 14-17. which they could not beleev,) yea to Gal. 3. 8. Abraham. And though the things promised were not fulfilled during the tyme of the old Testament: yet had had Iewes Heb. 11. 33. 1 Cor. 4. fayth in Christ promised, and thereby were saved.

If you reply, that the church of the old Testamant was not indued with fayth in her constitution. I answer, that there can be no church to God Ephes. 2. 20-22. 12▪ 19. Lev. 2 [...] 12. 2 Cor. 6 [...] 16. founded without the everlasting covenant in Christ, by Gen. 1 [...]. 7▪ which Abraham & his seed became the people of God, and therefore indued with fayth in their constitution.

Concerning, Rom. 16. 25. By mysterie, the Apostle meaneth the calling Rō. 16. [...] of the Gentiles which now is opened and published among al nations. And if it be understood of the Gospel or preaching of Christ, as some doe, yet was it called a mysterie: partly in respect of the nations to whom it was not reveyled before the comming of Christ, as ver. 26. Also to the Iewes, in respect of 1 Pet 1. 10-12. Luk. 10. 24. the things promised; but the promise of salvation was preach­ed to Adam, to Abraham, and to the whole church, and was no mystery kept secret from the beginning of the world, but in al tymes and ages re­vealed to the Lords people, and by them received

7. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ: There is condem­nation to them that are under the law, for it is the ministerie of death or condemnati­on, 2 Cor. 3. 7. Ergo, the law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ, or they that are under the law are not in Christ, and so the members of the church of the old testa­ment: are not truly holy.

Surely this reasoning of yours makes me doubt, that you reason against your own knowledge, for how can you be ignorant that the church of the Iewes was not under the law as it is the ministerie of death, I mean in re­spect of their constitution? There is indeed condemnation to them that are under the law, that is, which by the works thereof † seek justification; [...]l. 3. 10. Luk. 18. 12. [...]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, cōpareth the ministerie of the Gos­pel with the ministerie of the law, shewing that the law was glorious which pronounced death to them that cōtinued 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 [...]s 1 Tim. 1. [...]. 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 [Page 75] had the pomise of salvation in Christ.

For it had bene vanitie to have given a law which should not or could [...]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 i [...] 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 & [...]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 tha [...] 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, [Page 86] 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 [...]xo. 19. 5 & 24. 3. Lev. 34. [...] D [...]u. 5. [...]. Heb. 9. [...]. 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 [...]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 is nothing to your purpose of the holy­nes of the eternal covenant, which God made with Abraham.

It seems you are not fully resolved of the meaning of this scripture. Ex. 19. 6. ye shal be to me a kingdome of preists & a holy nation. This being minded Exo. 20. 1. &c. Deut. [...]3. 8. 1 Pet. 1. 5 of the people or nation they could not be called a kingdome of Preists in respect of a typical preisthood which was proper to † Aaron and his sonns, but in respect of their spiritual priesthood in Christ as the Apostle sayth, * ye are made a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, which place doth wel expound this of Exodus 19. 6. that the Lord doth intend to cal them holy [Page 78] in regard that he had chosen them for himself, and had received them in­to his covenant to be his people. For to be preists to offer up spiritual sacrifices, must needs be in Christ. therfore truly holy.

Again you say, that they by attayning the end of the law should attain true holynes in Christ, which if you grant, then must this holynes be in respect of the eter­nal covenant, out of which neither Christ nor true holynes can be attayned unto.

Thirdly, ceremonial holines without true holynes the Esa. 1. 11-16. Ps [...] 50. 16. 17. Lord regardes not: it were to approve of hipocrisy, which he hateth: & therefore in that they are called holy it must be understood of true holynes as also, Deut. 7. 6. & 14. 2. Exod. 22. 31. Lev. 11. 44. & 19. 2. And thus you see this place is to my purpose, unlesse you can shew me that a people can attayne Christ and true holynes and be without the covenant of grace.

So that infants though they be under the offer of the covenant made with Abrah. i [...] respect of Christ, yet shal not baptisme be administred upon them, because that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually seased upon the ex­ternal covenant: & therefore none in the new Testament shal be baptised but those that [...]e actually possessed of the covenant of the new Testament.

First it is proved pa. 12. 13. before, that circumcision was a seal of the covenāt of salvation. Secondly, you are to explayn what you mean, by actually seased upon the external covenant: for actual possession of Canaan, the Israelites had not of a long tyme after Abrahams death, otherwise then by fayth, whereof you say, Infants are not capable. If children were circumcised, & were ney ther seased upon Canaan by possessing it, nor by actual fayth, how were they seased upon the external covenant? The law was not then given, what were they seased on, and how?

Thirdly, the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel are Act. 2. 39. 1 Cor. 7. 14. possessed of the covenant of grace, by the vertue of the free giving thereof to the faythful and their seed, therefore to be baptised.

Fourthly, If Infants be but onely under the offer of the covenant, then they dying in their infancy are without the covenant of salvation, and so perish, so farr as we can judg: for to be under the offer onely, you wil not say that thereby they can be saved. Againe, if they be not in Christ and so within the covenant, they are under condemnation. Rom. 8. 1.

But actual possession (you say) is by obedience to the fayth. This is true being­rightly [Page 78] applyed: But you must know that there is a general giving and ap­plying of the promise on Gods part to his people, and there is a more spe­cial and particuler applying of the same, by the ministerie of the word and spirit: The former was to Abraham when God made his † covenant with Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39 Rom. 4. [...]. 12. him and his seed: The other is to al that receive the word & keep it wher­of Luk. 11. 28. Act. 2. 21. Iam. 1. 21. This actual poss [...]ssion (to use your phrase) belonges to such as by their yeares are capable to understand, and it is a continual applying of that which was given in general to the fayth­ful and their seed. And of such are those places of Rom. 10. 17. Gal. 3. 2. 14. to be understood. And this the Lord requires according to the dis­pensation Mat. 13. [...]4. 11. Heb. 4. 2. Rev. 2. 7. [...] Rom. 11. [...]8. [...] Rom. 10. 14-17. 21. of the covenant, both under the old and new Testament, that al they that are his people capable of understanding should † hear his word and yeeld obedience to the fayth. For although God love the children for the “fathers sake; & respect his promise, yet wil he have them as they come to yeares, to practise fayth and obedience, unto which end the † preach­ing of the word is given unto us.

Secondly, I answer concerning the consequent of your maiors consequent, that it shal not follow, that because children are under the covenant, that therefore they shal have the outward signe and seal thereof, for under the law the females were actually under the covenant of the old Testament, yet were not signed with the seal. And before the law was given, al that were actually under the covenant until the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seal thereof.

It must follow, that if children be under the covenant that they must hav [...] the outward signe or seale, because the † Lord hath so commanded, joyning Gen. 17. [...]-11. Mat. 28. 19. * Mat. 19. [...]6. “Gen. 34. 24. the seal to his covenant which man may not * separate. For your reasons to the contrary, they are of no weight. First concerning the females under the law, though they were not circumcised, yet were “they accounted of the circumcised. And for the ceremonie it self they were never capable of it yong nor old, the like you wil not say of children under the Gos. 2. For the fathers before the institution of circumcision, they might be under the covenāt & without the seal, because the L. did so dispēce with those times: but you must prove that the state of children under the new Test. is alike to the condition of those fathers before Abr. or of the women under the law, & thē wil it follow that they shal not be sealed at al, for these that you instance were not. It is one thing when God hath commaunded the signe and adjoyned it to his covenant to be received: & another when he cōman­ded [Page 79] no such thing. They are to receive the seal, to whom the covenant with the seal is given; as it was to Abraham and now is unto us. And there­fore the signe may not be denyed to whom the covenant belongs. But to infringe this truth you say, The Lord in chosing the male onely to be circumci­sed, thereby purposed to teach in a type, that onely the male, (that is one that is in Christ) should be sealed with the spirit of promise under the new Testament.

That circumcision so signifieth as you set downe, you are to prove, in that it was sett upon the male, it did type out Christ, that promised seed through whom our corruption is purged, as before is observed. And if circumcision be such a type, (as you here afferme) how can you exclude children under the new Test? they are Christs and in the covenant, Rom. 8. Tit. 3. 5. 7. capa­ble of the spirit or nevv berth, & therefore to be sealed.

If it be obiected that before the law there was no seal appointed, I say, hereby it ap­peareth that to be under the covenant was not the cause of [...]ytle to the seal: but the ex­presse commandement of God. &c.

But to be under the covenant after the seal was thereunto annexed is sufficient cause of tytle to the seal, except you vvil disjoyn those things that God hath coupled together:

In the next place you ansvver to the Assumption of my Argument vvher first you desire of me to expound unto you vvhat is this holynes vvhich the Apostle mentioneth, 1 Cor. 7. 14. If I say under the covenant, then you demand vvhat it is to be under the covenant, and so you proceed from question to question, as if you could not find out a direct ansvvere vvith­out such interrogatories.

To your first demaund, I ansvvered before & shewed that this holynes in 1 Cor. 7. 14: is in respect of the covenant, that children of the believing fa­thers are called holy, by the Apost. Then what it is to be under the covenant, happely you wil say, to be iustified by the imputatiō of the righteousnes of C. righteousnes.

Although thus to answer be true, yet is it not al that vve are to ansvver to this demande. For to be under the covenant is to be considered 2. māner of vvayes. 1. according to the L. solemne dispensatiō of his covenant vvith his people, & their admittance thereinto, after vvhich manner it vvas made vvith Abraham and his seed. And thus the covenant vvas established to Gen, 17. 21. Act. 39. Deu [...] 15. them that vvere unborne at the tyme of the promise making, be­ing then in the loynes of Abraham. Secondly men are sayd to be under the covenant after a more special and hidden manner. And so al [Page 90] the elect whether known by the confession of their fayth, or lying hidden [...] [...]om. 4. 4. [...]at. 8. 12. [...]zo. 14. 6. Rom. 11. [...]-2 [...]. Esa. 29. 13 Luk. 13. [...]-27. [...]at. 8. 12. in the confused assemblies of the world, are within the cov. of salvatiō, but after this hidden manner we cannot judge who is within, who is without, some wee may judge to be within, in respect of their outward standing, which in the Lords sight are without, and some without whom the Lord accepteth: but after that external and solemn making and receiving of the covenant of life, we are to repute † al that makes profession of their fayth, with their seed to be under the covenant, and * branches of the olive tree until they fal away. And of these that are thus under the covenant, there be many “hypocrites which are not partakers of salvation in Christ.

Then I demand which of these three, viz. to be holy, to be under the covenant, to have Christs righteousnes imputed, is first in nature: happely you wil say, first they are under the covenant, secondly, iustified, 3. sanctified or holy.

I perceive you would draw us by your supposed answer, from that ge­nerall holynes apperteyning to the whole church of God, by reason of the covenant of salvation made with them, to the sincere holynes of perticular persons, which is not found to be in al that are visible members of the ch. Heb. 4. 1. [...]. Rom. 11. [...]0. For this we say, that a people that are entred covenant with God, are in regard thereof, holy; because they are separate from the world unto God, and so are to be esteemed of us, as they to whome is promised Christ with al his blessings, whereof they are partakers, if by † unbeleef they hinder not themselves of that holynes of the olive whereinto they were planted, & in this sense are we to understand that place of the Apostle. 1 Cor. 7. 14.

Then I proceed and demand, when do Infants come under the covenant, when they are conceyved or when they are born, or when the parents are converted being born already. It wil be answered that Infants begotten of faythful parents come under the covenant in their conception, and such as are borne come under the covenant when their parentes are regenerate. Hereby it appeareth, that the covenant is conveighed to the children by generation & by filial relation.

Thus I answer as formerly I have done, that the covenant belonges to the parents and their seed, through the free grace & gift of God, the Lord binding himself by promise to be God to the faythful and to their chil­dren, which though they be borne according to the course of nature & are in the covenant, yet is their so being within it, not by vertue of their car­nal berth simply considered; but by vertue of Gods promise. Indeed this we say, to be borne of beleeving parents is a declaration of the childrens [Page] being in Gods covenant, & that they come under the covenant when their “ Act. [...] 14. 15. 33 [...] parents do * first beleev, whether they be borne already, or to be borne: I mean such parents as were before strangers to the covenant.

Hereunto adde, if it be true that some say, that children under the goverment of the faythful also are under the covenant, that the covenant is conveighed also, by pupilship [...] adoption, & so of servants under beleeving masters &c.

God making his covenant with beleevers, includeth their families, as in Gen. 17. 7. with verse 9, - 13. where the Lord establishing his covenant with Abraham, included his whole houshould, borne in his howse or bought with money; for he commanded al to be circumcised. So Zacheus mani­festing his fayth and repentance, Christ sayd, Luk. 1 [...] 8. 9. this day is salvation come unto this howse: see also Act. 16. 30, 31, 33. and Ier. 31. 1. And thus do we affirme hereof, according to the scriptures. You say,

Why may not at the infants borne under one king, if his subiects be al his servants [...]d vassals be by that relation brought under the covenant, and so be accounted iusti­fyed and sanctified.

God hath established his covenant to the beleevers and their seed, not to a king and his subjects, and therefore this relation wil not stand with the condition of the covenant.

The relation of a King and a subiect is as neer as the relation of a master and a servant or an adopted child.

The relation of a king and subjects, be it never so near, maketh not t [...] the purpose: seing we are to mynd with whom God maketh his covenant, who tyeth not himself to civil relations, but freely accepteth the beleever and his family, and further then this relation, the scripture doth not war­rant us to apply Gods covenant.

And then I demaund (say you) seeing the relation of a man and wyfe is neerer a great deal, then any relation of adoption or servitude, why the wife shal not be under the covenant for the relation of mariage? happely it wil be sayd, that the wife being of yeares cannot be admitted because of her unbeleef, and I say that infants cannot be admitted because of their want of fayth.

It is true that neyther the wife nor servants if they refuse, can be admit­ted because of their unbeleef, but the case is not alike of men and women growen to years, as of infants borne in the church, the former eyther con­sent or refuse actually, infants do not refuse, and therefore being the seed of the saythful are to be admitted to Baptisme.

But it wil be sayd, that the covenant with Abraham was with him and his seed onely, I say, it was made (by your confession) with him and his adopted infants▪ &c.

We say as the scripture teacheth us, that the everlasting covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, the faythful & their children: Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. and that the Lord intended thereby, the whole family of the faythful, if they refused nor, as before is proved.

And seeing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant, and those that are further off, why shal not these that are nearer as his wife?

I have answered before, her unbeleef hinders her, to be one flesh, makes them not one in the covenant, which is by grace not by mariage.

But you wil say, because infants do not refuse the covenant, they may be admitted to baptisme, &c. but wives refusing, may not. I further insist, that as infants do not resist, so they do not consent, and that al the children, servants and wives, that do not resist may be admitted, though they cannot make declaration of their fayth. &c. &c.

We do not make the infants not refusing, the cause of their acceptance to the seal of the covenant; but the Lords dispensation and cōmandement: in children there can be neither actual cōsent or resisting, the one of which Hub. 2. 4. Gal. 2. 20. Rom. 10. 9 Mat. 3, 1. [...]am, 2. 18. [...]2. 24. is found to be in them that are of yeares: who also are to † live by their own fayth: also * confession is of such required, so is it not of infants.

Then I say there is no reason why fayth and repentance should be required of one to make him capable of the covenant of iustification &c. more then of an other, except God be an accepter of persons.

To this I have answered before, and again do answer, that there is one and the same way of entring into Gods covenant for Abraham and for al other beleevers, they receiving the covenant after the same māner that he did, beleeving that God is their God and the God of their seed. Also fayth and repentance, is required not onely of such as are of yeares, and to enter into the Lords covenant, but of al that are in the covenant, (they being the condition thereof on our part▪ to be performed) continually: and there­fore we must know, that it is Gods good pleasure that makes men capable of the promise, and not any act of theirs: fayth receiveth grace, but causeth it not, and repentance is the fruit thereof, required of every one, as they are of understanding.

And further, the covenant is onely with Abraham and his seed, not with adop­ted [Page 83] children &c. and therefore fayth and repentance must necessarily be had, and so [...]y cannot be baptised til they shew their fayth. &c.

I have proved already, that God in saying, I wil establish my covenant be­ [...]en me and thee and thy seed, included Abrahams family; or els shew unto [...]e, wherefore they were with him partakers of circumcision, if they [...]ere not with him in the covenant. Agayn, fayth and repentance is required of the elder sort, not of infants, Ergo &c. As for partaking of the covenant actually, how children are thereof capable, I have proved oft ynough: and therefore it needs no further answer.

And whereas it may be justly objected against you: that if infants be de­nyed to be within the covenant, they cannot be saved, you labour to re­move this exception, saying: we pronounce nothing of infants dying before they be [...]verted, but leave the secret of them to the Lord

Thus you leave a starting hole hereafter to determine as it wil prove with or against your opinions: is the condition of infants such a se­cret that God hath not manifested his wil concerning them? Was not Abraham to take notice of the state of his infants, when he was to circumcise them? Gen. 17. 12.

And doth not Mar. 10. 14. Christ his receiving of little children and blessing them, manifest unto us, how we ought to account of the infants of belee­vers? The prophet Malachy sayth, Mal. 2. 1. did not he make one, seeking a seed of God? Act. 2. 39. the promise is to children, as Peter there witnesseth, and Ier. 31, 1. God promiseth to be the God of al the families of Israel, and children are a part of the familie, 1 Cor. 7. 14. the children of the beleevers are called holy. Now if God had given you eyes, these scriptures † Gen. 17 &c. Deu [...] 29. 10. - 15. might teach you that the state of the childrē of the faithful is no such secret as you pretend. Moses shewed the state of children under the old T. & you say, Caracter, pag. 6. 3. the new Testament is as sufficient for direction of al affaires &c. as the old. How is it then that the state of children is now more secrete then, formerly it was? Thus you might see your speeches contradictory, if your right eye were not blynded.

Secondly, I desire you to prove unto me by scripture, that in this place, 1 Cor. 7. 14. holynes signifieth true sanctification. &c.

And I desire you to prove unto me, that this or that member of a visible church is truly sanctified? you keep not to the state of the ques­tiō, that place is to be understood of the general holines pertayning to the [...] & every mēber thereof in respect of the covenant, & your demand is of [...] [Page 86] Exod. 19. 6. is before expounded, and is to be understood of the general face of that church, which was called holy, because the Lord had received them by covenant to be his peculier people. in Exod. 32. 9. & 33. 3. the Lord cals them a stifnecked people, in regard of personal sinnes, which he found to be in some of them, not in all, the which did argue a breach of covenant on their part, whereof they repenting, the Lord forgave them. The personal sinns of some mēbers do not disposses the face of the church of holynes, [...]he labouring to reforme such faulty members. Concerning the holynes of children, & of the unbeleeving wife, before is shewed.

Finally, you say, God hath sayd to al the faythful, I wil be thy God, and the God of thy seed. I deny it utterly, God sayd that onely to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. and wheth [...]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 infoo [...]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 Abrahā, 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 [...]ev. 26. 12 Deut. 29. [...].▪ 15. Jer. [...]1. 1. 33. Ps. 44. 15. Hos [...]. 10. & 2. [...]3. Heb. 8. [...] - 10. 2 Cor. [...] 16. Rev. [...]1. 3. Gen. [...]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 [Page 87] 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. [...]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 thēselves appeareth. And concerning women the Apostle saith, in Ch. Gal. 3. 2 [...] 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 womā & 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. [Page 88] 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 cānot 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▪ [...]. 3. 5. 7. 8 [...]. 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 meaneth Ezec. 18. 20. we defend it not.

Neyther wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham, was an everlasting covenant, for berith gnolam in the original, doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance, but a covenant that continueth his proper tyme. &c.

I answer it doth import a covenant of everlasting continuance and so doth gnolam an everlasting tyme, as in these places: Psal. 136. 1. Eccl. 12. 5. Psal. 145. 13. Esa. 45. 17. and so in divers other places. Also the Lord in Gen. 17. 7. speaketh of that thing which is everlasting (vid) videlicet to be God to Abraham and his seed after him, and therfore gnolam must needs be understood for ever, unles you wil say that God was God to Abraham and his seed but for a tym [...], for that is the covenant which there he calleth everlasting. And Christ proveth the resurrection from these words, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham▪ &c. Exod. 3. 6. Ergo the co­venant made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant. And though gno­lam do sometymes signifie a tyme that hath an end, as it doth in the type, [Page 89] [...]t it noteth tyme everlasting in the truth of those types, and therefore [...]s Canaan called an everlasting possession. Gen. 17. 8.

But be it granted (say you) that the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. [...] the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, what then? [...] it follow because it was with Abraham and the faithful, whether Iewes or Gen­ [...] beleeving actually, as Abraham the father did, therfore it is made with the faith­ [...] [...]an, &c. and with his children begotten of his bodie, &c. I denie it utterly.

Yes, it Act. 2. 3 [...] wil and must follow, els are not the faithful partakers of Abra­ [...]ms covenant, for if Ahraham have it to him and his seed, and the belee­ [...]ers onely to themselves, then is it not the same neither in the giving nor [...]iving thereof, as before is proved. And if you graunt Abrahams in­ [...]s, as Isaac &c. were to be esteemed his seed in respect of the covenant [...]ade with him in Christ (for to deny it by any colour of scripture you [...]an not) then must the same account be made of al other infants of belee­ [...]ers, seing the faythful are to apply the covenant to them and their seed, [...] the same fayth that Abraham did to him and his.

Because the seed is but one, to whome the promises were made, viz. Christ, or the [...]al beleevers.

The words of the Apostle are these, Gal. 3. 1 [...]. but to thy seed, as of one, which is Christ. Some understand by seed, the church, Christ mistically, as 1 Cor. 12. 12. ga­ [...]hered of Iewes and Gentiles, which grow together in one body in Christ, of the seed of Abraham, as ver. 18. According to which exposition both [...]ong and old members of the church are understood to have the promise [...]ade unto them that are partakers of salvation, yea infants, els are Eph. 5. 2 [...] 26. they [...]ot sanctified by Christs death. But if by seed, be understood the redeeming [...]eed, which is C. it is he in whō both the elder people & infants ar blessed.

But you to prove that by one, onely actuall beleevers is to be minded, [...]edge Eph. 3. 17. where it is to be noted, that Paul intendes not to shew [...]hat none are in Christ, save onely actual beleevers, (for that were to con­ [...]mne al infants) but he speaking to the church, and such of them as were [...]apable of instruction, and having exhorted them not to faynt because of [...]is troubles, prayeth the Lord, that they may be strengthned with his spirit, that Christ maie dwel in their harts by faith, that is bring forth the fruits of the spi­rit, testifiing their fayth, and so continue constant. Now it is to be ob­served, that Rō. 8. 9. 11 [...] Joh. 3. 24. Christ dwelleth in al his, by his spirit, and thereby joyneth them unto him, and so in infants, els are they Rom. 8. 9. not Christs, & this should [Page 90] you have minded as wel as the other, and haue knowen, that actuall be­leeving and the practise of other Christian duties, is the work of the spirit, as the act of reasoning is of the soule, in the elder sort, required of them, and not of infants, as oft inough hath bene shewed. But not minding the true meaning of the Apostle, you thus obiect.

1. If the covenant be made with the faithful who actually beleeve as one seed, & the infants of the faithfuul carnally begotten, which is an other seed, &c. then the co­venant is made with the seedes which are many, and that is directly against the A­pastle, Gal. 3. 16.

I answer, that the covenant is made with the faithful, and their seed as of one kind, God of his free grace estating the beleevers and their seed in one and the same covenant of life, both of them becomming * spiritual or Rom. 7. 4. [...]ct. 2. 39. [...]zech 16. [...]. 21. [...]sal. 2. 15 Gal. 3. 28. [...]phe. 2. 14 [...] holy seed, and sonnes of God, by vertue thereof: and not two contrarie seedes, as you would pretend: and therefore the Apostle is not contrarie to that we affirme, for as he sayth, the seed is one; so say we, whether, Christ our Saviour be thereby understood, or the Churches united into † one, or all beleevers, who together with their children are after a spiritual maner the sonnes of God.

Therefore that one seed is of persons actually beleeving, &c. Rom. 4. 11. whence this Argument may be framed, Abraham is father of all them that beleeve actual­ly: infants do not beleeve actually: Ergo, &c.

Your conclusion ariseth from false premisses, which are answered before; to the former Proposition of this argument, I answer, that Abraham is cal­led the father of all that beleeve, but in no place of the scripture is added, of them onely that actually beleeve, which you do insinuate, & therefore there lyeth deceipt in your proposition. God promised his blessing to Abra­hams seed, which cōprehends his infants “& to blesse the house of Israel & not only the elder sort. That promise of blessing the families, Gē. 12. 3. & 28. Ps. 115. [...]2. 14. Act. 31. 25. Esa. 49. 22. Ier. 31. 1. includeth childrē, for they ar of the family.

Againe, Abrahams covenant was onely to Abrahams one seed, that is to all beleevers: Infants do not actually beleeve, Ergo, &c.

This Argument is the same in effect with the former, the maior in your understanding is false: the faithful and their children in respect of the co­venant, are but of one seed. Children though they cannot actually be­leeve, yet are they accounted of the beleevers, and partakers of the pro­mise with their parents.

Again, They that are the children of Abraham do the works of Abraham: Infants cannot do the works of Abraham, Ergo, &c.

The Proposition is false in your understanding, Paul saith, if any would; not [...]k he should not eate, 2 Thes. 3. 10. intendeth not this against children no [...]ore doth our Saviour Christ, when he sayth, if you were Abrahams chil­ [...]ren, ye would do the works of Abraham. Ioh. 8. 39. but both places are to [...]e understood of such as be of yeres, not of infants, which are not come [...]o that streng [...]h to work good or evil.

Againe, I reason thus, They that are not under the everlasting covenant made [...]th Abraham shall not be baptised: infants are not under the everlasting covenant [...] Abraham, Ergo, &c.

The minor is false: Infants are under the everlasting covenant, as be­ [...]ore is proved, and therefore to be baptised. This your reason implies [...]e condemnation of infants, for if they be not under the covenant of A­braham, there is for them no promise of salvation.

Argument V.

1. Cor. 10. 1. 2. If the infants of the Israelites were baptised in the cloud and in the sea as well as their parents, what letteth the infants of beleeving parēts vnder the Gospel to be likewise parta­kers of baptisme as well as they?

The former the Apostle affirmes 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. and therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from this priveledge that the Iewes children had. And if the former baptisme of the Iewes was a type of our baptisme, thē must there be an agreement between the type and the thing typed, which is not, if our children be not baptised aswell as theirs.

The depriving of our children of the Sacrament, is to shorten the Lords bountie towards his people of the new Testament; that being denyed to their children which God gave to his peo­ple and to their infants under the law, is to [...]eny them (in regard of their seed,) the like assurance and comfort which the Israelites had of theirs. And so to make our estate worse and more uncom­fortable then theirs was. And yet the Prophets prophecied of the grace that should come to us, and did inquire & search after the same, 1 Pet. 1. 10.

Glad tydings were preached to Abraham and his seed, to in­fants of eight dayes old. Gal. 3. 8. And this before Christ came in the flesh, and therefore much more he being come, is joyful ty­dings, brought unto us & our infants. And so are we to beleeve that the grace of God is not lessened eyther towards us or our children, but inlarged by his comming.

To this Argument I make answer, by framing the like Argument. If their in­fants did eat the same spiritual meat and drink, which the parents eat: then why may not our infants being able to eat and drink, eat & drink the Lords Supper, the former the Apostle affermeth 1 Cor. 1. 2. Therefore good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut off from that priviledge &c.

This is not to answer the Arg, for first our infants must come to such abilitie as that they can 1 Cor. 11. [...]6. 25. 28. [...]9. shew forth the Lords death; do it in remembrance of him: and can examine themselves and discerne the Lords body. before they receive the Lords Supper, which conditions were not required of all that did eat Man, and drink of the rock.

2. The proportion holdes not, for Man, and water, were not onely given to Israel to be to them a sacrament: but also served for their ordina­rie corporal food, and so is not the bread and wyne in the Lords supper.

3. If things be compared alike, our sacraments to their ordinarie sacraments, no such consequence can be gathered as you intend: for the infants of Israel were circumcised, but did not eat the passeover, until they were able to go to that place which God had appointed for the eating thereof, and to eat it according to the Lords ordinance: and so much we wil graunt for the Lords supper, that they are to eat it, that can eat it ac­cording to Christs institution.

4. If infants in partaking of those former Sacraments, were in them partakers of Chr, why shal not our infants also in the use of the sacrament [Page 93] of baptisme be held partakers of the things signified, seeing (as you say, those sacraments were types of ours) the truth must be answerable to the type.

Againe, I answer more properly thus, that there shal be a proportion between the type and the truth, that baptisme of the cloud and the sea, and our baptisme. viz, that as yong and old carnal Israelites were baptised in the cloud and sea: so yong and [...]l spiritual Israelites shal be baptised by the baptisme of repentance &c.

First, I deny that the Israelites considered as they were accounted wor­thy to partake of the sacraments were carnal, but Ex. 19. 1. Pet. 2. spiritual and holy.

2. Vnder the type you have yong and old in yeares: so if you would keep Proportion must be the like under the truth. But this you deny, and make two sorts of beleevers yong and old. Now I ask you whom you cal yong and old Israelites, and if any that beleeves may defer his baptisme; until he be old in fayth? And if this be Act. 8. 12. 36. 37 & 9. 18. & 10. 47. 4. & 16. 15. 33. not lawful, and none but young beleevers be baptised, how wil your proportion stand between the type, & the thing signified? 3. Their baptisme in the cloud and sea did preach unto them repentance, as wel as our baptisme doth unto us, and in this there is a si­militude between them: but that our outward baptisme, is the truth of that former baptisme in the sea and cloud, to the Israelites, I desire it may be proved.

Lastly, I would know, whom you mean, by spiritual fathers and their spiri­tual children? Before you called Abraham the father of the faythful and al beleevers his children. But thus to make up a proportion between your type and truth, you are driven to acknowledge other spiritual fathers, be­sides Abraham: which being so, you must grant that they are then so cal­led in respect of their children to whom the covenant is conveighed by Gods free grace together with them: For if the children come into the co­venant by their own fayth, and enter as did their parents, then are they Abrahams children, not theirs, according as the scripture speaketh. Rom. 4. 11. that he shal be the father of them that beleev.

Further I say▪ that our infants shal have a priviledge far greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that tipical baptisme. For they by it were onely baptised into Mo­ses, and the law, that by it they might learn Moses, and in Moses the truth in Christ as it were under a vaile: but our infants under the Gospel shal have the daylie institu­tion and education of faithful parents &c.

The Apostle sayth in 1. Cor. 10. 2. that al the Israelites were baptised unto [Page 94] Moses in the cloud and in the sea. But sayth not as you say, into the law, those sacraments were seales unto them of the covenant of salvation, not of the law, which then was not given. Secondly, to be baptised unto Moses may thus be understood, viz. that they were baptised, Moses being their guid, or minister by whom they were instructed in the wayes of God. Thirdly, the baptisme of the Israelites howsoever it might be typicall in some re­spect, yet did it signifie unto them true things, whereof they were partak­ers. Deu. 6. 6. & 11. 18. [...]. Gen. 18. Lastly, the infants under the law and before, † had their dayly edu­cation by faythful parents, as wel as ours have under the Gospel: so that in this respect, there is no such material difference, as you pretend.

Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud and sea, was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament in the abstract: but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete, that is, the baptisme of the cloud did type out our baptisme in the three partes thereof, viz. 1. the baptisme of the spirit, 2. the declaration of fayth and re­pentance, the antecedent of the baptisme with water, 3. the outward washing with water, a manifestation of the foresaid particulers &c.

Here you set us down types & things typed, but no proofs thereof, I know that the Sacraments of the new Testament, did succeed the Sacra­ments of the old, confirming to us the same spirituall thinges that theirs did to them. But how these did type forth ours in the concrete (as you speak) I conceive not: our sacraments are external as wel as theirs, and ad­ministred by * man, who neither doth nor can administer the spirit. 1. For Mat. 3. [...]1. the baptisme of the spirit, Deu. 10. [...]. & 30. 6. [...] Cor. 10. 4. Heb. 11. [...]9. 30. 39. [...]sa. 1. 16. they were partakers thereof, and † manifested their fayth and repentance as we do. 2. concerning the declaration of fayth and repentance to be a part of the sacrament of baptisme, I see no warrant; seeing it is more general then the sacrament it self, and is an imperfect work in man, and sometymes hypocritical, and therefore cannot be a part of the seal of Gods covenant that shal confirme fayth. Also this were to teach, that the assurance and pledge of mans salvation depends upon himself, if the declaration of his fayth and repentance, be held a part of the sacrament. Again, fayth and repentance is that con­dition of the covenant that is required on our part, and therefore not a part of the seal thereof. Besides, that which is often to be repeated can­not be a part of baptisme, confession of synne and fayth is so often to be repeated as there shal be occasion. Ergo &c. 3. The out­ward washing with water, being administred to the faythfull or their [Page 95] [...]ed in the name of the Father &c. is that sacrament of baptisme which was Mat. 3. [...] administred by Iohn, and is administred by the ministers of the Gospel.

Furthermore, whereas I sayd that to deprive children of baptisme [...] to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people, you answer.

That Gods bounty is as large everie way to our infants as to theirs, for Gods [...]tie of actual exhibiting and sealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham & [...] his carnal infants, was never extant in the old Testament: neither were their parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it up­ [...] their infants.

You confesse the Lord to be as bountiful towards our infants as to­ [...]ards the infants of the Iewes, indeed, neither comfortable to theirs or ours. Not to theirs, because (say you) the everlasting covenant was never exhibited and sealed to Abraham, and al his carnal seed. I have pag. 12. 13. before shewed that the covenant was sealed up to Abraham and his in­fants. And that it was exhibited and sealed to him and to al the faith­ful: see Gen. 17. 7. - 13. Rom. 4. 11. Hebr. 11. 13. - 39. but not to al, (say you,) externally, it was given to all and sealed by circumcision, though internally it was not, no more is it to all that stand members of the visible church of the new Testament. Secondly, if the parents had [...]o comfort in circumcising of their infants in respect of the promise in Christ to be unto their infants, they had none at al in that action, for out of Christ is no true comfort: and so you make circumcision an idle signe, which indeed did preach unto them, (howsoever you think ther­of,) Christ the promised seed, Col. 2. 11. in whom they were circumcised.

And circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then, as he is preached [...]w to infants. Your doctrine casteth infants out of Gods everlasting covenant, both under the old and new Testament, and so Christ to them is not preached at al. But what is it that now preacheth Christ to infants more plainely then circumcision did to the Iewes infants, if not baptisme? How be it you make a question, how the preaching of Christ could profit infants eyther then in types or now in truth. And you say, neither do I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infants any thing at that instant, but afterward to learn that which circumcision taught him viz. the circumcision of the hart. And if you say, that infants baptised are to be instructed. [Page 96] I answer, that in the new Testament by baptisme we manifest what we have, name­lie, the inward baptisme, whereas in the old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not, but ought to have viz. the inward circumcision of the ha [...] &c.

First, the preaching of Christ by circumcising and baptising of infants did then and doth now profite their parents by seeing the covenant con­firmed to their seed. And although the infants themselves know not the use thereof, til afterward, yet it makes not the Lords ordinance, to be any more unlawful, then † Christs washing Peters feet, because Peter understood [...]oh. 13. 7. it not. Yt sufficeth that the Lord commandeth the thing to be done, and that children be * taught the use thereof, as they shal be capable. Deu. 6. 20.

Secondly, concerning that difference you make between baptisme and circumcision, afferming that by the former, wee manifest what we have &c. and by the other, they learned what they had not. It is not true that you say of the circumcised, that they had not inward circumcision, for God did promise it to them and their children. Deut. 30. 6. as wel as to us. And here let it be minded, that you confesse, that the Israelites ought to have had inward circumcision, if they ought to have had it, it was by their con­stitution or everlasting cov. of God made with them. For otherwise how ought they have had it? then how wil you prove that their covenant was carnal which required inward circumcision? the truth agrees with it self.

Argument 6.

Math. 28. 19. If Christ gave a commandement for the pub­lishing of his covenant and administration of baptisme the seal thereof to al nations: then are the beleeving Gentiles and their infants to receive the same. But the first is true, Mat. 28. 19. Ergo the latter also is true. Act. 13. 48. & 16. 14. 15. 32. 33.

It wil be objected against the Major, that it followes not, that the infants are any more bound to receive baptisme, then they are bound whilest they are infants to receive the word, but the word they cannot receive. Ergo. I answer that the cōman­dement [Page 97] is general to al nations, and therefore as Abraham if he should not have obeyed the Lord commanding him to circum­cise him self, and al his familie, yea the infants, he should grevous­ly have rebelled against God: so whosoever of the Gentiles shal not beleev and be baptised both himself and his seed, shal have no part nor portion in the inheritance of Christ: seeing he cutts himself and his seed from the covenant of God. Genes. 17. 4. And though infants be not capable of the preaching of the cove­nant (which notwithstanding they are bound unto, as they shall come to yeares of discretion) yet are they capable of the seal, as before is shewed, and therefore by vertue of this generall com­mandement, Mat. 28, 19. are to be baptised.

The errors of this Argument I wil discover in order, first I deny that baptisme is a seal of the covenant of the new Testament. Secondly, I deny that circumcision was the seal of the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ. Thirdly, Baptisme therefore doth not succeed in the place of circumcision, &c. Fourth­ly, I deny that although Abraham had a speciall commandement, did circumcise his male infants, therefore Christians upon this generall commandement Mat. 28. 19. shal baptise their infants. Fiftly, I say rather the contrarie is hence proved, &c.

This is a ready course in answering, if it might be admitted of to denye one thing after another without shewing any reason to the contrary. As for your particulars I do here brand them with the letter E. for errors, of three of them I have spoken before more particularly, the fourth is now to be answered unto, concerning the baptising of infants upon the gene­ral commandement of Christ, Mat. 28. 19. which you deny to have war­rant from that scripture: I prove it thus.

If there was a commandement given for the sealing of the everlasting covenant to Abraham and his children, then is this, Mat. 28. 10. a coman­dement [...] [Page 100] and faithfully described in the institution of baptisme, as the person, condition and tyme of circumcision. But for paedobaptisme there is no expresse description of the per­son, condition or tyme of their baptisme, &c.

I answer to the consequent of the Major, that our Saviour hath † reve­led [...]. 17. 6. [...]14. 26. [...]. [...]. [...]. to his church the whole will of his father, which is conteyned in the Scriptures, not onely in the writings of the Apostles, but also of the pro­phets, which hee hath for that end, commanded us to search Ioh. 5. 39. and Peter to take heed unto, 2 Pet. 1. 19. and Paul commends to be profi­table to teach, to convince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnes, &c. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. and therefore Gods wil must not so be included in the writings of the Apostles, that the prophets be excluded, but out of them both to learn what Christ teacheth. For as the books of the new Testament do plainly declare the fulfilling of all the mysteries of our redemption: so do the books of the old Testament speak of some things more expresly then the writings of the Apostles. But to come to the point. I answer, that it was not needful for Christ to describe things in so large manner, which before had been written, and were stil to continue, as example, the sealing of the covenant, the persons yong and old that were to be signed, and such like, what needs a new repetition hereof, when the Lord purposed not to disānul them: so much as was to be altered, concerning the outward signe, Christ omitted not to declare. And therefore cannot be accused of any unfaith­fulnes, if he in expresse words had not commanded infants to be baptised, seing under the old Testament they had the signe of the covenant.

Again, the Apostles writings do plainly ynough declare unto us that in­fants are to be baptised, as both from that commandement of Christ, Mat, 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles in baptising of families, and by o­ther reasons hath been shewed.

And concerning, the tyme of baptising, I see no reason why you should cavil about it, more then about the tyme of administring the Lords Sup­per, which Christ hath not so precisely set down neither the day, nor tyme of the day for the administring thereof, as Moses did of the passeover.

And the scriptures which you cite do shew that bap▪ is to be administred when men enter into Gods covenant, and children entring in at the same tyme with their parents, are to be baptised at the same tyme with them, as Ismael and al Abrahams howse were circumcised * the same day with Abra­ham. Deu. 17. [...]. And thus much for answer to the consequent of your major, which [Page 101] [...]so serveth to answer your minor. But touching those scriptures which you alledge for proof of your Minor, thus I answer in general to them all: that they speak of such as came newly to the faith of the Gospel, to beleeve that Iesus was the Christ, who were never baptised before. And this rule I confesse to be observed to all such like as are to be received to baptisme, that they make confession of their fayth & sinnes as they did: but they serve not to teach vs to deale so towards their infants or the infants of beleevers that are borne within the covenant. For the condition of them that are to be admitted into the church and of them that are borne in it, is not the same as concerning the administration of baptisme, no more then it was in the Iewish Church towching circumcision; for the one is declared to come within the covenant by their owne profession; and the other to be within it, by their being borne of beleeving parents: if you had instanced an ex­ample of one that was borne in the Church of the new testament, of parēts that were members thereof, whose baptising was differd until he was able to make confessiō of faith, then had you sayd more to the purpose, though in such an example there might haue bene neglect, as was in Moses in cir­cumcising his sonne.

Argument VII.

Act. 16. 15. 33. Lastly, the Apostles practise is our instructiō, but they baptised not onely the maister of the familie which be­leeved: but all his household, Act. 16. 15. 33. Therefore now al­so the like is to be done: and so consequently the infants are to be baptised, for they are a part of the family, see Gen. 45. 18. where Ioseph bad his brethren, take their father and their house­houlds and come to him. Now in chap. 46. 5. 7. it is sayd they caried their children and wives in charets, noting hereby, that children were of the household, els had they no commaun­dement to haue caried them into Egypt, see also verse 27. and Exodus 1. 21. it is sayd, because the midwives feared God, there­fore [Page 102] he made them howses, in 1 Tim. 5, 8. The Apostle sayth, hee that provideth not for his own & namely for them of his houshold he de­nyeth the fayth, &c. Now I would ask if children be exempted from the howshold in any of these places. or in any other where mention is made of a particular howshold. Therefore, this Argu­ment will prove that children were baptised, unlesse it can be shewed that they were especially exempted. And if the holy Ghost have not exempted them, who dare do it, against a gene­ral commandement of baptising al nations.

I make answer to this Argument confessing it wholly, but yet denying the conse­quent of your conclusion: for it doth not follow because all the houshold of Lidia and the Gaylor were baptised, that therefore infants were baptised, you shal see what exceptiōs I take.

The consequence wil follow, for if the Apostle baptised whole families, then children also if there were any, seeing they are of the familie, and no where excepted, but I wil come to your exceptions, the first whereof is this.

I say though infants are a part of the familie &c. yet it doth not follow that wher­soever there is mention made of a familie, that therefore that familie had infants in it, &c.

Neither doth it follow, that the families of Lidia, of the Gaylor and of Stephanas, were all of them without children, because the scripture doth not mention their children. The generall speech of baptising the houshold, satisfies you not, except it be proved that there were infants therein: and why should not you (that stand [...] for actual beleeving before baptisme) as wel prove that Lidias familie did beleev as the mistresse did▪ of whom onely it is sayd, that the Lord opened her hart, and she attended unto [Page 103] the things which Paul spake. The Actes of Christ and his Apostles are summa­rily recorded, and not every thing that was done at large explayned.

Certeynly, if the Apostle had minded that children were not to be bapti­sed, he would not haue spoken so indefinitely of the family: yea hereby he teacheth that in the administration of this sacrament: he followed the cō ­mon Gen. 17▪-13. Exo [...] 1 [...], 4 [...]. 4 [...] ▪ practise used in circumcising of the whol family when the governor thereof received the faith.

2. By this reason you might proue that Lydiaes husband and the Gaylors wife and their children of 40. yeres old and their servants of 60. yeres old were baptised, &c.

First, it is a question whether Lydia had a husband, and more like that she was a widow, because it is sayd to be her household. 2. Concerning the Gaylors wife, their children and servants, what letteth that they might not be baptised, if they refused not the grace of God offered? The Apostle preached Act. 16. 31. 32. salvation to the whole family, and the Gaylor beleeved, and he with all that belonged unto him were baptised. Dare you now except a­gainst any in that family, seing the holy Ghost so speaks? from these general speaches I prove that all in both households were baptised, shew the con­trarie if you can.

3. If it were yeelded that there were infants in Lydia [...]s family and in the Gaylors, doth it follow that they were baptised? no thing les, and that I wil declare thus. 1. You say, to the baptisme of the Gaylors wife and children of yeres of discretion, there was necessarily required saith and repentance, or els they were not baptised: so say I because infants cannot beleeve and repent, though they were in the family, yet they shall not be baptised.

I might ask you where I so sayd of the Gaylors wife and children, but I wil not cōtend with you about it. Cōcerning infāts, I haue proved that their baptising is not to stay, until they can themselves make confession of their faith and sinnes, and you do not yet say any thing worth answer, to the contrarie.

2. I say, that although it be said, that all that perteyneth to the Gaylor were ba­ptised yet it is also sayd, verse, 32. that the word was preached to all that were in his house. & verse 34. that all his howshold beleeved, &c. seing therfore all that were bapti­sed in the Gaylors house beleeved by the preaching of the word. Infants that could not beleeve were not baptised, &c.

First, all that you here say doth not prove that all that were baptised in the [Page 104] gaylors howse beleeved by the preaching of the word. The word was preached to al in his house, that were able to understand, and so must both ver. 32. & 34. be und [...]stood of such. But Paul speaking of baptising them, sayth, that he was baptised and al that belonged unto him. Which speach must needs include his little children also, if he had any.

And although it be sayd, that he reioyced that he with al his howshold belee­ved in God, yet wil it not follow hereupon, that his children were not bap­tised, seeing children are to be esteemed in the number of beleevers. And those words may have this construction, viz. that he rejoyced, that he with al his familie were received into the fayth of Christ, or were accepted into the number of beleevers, and so it includes his children.

Concerning the tyme, being midnight, which you say was a distempe­red time to waken yong children, it is nothing that you say: were not the infants of Israel awakened and caried out of Aegypt at the like tyme of the night? Exod. 12. 31. upon lesse occasion then either of these, children may be awakened.

[...]. I say for Lidias familie, it is not sayd that al her howse was baptised, or yet if it had been so said, that everie particular person of her familie was baptised, for Mat. 3. [...]. It is sayd, al Judea went out to John and were baptised of him, &c. yet hence it can­not be concluded that al and every one that went out were baptised▪ &c.

The scripture sayth, that Lidia was baptised and her houshold without excepting of any, the like is sayd of Stephanas familie, 1 Cor. 1. 16. And by † that which is written of the gaylors house, we are taught how to un­derstand Act. 16. 33 the Apostle. And be it that this word ( al) be used sometimes for many, as in that of Mat. 3. 5. 6. What then? yet it followes not: therefore, it is so to be taken in this place of the Apostle, seeing he useth it for every particular of the whole in al these places, 2 Cor. 5. 10. Hebr. 1. 6. Gal. 3. 27. 28. & 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 4. 20. & 4. 15. & 5. 18. and in divers others.

But you say, As Act. 16. 32. 34. onely they that beleeved were baptised, s [...] was it with them of Lidias familie.

You are to bold with the text to add unto it. The Apostle sayth not, that onely they that beleeved were baptised, but that they preached to al that were in his howse, and wa [...] baptised with al that were his. Next, you proceed to conclude two Arguments against baptising of infants, the former is this.

The Apostles practise is our instruction, but the Apostle in baptising howsholds, [Page 105] First Preached to all that were in the family, and then they beleeving were baptised. Ergo they onely that by the preaching of the word were converted and beleeved were baptised.

This argument might have bene granted, had not the conclusion con­tayned more then the former propositions, viz. this word, ( onely) which ought to have bene placed in the one of them, and if in the assumption, then were it false to say, that onely they that beleeved were baptised and [...]o more: the places wherevpon this argument is grounded are answered before. And it is to be further observed, that this was the Apostles practise to such as were of yeares and not before of the Church. Your o­ther Argument is this.

That which the Apostles practised in one family, they practised in all families that they baptised: But in the Gaylors family according to Christs comission, Mat. 28. 19. they first made them Disciples by preaching the word, Act. 16. 32. 34. Ergo. &c.

This argument also may be granted, and maketh nothing against the baptising of infants, except your heretical collection which I deny. And this may suffice for reply to your answer to this & the rest of my argumēts.

I. Argument.

If the Apostacie of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that that it ceased to be the seal of Gods covenant to so many of thē as repented: no more doth the Apostasie of our fore-Elders so po­lute baptisme, that it ceaseth to be a sacrament to so many of them that turne unto God from their sinnes.

But the first is true. 2 Chron. 30. 11. 18. 21. els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierusalem have eaten the Passeover, se­ing no uncircumcised might eat thereof. Ergo the second.

If it be obiected that the apostasie is not alike thē let it be shewed that the apostasie under Antichrist did make a nullitie of baptism, [Page 150] & not the apostasie of Israel of circumcision: for Israel played the harlot so deeply, that the Lord denyed her to be his wife, or him­self to be her husband. Hose. 2. 2.

And thus having shewed the vanitie of your answeres to my reasons against [...]swer. paedobaptistrie, let us come to your answere made to my 2. Position.

2. That Antichristians converted, &c. Your first Argument is framed thus. If the apostasie of Israel, &c. I answer that the apostasie of Antichrist is deeper then the apostasie of Israel, for first Antichristians are not called Israelites, but Baby­lonias, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentiles, in the Revelation, whereby the holy spirit of wisedome giveth vs to conceive, that he doth account the apostasie of Antichrist e­qu [...] to Paganisme it self, &c.

Whether my answers be vaine, or your reasons haeretical, let the reader [...]ply. judge. For your answer to this my first Argument against your second Position, if it be graunted that the Apostasie of Antichrist be worse then of Israel, yet this difference is but according to the lesse & the greater, both are Apostasie. But as concerning these names of Sodomites, &c. they do not prove that Antichristianisme is equalled to Paganisme: rather they shew that the Antichristians were in some things like to the Sodomites, Ae­gyptians, &c. Was Iuda her circumcision voyd because the Prophet calles [...]a. 1. 10. their Princes, * the Princes of Sodome, & the people the people of Gomorah? If this had bene so, they must haue bene new circumcised. Know you not that the holy Ghost by these similitudes would manifest some abhominable sinne that he saw in his people wherein they became like unto the profane Gē ­tiles? And the more to cause them to detest their sinne, likeneth them to such notorious sinners, as had tasted of the hand of God against them for their sinnes. Wherefore as Iudah for her uniust shedding of blood and o­ther filthy sinnes is called Sodome and Gomorah: So the Antichristians are called Sodome, for their filthy sinne of Sodomitrie, and such like, wherein they become like to the Sodomites: and Egypt and Babylon, be­cause they keep Gods people under a spirituall servitude, as formerly E­gypt [Page 151] and Babylon had done the Israelites and Iewes under a corporal bō ­dage. And the Antichristians, if they be compared to the Gentiles (which I do not remember) it is in respect of their profanenes and strange Gods: for as the Gentiles had many Gods, to whom they gave spiritual wor­ship: so the Antichristians have their Gods, Saincts of both sexes, and the Angels to whom they do worship and service. Notwithstanding all this their profanesse, yet did they confesse God and Iesus Christ to be their sa­viour, and worshipped him (though corruptly) professed also ma­ny of his truthes, which neither the Sodomites, Egyptians, Baby­lonians or Gentiles did: And therefore are not comparable with the heathen in all respects, much lesse to be held the worst kind of Paga­nisme. For in Paganisme, it was never heard that God had his people, yet in Antichristian Babylon, the spirit witnesseth that he hath his people amongst them, and so many truthes of God are therein taught, as there­by Gods elect do come to some knowledge of God, and to faith: so can none do in Paganisme, by any doctrine there taught

2. I declare playnly the difference between the Apostasie of Antichrist and Israel A [...]. in this, that Israels apostasie did not destroy the true constitution of the Church; but Antichrists apostasie did rase the true Apostolike constitution. For the true constitu­tion of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or proselytes circumci­sed, and so long as they reteyned circumcision in the Land of Canaan, they reieyned a true constitution though there apostasie was never so great, &c.

This which you say, is a playne difference, is none at all, it is your false Re. ground that deceaves you. The reason of your difference wil not hold, for if reteyning of circumcisiō preserved the constitution of the Church of the old Testament, though their apostasie was never so great, as you say it did: then should the reteyning of baptisme in the greatest apostasie, pre­serve the Churches constitution under the new testament: but this you de­ny, ergo the other can not stand: Seing baptisme by your owne confessi­on Char [...] in the pr [...]f [...] is the constition of the Church under the Gospel, as circumcision was of the old Church: Now if this be true doctrine which you teach, I pray you shew us some reason why Apostasie more raseth the constituti­on of the Church now, then it did under the law: for circumcision was as corruptly administred by the apostate Israelites, as baptisme is by the Antichristians. But your iudgement of the Churches constitutiō [Page 152] fayles you, in holding the Sacraments to be the constitution thereof, [...] them appertayne vnto it, yet can they not be counted the whole constitu­tion of the Church. And if this should be granted you, it would fol­low, that if Israels constitution was carnal (for circumcision you say was carnal) so should the constitution of the Church of the new testament be carnal also: seing baptisme is an external ordinance as well as circumcision was, and both alike carnal in that respect. And therefore you must ey­ther renounce this opiniō, or els grant that the constitution of the Church of the old Testament was spiritual, & then all your building is overthrown.

But to prove that Israel reteyned a true constitution in their apostacie, you alledge Hosea the fourth, saying; Though their apostasy was never so great th [...] their worship ministerie and government, as it is to be seen in Hosea, 4. 6. 8. 12. yet they reteyned a true constitution so long as they reteyned circumcision in the land of Canaan.

I answer, although the Lord call Israel his people, he doth it in regard of his covenant formerly made to their forefathers, & not in respect of their present outward estate. The Prophet sayth, There shall be like people like Preist. And in verse 12. they are charged to go a whoring from under their God. How can this people be sayd to stand in a true constitution or cove­nant with God, that went a whoring from under their God? Hath Rome done any more then this? the people * perished for want of knowledge, Hose. 4. 6 and the Lord reiected their Ministers from being his; because they refused Hose. 4. 12 knowledge. The Israelites did † ask counsel at their stocks, and the spirit of fornication caused them to erre, & they sacrificed to strange Gods, &c. [...]hrō. 13 [...] King. [...] 31. [...]hr. 11. 14 [...] Chron. [...]. [...]ers. 8. & [...]rse 9. “Ieroboam drove away the true Prophets, & placed Preists after his own devise. Israel set up an other governement and * refused the governement of the Lord, † had a false ministerie and worship. What more can be sayd of Rome, then is here sayd of Apostate Israel? And what though the Prophet Abijah did not charge Israel with a false cōstitutiō, but with the o­ther particulars before mētioned: yet that sufficeth to declare that they had broken covenāt with God, which, what is it els, but to depart frō their pri­mitive constitutiō. Needs a man to say any more to prove that a wise hath violated the bond of mariage, but that she hath played the whore, and fo­loweth other lovers? and so much have the Prophets testifyed of Israel. [...] Chro. 15 Azariah beareth witnes against Israel thus; † now for a long season Israel hath bene without the true God, & without Preist to teach, and without law. And this was [Page 153] [...]n the tyme of Asa king of Iuda. Also Eliah complayneth [...] [...] 10. that the children of Israel have forsaken the covenant of the Lord: and this was in the dayes of Ahab, now it cannot be that they that had forsaken Gods covenant could be a true constituted Church, so continuing, & also, which were without God and without his Law &c.

C [...]n you say more agaynst the Antichristians? and them you deny to be a true Church, and yet you iustify Israel withal her abhominations: but let vs consider furder of the difference you make between Israel and Anti­christianisme: you saye.

That Antichrist hath not onely set vp a false government &c. but also a false con­stitution Ans. of the Church, for whereas the true Apostolike constitution was of baptised Disciples that confessed theire sins and their fayth, he hath foysted in a false matter of [...] Church, viz. infants and persons vnbaptised, and so a false forme, &c.

I answere, 1. that the Apostolike constitution did not shut out the chil­dren Re. of beleevers, as I have formerly proved. 2. I iustify neither the mat­ter nor forme of Antichrists Church, neither their ministerie worship nor government, they have in all these corrupted the wayes of God. But the falshood you tax them of in their matter & form, is the baptising of infants, otherwise if they had baptised persons confessing their sinnes, &c. theire constitution had bene with you Apostolike: such a deadly feud have you against infants, that to admit them to baptisme makes a false Church. For the lawfulnes of baptising children you may be satisfyed before, if the eye sight of your soule be not quite put out.

Your saying that infants are no more capable of baptisme, then is a foole or mad­man or pagan, Argues in you the want of spirituall wisdome, but that which you drive at, in this your bitternes against infants is to prove, That the Church of Antichrist is constituted of a false matter, viz, infants uncapable of bap­tisme, and a false forme, viz. infants vnable to enter into the new Testament &c. And therefore to be as Pagans or Gentiles in the Lords account; and to iustifie Apo­state Israel reteyning circumcision to be a true Church. For your pleading a­gainst the adulteries of Rome I dislike not: but by these your Arguments, & manner of pleading, you shall never convince her, or ever be able to justifie that adulterous Church of Israel: neither wil this your reason stand good. That circumcision in the Israelites Apostasie was true, because it was performed vpon carnal Israelites or proselytes the 8. day. And that baptisme in Popery is false and in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing, &c. for as much may be [Page 154] sayd for baptisme administred to the apostate Church of Antichrist, as yo [...] can say for circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel. And all that can be sayd is this, that neither of them both is in deed capable, in that standing: For the sacraments belong to the members of a true Church, not to apostates. But if to be circumcised the 8. day prove that Israels circumcision was true in her Apostacy; what letteth the circumcision of the Edomites and Isma­elites to be true also, they keeping the 8. day, seing they were of the seed of Abraham. The right of circumcision belonged to the children of the promise which was made to Abraham in Christ: And therfore when any of Rom. 2. 5. 2 Chro. 30 [...]-11. Abrahās seed did cut off themselves by infidelitie, their † circūcisiō became vncircumcision: on the contrary, circumcision, though administred in A­postacy vnto infants, yea * those coming to yeares and seeking the Lord, their circumcision was then profitable to them. And so is baptisme in like manner to them that receive it in apostate Churches, when they by repen­tance shall returne to God. But you drive all to this yssue, that not the pro­fanes of the apostasie, but the fittines of the subiect makes the sacrament true or false. That infants are as fit subiects for baptisme, as the infants under the law, for circumcision, I haue proved in the former part of this writing.

Your third answer. 3. I declare that Israel was the true church of God, or a mēber Answ. of a true Church, though infinitely corrupt as wel as Iuda in the dayes of her apostasie, &c. and therefore if Iudah reteyned true circumcision in her apostasie &c. surely the circumcision of Israel was also true.

This is strange that Israel can be a true Church, & yet infinitely corrupt, cā [...]l. a wife be a true wife & also a harlot? thus you may as wel iustify Rome & all Antichristian assemblies. The holy ghost calleth both * Aholah and A­holibah Ezech. 23 harlots: and you in their infinite corruptions instifye them to be true Churches, and particularly of Israel the Lord sayth, † plead with your Hose. 2. 2. mother for she is not my wife. And you say, she was a true Church, that is, a true wife, directly contradicting the holy Ghost. But you reason, If Iu­dah retayned true circumcision in her apostasie, then Israell, &c.

Then if eyther Iuda her circumcision was false, or that your compari­son is not equall, your argument is of no forse. The sacraments seale up Gods covenant to his people walking in his wayes, and not to them when [Page 155] they fall from the faith. That of Hosea. 2. 2. alledged by some is you say, to Prove Israel a false Church you thus answer unto. Hosea. [...]

I say it was after the Passeover of Ezechias which was in the first yeare of his reigne. 2 Chron. 29. 3. 14. and 30. 2. and the bill of divorce was given the sixt [...]re of his reigne, 2 King. 17. 23. compared with 2 King. 18. 10. yet notwithstan­ding Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophecied of the bill of divorce [...] be given her. Hose. 4. 6. 8. 12. &c.

Concerning the time of Hosea his prophesie, when he sayd, plead with [...] mother, &c. I take it was in the dayes of Vzziah king of Iuda and about the Perki [...] Specimen [...] &c. pag. 3 † 2. Kin [...] 17. 23. 23. yeare of his reigne, which was almost 60. yeres before Ezechias began to reigne, and before the Lord † put Israel out of his sight. Now so long before the prophet was bidden to tel Israel that she was not the Lords wife. This being so, I would know how you or any can iustify Israel to be a true church, when the Lord denyes her? she had broken covenant, & her divorcement (as you call it) argues as much: for men put from them wives that had broken the band of mariage, and not true wives.

To that of Hosea, 4. 6. 8. 12. I have answered, pag. 152. Further­more you say, when the bil of divorce was given, divers of Is [...]ael kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme and went yeerly to Ierusalem.

I doubt thereof no more then you, according to these scriptures, 2. Chron. 34. 6. 7. 31. 32. 33. and 35. 18. and 30. 11. but we reason of the face of that Church, as it stood in apostasie and so continued, and not of particular persons. In Babylon god hath his; yet the face of that Church of ANTICHRIST is apostate and false to the LORD. And so we say of Israel, that if we respect the outward face of it, it was a false Church to God long before Samaritanisme began▪ And here I observe that you agree not with your self, for here you say, no manner of sinne made the Church of the old testament, a false Church: and yet you call it apostate, as also you do the like in your Paralels. pag. 14. and 26. And it is as much as we say of it: for that people that are fallen into▪ apostasie have broken faith and covenant with God. And if in any place we call Israel or Antichrists, a false Church, we meane no other, but a Church that hath unfaithfully departed from the LORD, and so continues in Apostasie.

II. Argument.

BAbylon in Chaldea (which was a type of spirituall Baby­lon, Reve. 18. 2.) though she did abuse and profane the vessels of the Lord, Dan. 5. 3. yet did not that make a nullitie of them, that they ceased any more to be the ves­sels of the house of the Lord, but were brought with them of the captivitie that came up from Babylon, to Ierusalem. Ezra. 1. 11. Even so although spiritual Babylon have profaned the holy things of God, as baptisme & the rest, yet remaine they still Gods ordinances to all them that come out of her, Rev. 18. 4. and re­turne to the celestiall Ierusalem. And as these vessels of the house of the Lord need not to be new cast, because of Babels polluting them: no more is baptisme to be iterated to the people of God, because it passed through the polluted hands of the Papists.

If it be objected, that they that administered baptisme in Babi­lon were Idolaters and had no calling therevnto: I answere, that they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters, & so standing in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods ho­ly ordinances. And that the wanting of a lawfull calling to admi­nister the Sacrament, makes not a nullitie thereof, the circumci­sing of Moses sonne by his mother Zippora, Exo. 4. 25. doth playn­ly teach: For as the Lord makes effectuall his word to his people though coming vnto them by the hands of a false Ministery: so doth he baptisme to al that be his, though administered by them that have not a lawful calling therevnto. The sin of the Minister makes not a nullitie eyther of the word or Sacraments, els should the efficacy of the word an [...] [...]acraments depend vpon him that administreth them; which is no [...] so: for both have their effect from the Lord Esay. 55. 11:

If agayne it be obiected that baptis [...]e was not administred in [Page 157] the Apostate Church of Antichrist to a fit subiect. I answere, that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receive baptisme, as the infants of Israel in the tyme of Ieroboam & Ahab were to receave circumcision: seing the covenant of Abraham (after the coming of Christ) belonged as properly to the Gentiles Gal. 3. 14. as before it did to the Israelites.

I answere many things. 1. this Argument is an excellent argument for the retayn­ing Ans. of idol Temples, the worship, government, ministerie of the ecclesiastical assem­blies of England, &c.

This Argument is not so excellent for idol Temples, &c. as you pretend. Re. For how can you reason from the ordinances of God to iustify the devises of men? wil it follow, that because the vessels of the Lord, his sacraments and ordinances (though polluted in apostaticall Churches, or by the pro­fane Babylonians) may be restored to the right use, for which God or­deyned them, therefore so to reason, justifies the inventions of men devi­sed to religious vses? you may shew your wit in composing of your Argu­ment. But with all you answer. That baptisme of theirs was never appointed by God but is the devise of Antichrist.

Antichrist devised no new baptisme, but polluted the Lords ordinance or­dayned by God.

2. I answer that the vessels of the Lords house were his owne ordinances, & ther­fore An. need not to be new cast. But the baptisme of Antichrist is not the Lords owne ordinance &c.

Baptisme reteyned in the Churches of Antichrist is as much the Lords Re. ordinance, as the vessels of the Temple were in Babylon, and therefore nedes no more to be new cast, then they. But you distinguishe betwene the vessels of the Lords house and baptisme, thus. That they were sub­stances framed by art into particular shapes at the Lords appointment: but the baptisme [Page 158] of the Lord is a compound or concreete ordinance limitted in certayn essential p [...] ­lars, not being a substance, but an accident in definition. Now if Antichrist h [...] reteyned the essentiall parts of baptisme I confesse it needed not to be repeated, &c but [...] is salse, [...] neither [...]tter nor [...]e [...] inven­ [...] by An­ [...]rist, but [...]ng the or [...]anc [...] of [...]d were [...]uted. seing baptisme in Poperie is not the Lords ordinance but Antichrists invention, * the matter and forme being invented by Antichrist, the matter being a carnal in­fant, the forme washing one into the covenant and cannot consent to the covenant or baptising, without a contract, and sealing to the covenant &c.

Here you confesse that if the essentiall partes of baptisme be reteyned in Popery, it is not to be repeated. But you make question about the parts, affirming that both matter and forme of baptisme in Popery is inven­ted by Antichrist: you saye so, but proves it not. Concerning the mat­ter, it is before shewed, that infants are capable of baptisme, not as they be natural and borne in sinne, but as they are the seed of the faithful, & there­fore being the † children of God, and of the “covenant, are not in that res­pect carnal matter, but spiritual. As for the forme, which you say, is the washing of one into the covenant which cannot consent. I answere, that the forme [...]zech. 16 [...]. 21. Act. 2. 39 [...]3. 25. of baptisme doth not any more stand in the Actual consent of the parties baptised, then the forme of circumcision did consist in the assenting of the party circūcised: for there is alike reasō of the form of these two sacramēts, and therefore as infants of the Iewes were circumcised, notwithstanding by reason of their age they could not consent to that action: So infants of beleevers may be baptised, especially seing they are but patients in this Mat. 2 [...] Action. This is the Lords ordinance, to † baptise the beleever and his seed with water, into the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. And of this are infants capable.

As for sealing to the covenant, it is already proved that the Lord sea­leth his covenant to infants. And for their sealing to the Lord, they do as much, as at that age is required, or was required of the infants of the Iewes circumcised. Nether is there baptisme without a cōtract, for the Lord hath made his covenant with the faithfull and their seed. For the Scripture de­scribeth true baptisme thus: The matter must be one, that confesseth his faith and his sinns one that is regenerate and borne againe. The form must be a voluntary deliverāce vp of the party baptised into the name of the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost, by washing with water. Mat. 28. 19. and 3. 6. Joh. 4. 1. Act. 2. 14. and 8. 36. 27. with Rom. 6. [...]-6. where there must be a mutual confent of both persons contracting together. And that this is so, the forme of baptisme retayned in Popery, yet teacheth &c.

That the matter of baptisme (as you terme it) or subject, must necessari­ly be one alwayes that confesseth his fayth and synnes, al that you have said Re. hitherto, hath not proved it: the scripture sayth it not: and the contrary is confirmed before, viz. that infants are to be baptised, although they can not make actual profession of their fayth, & to us they are partakers of re­mission of synns and regeneration: seing they are in the covenant.

2. Concerning the forme of baptisme, I confesse it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water into the name of the Father &c. but your volunta­rie deliverance up of the partie baptised, to make that action a part of the forme of baptisme, al the scriptures you cyte, proves it not. we confesse that such as are of yeares must voluntarily offer up themselves to be baptised, and so were they that were to be circumcised: notwithstanding the infants that could not do this, were also circūcised, & so must our infants be baptised. The Lord sayd to his Ministers, baptise, but sayd not let every one that is baptised offer himself voluntarily thereunto, as he doth in the Lords sup­per, say, take eat &c. it is otherwise in baptisme, wherein the baptised are not agēts, but onely patients: God thus disposing that the infants of the faith­ful might be capable thereof, & sealed up for the Lords, as wel as their pa­rēts. And it is to be noted, that the desiring or offering to receiv baptisme, is an action differing from the thing desired, & so not a part of the same. As for your mutual consent of both persons contracting together, it must be under­stood, of God with the faythfull & their seed, for such was the contract or covenant making with Abraham, which continues stil in force to al belee­vers & their seed: & this precedeth baptisme, & is no part of the external forme thereof. Gen. 17. 1, 7. &c. Act. 2, 39.

And for that forme of baptising in poperie, with credis & credo, &c. which others speak for the Infant, declaring (as you say) that there must needs be a mu­tual cōtract &c. You know very wel how it is cōtinued upō a blynd custome & imitation, because such as were to be received into the church in the pri­mitive tymes, and to be baptised, being of yeares, did make confession of their fayth, & answered to such interrogatories as were demanded of them concerning the same. This the papists apply to infants, the questions be­ing answered by the godfathers who ar sayd to be brought in by Higinus before whose time, the parents presented their children to be baptised. This corrupt custome & apish imitation, your self hath condemned. Yet now having cast off baptisme it self, you scrape in the filthye Dungehill of Poperie to advantage your selfe against the truth, whose practise you know condemnes your opinion of not baptising of infants. If [Page 160] Yf therefore you wil crave their testimony for your forme of baptisme, why dispise you theire witnes of baptising of infants, which is the matter. And thus much for answer to your description of baptisme.

Now concerning the outward ceremony of baptisme, the Scripture Mat. 3. 11. 16. [...]ar. 1. 10 Act. 8. 38 Mat 28. [...]. [...]. Jo. 1. 7 Act. 2. 38 [...]. 3. 19. Gal. 3. 27 Rom 6. 3 [...] Col. 2. 12 [...]. 3. 5. 6. thus teacheth, that the element in this sacrament is * water onely, the forme of administring thereof, Christ commaunded thus, † baptise them into the name of the father and of the sonne & of the holy ghost. This is that which the Lord hath instituted, whereby he would signify and seale unto his people “the remission of their sinnes, * and the ingraffing into Christ, † the mor­tification of the old man and renuing of the spirit. This is the substance of this ceremony, and is found to be stil retayned in the Apostate Churches. And therefore, although it hath bene polluted by the hands of Apostates, as the vessels of the Temple were by the Babylonians, and by adding of hu­mane inventions, yet is it in substance that which Christ ordeyned in his Church, neither the element nor forme of administration changed, and therefore not to be iterated. Your third answer.

3. I answer that if the Antichristians had baptised persons confessing their sinnes & their faith into the name of the sonne of God and the Trinitie, it had been true baptisme, though in the hands of the Antichristians, &c.

First, you confesse then, that the apostasie of Antichrist is not so great, but that in the papal Churches there may be true baptisme, not to be ite­rated. That they baptised with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy ghost, can not be denyed, all that you except against, is the administring of it to infants; & so this second question is answered in the former: for if the infants are to be baptised, then stands their bap­tisme good without repeating which they have in Apostate Churches.

Lastly, where I sayd, that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament made not a nullitie thereof, instancing the circumcision of the Israelites by Apostats, and of Zippora her circumcising of her sonne, you answere saying.

1 What say you to Cyprian and al that counsel of learned Bishops who conclu­ded that baptisme of Heretiks was a nullitie and decreed rebaptising.

This I answer, that if Cyprian and those learned Bishops did erre what is that to this purpose; for those examples that I have alledged are such as are recorded by the holy ghost to be done, not by such as had lawful cal­ling, [Page 161] and yet stood without recircumcising. But suppose Cyprian & those Bishops foūd that some were baptised by Hereticks and not in the name of the Trinitie, (for seing some denyed the Deitie of Christ, some his huma­nitie, others held other errors about the Trinitie: It is not like that they would observe the true forme of baptisme, but some strange forme of their owne devise; as some report (how truly I know not) that you baptise your selves into the fayth of the new Testament.) And so decreed not re­baptising, but baptising of them that were not before baptised with Christs baptisme. Indeed it is recorded by some, that the Novatians, Arrians, Ae­tians & Donatists, did as you do, rebaptise those that fell to their errors, which had been baptised before into the name of the Trinitie. Lastly, if Cyprian & those Bishops did erre about this poynt of rebaptising, as in some others they did, I am no patron of their errors.

2, I say, that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church and Antichrists Ans. baptisme was in a false, and that is a dissimilitude.

That Israel in her Apostasie was not a true church, I have shewed be­fore: how you in this disagree with your self, here I wil set down your own Re. words in your book of Paralels &c. against M. Barnard. pag. 14. thus you write. A church falsely constituted (as in the old Testament was the apo­state church of the 10. Tribes, and in the new Testament is the Church of Anti­christ) is such a communion of men, where to God hath not given the covenant, the ho­ly things, the promises, Christ for King, Priest and Prophet. &c.

Also in pag. 26. of the same book, you answering such as plead that they have the Word, Sacraments, & conversion in the English Assemblies, have these words. I say it is but as a thief hath the true manns purse, and as the false church of Ieroboam had, and as the Samaritanes, Edomites &c. had circumcision & the sacrifices by usurpation. Here you have testified to the world that Iero­boams church was a false church, falsly constituted &c. And now seeing a disadvantage thereby to your new erroneous opinion, you doubt not to cal it a true church. This inconstancie befitts not him that wil be a leader of others.

3. I know nothing to the contrarie but Zippora might circumcise her sonne, her An. husband commanding her. For where is it sayd in the old Testament, that a woman shal not circumcises for Moses did circumcise though Zippora was the hand of Mo­ses in that action &c.

When you deal against us about baptising of infants, you wil have cō ­mandement Re. [Page 162] 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: [Page 163] 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 cō ­sidered, 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: then might the infants of Apostats in Antichristianisme do so: and this is all that I sayd, not iustifying the stan­ding of the one or of the other.

III. Argument.

IF the word of God passing through the false Ministery of An­christ was of force to convert Gods elect in Babilon: Then is baptisme passing likewise through theire false ministery, of force to seale vp Gods covenant vnto them; and so consequently not to be iterated.

But the first is true. Apoc. 18. 4. for in babylon were Gods peo­ple converted; other ordinary Ministery was there none, but that false Ministery of the Papists; and therefore it is apparant that God made thereby his word effectuall to al them that beleeved [Page 165] Ergo &c. If it be obiected, that if God should convert his people by an Antichristiā Ministery, it were to give Approbatiō to a false Ministery, and to teach that men might lawfully vse it, which is absurd. I answere, for vs to vse a false Ministery is vnlawfull: but it is no more absurd, or yet any approbation of a false Ministery for God to worke thereby the good of his owne people; then it was his approving of the evil service of Iosephs brethren selling him into Egypt; because he vsed their Ministery for the saving of Iacob and his houshold; for God can worke good by an evil in­strument.

If it be stil vrged that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptise: I say no more had the Iewes to put Christ to death: yet was his suffering avaylable to save al that beleeve: and so is the Sacrament to al Gods people avaylable to seale vp salvation vnto them.

I answer. First the word converteth none visibly vnto me particulerly knowen: so Ans. can Baptisme seale vp none visibly vnto me &c.

Although Gods people continuing in Babylon cannot so welbe discer­ned; Rep. yet by their coming thensce, they manifest to me particulerly, that there they were converted by the word, and so appeare visibly vnto me to belong vnto God, and to be children of the covenant. As for the tyme before, we take no publike notice of theire secreete estate before God, nor can do Deut. [...] 29. for the things revealed belong vnto vs. Further you say.

The marke of the Beast is vndoubtedly baptisme, whereby they are initiated into Antichrist, and receive his mark as Christs servants in baptisme receive his seale up­on them, &c.

Oh how fearful a thing is it to blaspheme: baptisme is the ordinance of God though it was polluted by Antichrist: you may as wel say, the word of God is the marke of the beast: for Antichrist did pollute it also as you formerly have confessed. Your mark of the beast reacheth verie farr even to the Apostles tymes, as the Auncients have witnessed of the baptisme of Infants. And if this was the mark of the beast, then was the mark before the beast, which is absurd to affirme: for can the beast before it be in esse, make [...] both great and smale to receive a † mark in their right hand or in [...]. 13. [...]. their forehead. And that this baptising of infants was before the beast was, we have shewed out of the scriptures, and it may appear out of Ori­gine, Tertullian and others, that speak of infants baptisme to be in practise in the church, before their tyme, as in the former part of this writing is observed. And it appeares both by the * Revelation. And that of the Rev. 13. [...]. 10. 11. [...]. 17. Apostle in 2 Thes. 2, 3. that the man of synne arose not to this height and power to make small and great to receive his marke until there came a de­parting first. And seeing this marke of Antichrist was such as smale and great, rich and poor, free and bound did receive, it can not be, the baptising of infants. For then onely the smale should be sayd to receive it. And therefore the marke must be such a one, as shall agree to all persons “great and smale, rich and poor, bound and free, and be received of them Rev. 13. [...]6. Rev. 14. 9. in that condition and state. And it must be such a marke, as they that worship the beast and his image shal receive by a † willing and actual con­sent, the which can not be applyed to infants: for neither can they worship the beast or give voluntarie consent to receive his marke in their hands or foreheads. An.

2. Antichrists baptisme false (as I have sayd) in the definition, is none of Gods ordinance, no not in the hands of the most faythful Minister, but Gods word is the Lords ordinance though in the mouth of the most vile Iudas or Antichristian, yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000. heresies.

The same Lord that gave his word to his church, ordeyned also bap­tisme [...]. to be therein. Indeed if baptisme had been devised by Antichrist or any man els, it were not to be reputed for true baptisme at al, but that bap­tisme which is foūd to be in the Antichristiā assemblies, is not Antichrists, the contrarie is proved before. Answ.

So that in this respect al [...] it followes not, that Gods word may convert in popery, therefore Antichrists baptisme may seal, &c.

It wil follow, that as the word in Poperie, so baptisme in that Apostasie [Page 167] retayned since the primitive cōstitutiō of the church of Rome in the Apo­stles dayes, & as the word in poperie may cōvert, so baptisme may seal thē that are Christs, being converted, for God can as wel blesse the one as the other. Gods word doth convert in Babilō, yet is not the promise any more annexed to that outward ministerie of Antichrist, then that blessing, Gen. 1. bring forth fruit and multiplie, is by Gods ordinance tyed to unlawful conjunctiōs, but it pleaseth the L. by the ministerie of his word & ordināce to effect his own work in al such as shal be saved, though through the hāds of apostates.

3. You say, If Antichrist had retayned the Lords true baptisme, &c. viz. Answ. that he had baptised persons confessing their sinnes and fayth in the Trinitie, it should not have been repeated: But seeing he intendeth in baptisme to sett an inde­lible caracter upon them, which is the marke of the beast to conferre grace ex o­pere operato to the infants which he washeth &c. hence I conclude, that hee hath sett upp his owne idoll of abhomination, and cast the LORDS holy ordinance away, &c. Ergo, his baptisme is anullitie or rather a seal of perdition▪ &c.

Your self by your heresie setts up an idol of abhomination, and casts a­way Rep. the Lords holy ordinance of sealing his covenant to his people & their seed. And here againe you destroy one of your reasons which you brought against the baptising of infants, which was, Caracte [...] pag. 52. because they were members of a false church. for you confesse, that if Antichrist had baptised persons confessing their sinnes &c. it should not have been repeated. So that to be members of a false church shal not hinder the efficacy of baptisme. Againe if Antichrist intendeth in baptisme to set an indelible caracter to conferre grace, ex ope­re operato, to infants, and therefore setteth upp his owne idoll (as you say) what say you to his baptising of the Indians which are of yeares? For he intendeth the same thing. And yet his so baptising of the elder sort, &c. you wil not have repeated. So by your own opinion to set an indelible ca­racter to conferre grace, ex oper [...] operato, is no good reason to prove the [...]e­rating of childrens baptisme, for then should it do so in the elder people confessing their sinnes &c.

As for the promise made by others for the partie baptised, I place (as a devise of man) amongst the accidental corruptions of this sacrament.

Cōcerning persons cōfessing their sins & fayth, whō you make the onely subject of baptisme, I hav āswered before. And here tel you that the scrip­ture mētioneth 1 Cor. [...]. Act. 16. persōs that were baptised; yet sayth not a word, that they cōfessed their faith & syns. And you cā never prove that al in the familie of [Page 168] Stephanas, Lidiah, &c. did confesse their sinnes and fayth: but to al that you say here, answer is given before.

IIII. Argument.

THose holy things, which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people, through the hands of pro­phane persons are not to be rejected for the authors sake. Ezra. 1: 11, But the scriptures and baptisme, hath God preser­ved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people. Ther­fore not to be rejected for the Authors sake.

If it be objected against the Minor, it is not true baptisme but false that is administred in the Assēblies of Antichrist: I answer, though it may be sayd to be false in regard of some humane devi­ses used in the administration thereof: yet is it true baptisme in respect of the matter, forme, and author thereof, which causeth it to have a true being.

I answer directly that if it could be proved that baptisme in the kingdome of Anti­christ Answ. is appointed by Christ, and that water is the true matter of baptisme, and the true forme is washing into the Trinitie, I would yeeld unto you, but this you have not proved &c. but to deal something more fully, &c. [...]. water is not the matter of bap­tisme, but onely the instrument. &c.

First I have proved that baptisme which is administred in the Antichri­stian Rep. churches is not to be iterated: but that Christ appointed baptisme in the kingdome of Antichrist, I do not affirm; onely this I say, that Christ ordeyned this sacrament for his church, which becoming Apostate & yet reteyning the same, is notwithstanding baptisme, because it is of God. And [Page 169] so I affirme that Christ is the Author of baptisme, which the Antichristi­ans pollute by their administration thereof, as God was the author of that circumcision observed in the apostate church of Israel. And therefore as circumcision received of the Israelites in their Apostasie, stood as the seal of Gods covenant to so many as repented: So baptisme received in Baby­lon confirmeth the promise to al Gods people departing thence, and re­turning to walk in the wayes of the Lord.

But concerning the matter and forme of baptisme you charge me to have sayd in my answer to your second Argument, That water is the matter and the forme washing with water into the Trinitie. In calling water the matter▪ if so it had pleased you, you might have understood my meaning, viz. that I understood thereby the outward signe or element, whereof in Pope­rie was no change. They used the same which Christ ordeyned. And in calling it the matter, I did not intend the subject or partie baptised (which I know must be also one that beleeveth, or the seed of such,) but consider­ing what Christ ordeyned to be observed in this Ceremonie, I found these: water, and the baptising therewith into the name of the father, &c. The former I called the matter or element wherewith the partie is baptised, meaning that material outward signe, that Christ ordeyned in this sacra­ment as in the other, he hath done the like. For it was not in my thought to intend, that if the water be administred with this forme of words, that it is baptisme without a fit subject to be baptised: Nay I hold it an error in the Papists which baptise their bells, and wil have bread consecrated (as they speak) to be a sacrament, though it be never received but layed up in a box.

Concerning the subject of baptisme or matter (as you terme it) I wil not contend: but in that you denye the Infants of beleevers to be fit matter of baptisme, the contrarie I affirme and have proved before.

2. I say that washing into the name of the father of the sonne & of the Holy Ghost, Ans. is not the forme of baptisme: for to wash a Turke, Jew, Foole, madman or Infant in­to the Trinitie is not true baptisme, &c.

I answer, first, I know that formes can not consist without their subjects, Re. & therefore I say, the forme of baptising is reteyned in Poperie, applied to infants, though corruptly in that standing. Secondly, I stand not to defend, that to baptise an unfit subject is true baptisme: but this, that the baptisme of Apostates is not to be iterated when they repent and turne to God no [Page 170] no more then the circumcisio of the Israelites in the like cause, 2 Chro. 3 [...]. 6.-11. 21. as before I have shewed.

3. That infants are to be baptised, I have already proved. And to baptise a Iewe, Turke, Foole &c. continuing in their infidelitie, madnes &c. we do not affirme it lawfull, nor yet the baptisme of Apostats, for all such abuse that holy ceremony being guilty thereof, as they are of the body and bloud of Christ, that receave it unworthely 1 Cor. 11.

The true forme of baptisme consists in 3. things 1. washing with water 2. a new Ans. creature, 3. into the name of Christ or into the Trinitie.

This might also be graunted, saving that by new creature, you mind onely [...]p. such as are of yeares, and so appere to vs new creatures by their profession, excluding infants, who also must be so accepted of vs inrespect of the cove­nant, whereof they are partakers, as wel as theire parents. Also the chil­dren of the faithful may be estemed new creatures, seing they are holy: and are so to be accounted til they manyfest themselves otherwise, which may be the case of old persons, as of S. Magus &c. And the Apostle in the place alledged, speaketh of such as are of yeares; and by the speach of a new creature, implyeth a special vse and fruite of the thing signified by the out­ward signe, and so is not a part of the external forme of baptisme † as by Mat. 3. 11 man it is administred.

But if an infant &c. be washed with water into the Trinitie. I say there is neither An. true matter nor forme: And so al infants baptised by Antichrist &c. are to renounce it and to receave Christs marke of baptisme &c. and when they shal manifest a new creature &c. and then be baptised into the Trinitie, this is not Anabaptistry, but the true apostolick baptisme: and so Christ, Iohn, and Christs Apostles were Anabaptists, with you Sir. &c. for they baptised men that were washed before, a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes, Heb. 9. 10 &c. if it be blasphemy to say Christ, John, or the [...] Apostles were anabaptists, though they were oftentymes some of them baptised into the Messiah in type &c. so shall it be blasphemy in them that cal the true Christianes A­nabaptists &c.

Sir, if you mind wel your comparison it holds not, for those washings [...]p. vnder the law were proper ordinances of the old Testamēt, declaring their repentance † and clensing from their dayly sinnes, and pollutions by faith Joh. 13 10 in Christ then to come: But baptisme (whereof we speak) is an ordinance of the Gospel, and that but * one, as their circumcision likewise was, and Ephe. 4. 5 therefore being once administered (though in some corruption) is Ana­baptisme, [Page] to be iterated. And it is such a washing as preacheth [...] vs the purging of our sinnes by Christ. And therefore it is not [...] often washings under the law that can make men ANABAP­TISTS: for you know in what sense people now are called ANA­BAPTISTS viz. for their reiection of the baptisme of the Gospel which they have received, and Baptising themselves agayne, as you have put in practise. And seing that which was administered in the Popish Assemblies, is Baptisme; it wilbe no blasphemy in vs to cal them ANABAPTISTS that have there with bene once baptised and do recounce it, and take to themselves a new of mans invention. What els is here sayd, is answered before.

And thus I conclude the confirmation of this fourth Argument, that although the POPISH CHƲRCHES be apostate, the MINISTERY WORSHIP AND GOVER­MENT false; yet the word and baptisme therein reteayned (being the Lords ordinances) are not to be reiected with their pollution, but (purged from these staynes) stil to be retayned, and with Gods people to be caried with them out of spiritual BABYLON as the Iewes did the vessels of the Lords house out of Babilon of Chaldea. For the precept concer­ning Apostate Churches is Hos. [...]. Rev. 1 [...] to take away their fornications, and not the things of God polluted therewith.

V. Argument.

IF Antichrist be not the author of Baptisme, but of some hu­mane devises annexed unto it in the adminstratiō therof: then are we not to pluck vp the wheat with the tares, Mat. 13. 29. & to cast away that which is Christs with Antichrists; but to sepa­rate from that which is mans invention, and still to retayne that which is of God. But to baptise with water into the name of the father and of the sonne and of the holy Ghost, Mat. 28. 19 is from heaven, Mat. 21. 25. and not from Antichrist. Ergo, we ought not to cast it away, but those traditions wherewith An­tichrist hath polluted it, as examples, K. Iosias, and before him K. Ezechias, when both the land and Temple were polluted, [Page] [...]ng. 21, 7. & 23. 4. did not pul downe the Temple, but ap­pointed the Preists to clense it, who did so, and brought out all the uncleannes that they had found in the house of God, 2 Chrō. 29. 16. - 18. and 34. 8. For in reformation of things, difference must be put betweene those things whereof God is the authour, and such as are devised by man: the former is to be purged from all profanation, & the things stil to be reteyned: the other quite to be abolished. This rule in all reformation of religion ought to be followed.

I answere, that as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple, the Iewes Ans. built it agayne: so when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Church, then must we build it vp agayne. And when he hath destroyed true baptisme, then must we rear it up againe, therefore seeing Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme, and hath reared vp a baptisme of his owne, it must therefore be abolished, &c.

First I answere, that baptisme in apostate Churches, though it be polluted, yet can not be sayd to be vtterly destroyed, And therefore your answer is not sufficient to prove the rebaptising of them that were baptised in the Antichristian assemblies. 2. In reiecting of that baptisme alto­gether, and baptising a new, you doe renounce that which is true therin, by your owne confession. viz. To wash with water, into the name of the father, and of the sonne, and of the holy Ghost, in that in your new baptising of your selves you repeate it agayne, which you ought not, if it be of God; and so indeed you reteyne not any truth in it at all.

3. As for your comparison of a false Church or Ministery with baptis­me, it is not equal: for if you vnderstand by false Church and Ministry, that which is devised by man onely: then the constitutions thereof are not of Gods ordinance; as in Iereboams Preists, and as in Provincial or Diocesan [Page 173] Churches, wherein not one beame, rafter or stone, is appointed by the lord, and therefore can not be reteyned with the purging away of the cor­ruptions therof. But in baptisme, (I meane that which is administred in Popery) there remaynes, the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie, which you with the tares pluck vp and cast in to the fyre.

4. Wheras you say. That in the false baptisme, Church, and Ministery, the corruptions ar essential and the truth onely accidental, and those accidental truthes must [...] reserved and iterated. I demaunde of you what be these accidental truthes in a false Baptisme, Church and Ministery, that are to be iterated? and how you prove such iteration of accidents in baptisme: if you say, That to baptise with water into the name of the father &c. be an accident to baptisme, then is it not of the essence therof, but Christ maketh this applied to a right subject, the Mat. 2 [...]. 19. form of baptism: And your self a little before have so Charac [...] pag. [...]4. written, [...]ow if it be of the forme (which gives the being of the thing) how is it an accidet? for you say, necessarily for having true baptism, we must repeat washing into the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost, which are but acci­dents. And further you say, a Turke so washed is not baptised. How prove you this repeating of washing into the name of the Trinitie &c.? and how doth the baptising of a Turke prove this forme of washing to be an accident to the ceremony of baptisme? seing without this washing with water into the name of the Father &c. it cannot be baptisme.

And though this washing or ceremony in respect of the party baptised, may be called an accident (as al such formes of things are to the matter wherevpon they are induced) yet to baptisme it selfe, I meane, to the exter­nal ceremony it is no accident or adiunct, but is of the very essence and be­ing thereof, and without which it cannot be baptisme. And therefore how you can call the washing with water into the name of the Trinitie an accident, I do not conceive, otherwise then as before, I have observed in respect of the party baptised, els might the ceremony of baptisme be for substance, without this washing with water into the name of the Trinitie. But whether it be of the essence, of baptisme or an accident, look with what warrant you do repeate it.

For suppose I should graunt as much as you desire, that this forme of washing into the name of the Trinitie were an accident to baptisme, yet the Lord having cōmaunded that accident to be but once vsed without re­peating, how can you iustifie the iterating of such accidentall truthes (as [Page 174] you call them) for if it were of God in that baptisme administred in Pope­ry (as you confesse) then can you not repeat it. Therefore your iterating of it, argues you do not acknowledge it at all to be of the Lord: And so you retayne not the accidental truthes in baptisme as you pretend to do.

UI. Argument.

AS God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. 7. which through the malice of Sa­than and all his instruments shal never be cut of: So he preserved both in the Apostacy vnder the law & Gospel, the seales thereof for the comfort of the faithful. And therefore the A­nabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ, whereof they were partakers, in the Apostate Church, and devising a new, do bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel taking vpon them to bap­tise themselves without al warrant from the word, for I am sure it cannot be shewed that any did ever baptise him selfe without special cōmaundement frō God, as Abraham had for circumci­sion. Gen. 17. 9. or Iohn for baptisme. Mark. 1. 3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extraordinary calling. Ioh. 4. 2. Mat. 3. 6. Act. 8. 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 40. and 16. 33. If it be sayd the tymes be extraordinary, I answere, the Lord hath left ey­ther example or rule or ground of rule, whereby we may in ex­traordinary tymes, have a sure warrant out of the world to in­forme vs in every thing that we ought to do.

I answere by an argument of like nature from Mat. 16. 18. framed thus, Ans. If the gates of Hel shal never prevayl against the Church, then there hath alwayes bene a [...]rue Church, and antichrist could never make the Church false: and so you of the sep [...]ration have sinned most shamefully in callinge the Church of antichrist false: verum [...]rimum: Ergo secundum.

First I deny that your Argument is of like nature, neither wil your false Re. relating of my words give you this advantage: for it is one thing to say, that God hath preserved the seales of his covenant, and an other to say, that these seales cannot be abolished through the malice of Sathan. I know the outward seales and other ordinances of God might have been abolished by the malice of Sathan, if the Lord would have permitted it. For as Antichrist, (Sathans instrument) hath perverted many of Gods ordinances to abolish them out of the church: As the worship, Ministerie, Government, Censures, &c. so hath he corrupted the word and Sacrament of baptisme: and if God had not otherwise disposed, could have foysted in a new forme of baptisme in the roome of it.

2. It is not the meaning of Christ in that place of Math. 16, 18. that there should alwayes continue a true visible church upon the earth, which Antichrist could never be able to deface and corrupt: for the Scripture 2 Thes. 3. - 7. Re [...] 13. 11, - [...] & 18. 4. speaketh to the contrarie. But the promise of Christ to his church is this, that the gates of Hell shal not prevaile against it, that is, against his people that by a lively fayth build upon the rock Christ: this promise the Lord per­formeth to everie true visible Church, so long as they cleave unto him & continue faythful, and to his invisible for ever: even in the very dayes of Apostasie, Sathan did not prevaile against the elect of God. The Lord had some witnesses of his truth in al the tyme of Antichrist, as even Re [...] ­nerius the Popes Inquisitor acknowledgeth, whose Testimonie is cyted by D. Fulke upon the Rev. 17. And albe it that there hath been alway a true church in a true understanding, yet doth it not follow, that that church from which we did separate, was that true church, or yet that this true church, was alwayes visible. But I come to your second answer which is more properly (as you say) solvendo.

That the covenant is sayd to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real exis­tance Answ. in the world in an established church: but in respect of the stabilitie of it in re­gard of Sathans inalice &c.

This answer of yours confirmeth my Argument and looseth it not: for Rep. I did not intend in saying, the Lord preserved or continued his covenant to his people against the malice of Sathan, that there was alwayes a true visible church walking in all the commandements of God, but this I mynded, and do say, that the covenāt of God could never be cut off through the malice of [Page 176] Sathan, but continued firme to al the Lords people in all ages and tymes, yea through the great Apostasie of Antichrist. You say.

There was no true church in the depth of Antichristianisme, and so no true bap­tisme. Ans.

This consequent will not follow, for though the church of Antichrist was no true church: yet everie thing therein was not so: for the Scriptures (though by them abused) even in that Church were the true word of God, [...]ep. and so baptisme in like manner was Gods ordinance therein retayned, though corruptly administred.

I deny that the covenant, Church, or baptisme was visible alwayes. An. [...]epl.

Baptisme, which was appointed to be a seal of Gods covenant hath e­ver since the first institution of it, been visible, & that even in the deepest of Antichrists Apostasie. And the state of Apostate churches is not as the heathen, wher is no apparance of Christianitie, for in them remaynes some kind of visibilitie of Gods ordinances eyther more or lesse, accordingly as they are more or lesse corrupted: For if all visibilitie should cease, they should cease to be called Apostate, and indeed become no churches.

And therefore as in man after his fal in Adam there remaynes footsteps of that image of God, wherein he was first created: so in churches degene­rate from the truth, remaynes some remnants of Gods ordinances that were given to his church. The covenant is spoken of, and preached in those Apostate churches. And baptisme likewise administred, but not in that puritie and light, as they are in true churches. And as in the heavens, when the sunne is shadowed with clouds or mist, the proportion of it may be discovered in the mist or cloudes, & be perceived to be the sunne: So is the covenant of God and the seal thereof, wading through those foggie mysts of Popish errors and Antichristian superstitions discerned & seen to be from heaven, of al the people of God, whose harts the Lord opens to apply them aright. Which if it were not so, God could not have his peo­ple in Babylon, or church in the wildernes.

As you take upon you to set up a true church (as you say, but we say a false church) An. & wil not be sayd to bring in a new covenant and a new Gospel &c. (for you in your self conceitednes wil reiect them as Heretiques, if there be any that dare so say of you, for­sooth:) So the Anabaptists (as you cal them) do not set up a new covenant and Gospel, though they set up a new or rather the old Apostolique baptisme which Antichrist had [...]verthrowen.

To passe by the manner of your speeches which well might be amen­ded: Rep. I answer, first, that for the setting up of churches, it is the Lords work and not ours, Ioh. 10. who gathereth his sheep into his fold, and we obey him in calling us out of Babylon to joyne together to walk in his ordinances, who also inableth us hereunto, accepteth us to be his people, and Eph. 2. to be citizens with the Sainctes and houshold of God. Therefore it cannot properly be sayd of us that we sett up a church: but that God buyldeth us up to be his Temple. And being thus Mat. [...] 20. gathered together in his name, we have the Mat. 2 [...] 20. promise of his presence, and are assured of our standing, and that we are a true visible church of Iesus Christ, (though it please you to call us a false church,) and doubt not to approve our calling against you and al our adversaries. And whereas you account it self conceiptednes in us to reject for Hereticks such as bring in damnable Heresies: it were good for them, whom we so reject to look into their estate, and not wilfully to abyde in their errors to their perdition.

For the Anabaptists, whom you say, do not set up a new covenant and Gospel, though they set up a new baptisme. What they do, both their writings and prac­tise shewes: but howsoever they perswade themselves to retayne the old covenant and Gospel, yet is it not so; for whosoever receives not that Gos­pel and covenant that was preached and given to Abraham, and pretends to receive a Gospel or covenant, they receive a new covenant and Gospel. But the Anabaptists receive not the Gospel or Covenant preached to Abr. and yet pretends to receive a covenant. Therefore it is a new covenant and Gospel which they receive. For that Covenant which was given to Abraham, was given to him and to his seed, to the Iewes and their seed: but the covenant which the Anabaptists plead for, is a covenāt that should be made to the parents and not to their seed, & therefore is not the same, but a new and strange Gospel, never heard of in the dayes of Abraham.

Again that covenant that was given to Abraham was a sealed covenant to Gen. 1 [...] 10. - 13. The A [...] baptists [...] ny baptis [...] to be a se [...] of the cov [...] nant, & indeed t [...] have no outward s [...] led covan [...] at al. him and to his natural seed: but that covenant which the Anabaptists wil enter into and receive, is an unsealed covenant, at least but sealed one­ly to the parents and not to their seed: and so is not the same but a new Gospel.

In my former answer I sayd, that it can not be shewed that any man did ever baptise him self without special commandement from God &c. and you thus replie. I say, as much as you have to set up a true Church▪ wherein [Page 178] you answere not directly to the point, but shift it of, with saying, that you have as much power to set vp baptisme, or baptise your selfe, as we to set vp a Church: for suppose we have not this power to set vp a Church, then how is your action of baptising your selfe iustified? But how we have power, for that we have done, I have formerly shewed, viz. that we have power by the Lords commaundement to * come out of babylon, to obey the truth re­veiled [...]ev. 18. vnto vs, and to ioyne together in the † feloship of the Gospel, to walk in al the wayes of God. This is that we can do, and all that we do is by Phil. 1. 5. divine commaundement, for if the Lord had not so inioyned vs, our co­ming together should have bene but an assembly of our owne devise, and no Temple for the Lord. Now if you wil make your argument (which stands vpon comparison) answerable, you must bring like warrant from the Scripture, that you being vnbaptised, may baptise your selfe, or els that which we have done shalbe iustified to be of God, and your baptisme prove but a vayne fansie. Further I desire it may be shewed, that baptisme, which is a part of the worke of the Ministery, can lawfully, and by warrant from God, be administred by any, but eyther by extraordinary authority, as by Iohn, Ananias, the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists: or ordinary, as by Pastors and Teachers. Or that a person vnbaptised without speciall commaundement from heaven (for ordinary rule there is none) may bap­tise himselfe, and having so done without any further calling to office, take vpon him to baptise others. And to do this, I would knowe, if it be Cor. 4. 6 not † to presume above that which is written. For if you that baptise your self (being but an ordinary man) may this do, then may an other do the like and so every one baptise himselfe. You that stand so much for commaun­dement and example, shew vs eyther of these two if you can, or any sound reason out of the word? or els consider wel, if that you be not fallen into that, which you would condemne in others, viz. the practising of an vn­warrantable action. But you say.

A true Church cannot be erected without baptisme &c.

If this be so as you say, then eyther that baptisme which we receaved in the Antichristian assemblyes is baptisme, or els one that is no member of a Church may induce the forme (as you cal it) vpon Disciples, to make them a Church, and this have we neyther commaundement nor example for. He that was the first Minister of baptisme stode then a member of the Church of the Iewes, & had also commaundement to baptise: but this [Page 179] new doctrine teacheth that one that was never member of any Church shall baptise & make a Church, & that without cōmaundemēt from God. Now you say a Church can not be erected without baptisme, because baptisme is the visible forme thereof, consider you; (that are so barren of proof for the admi­nistring of Baptising to your self, that you can not shew one good reason to warrant it to be lawful) if by condemning & reiecting of that baptisme which you received in Antichristianisme, you overthrow not your new Church: for if a Church can not be without baptisme, and you not able to prove your new baptisme from the scriptures, which have reiected the old: Then is your assembly an idol: And so while you condemne other Churches vniustly, for false, yours proves more false then any.

But concerning baptisme, which you call the visible forme fo the Church: I an­swer, 1. the forme of a Church is cōmon to all together. 2. If Baptisme be the forme, thē it may come to passe, that one man may be a visible Church as he that first in the company baptiseth himself, he is a Church being bap­tised, for he that hath the forme upō him, must needs be the thing formed, And so Mr Smyth was a Church, when he baptised himself, which is ab­surd to think.

But cōcerning the matter & forme of the Church, this you have written, That Paralels [...] &c. pa. 11 [...] two or three faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament: and therefore have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament, in­duced vpon them. Againe, speaking of the exiled English Church at Amsterdam, you say, that they have reduced the Church to the Apostolike constitu­tion, Differenc [...] &c. in the Preface. which consisteth in 3. things, 1. the true matter, which are Saincts onely. 2. The forme, which is the vniting of them together in the covenant. 3. the true propertie, which is communion in all the holy things. Thus you contradict your self: here you teach us that vniting of people together in the covenant is the forme of the Church. And in this writing, that baptisme is the forme. Certeynly the holy Ghost Act. 2. 3. 39. Ephe. 4 [...] 4. 5. distinguisheth baptisme both from the covenant and the body. But to contend about the forme of the Church, is here not to the purpose; seing both you and we graunt that a Church must consist of bap­tised persons, you contending for your new devised baptisme, we holding that baptisme which wee have already received.

Further you reason for the erecting of your baptisme

That when al Christ visible ordinances are lost, eyther men must recover them agayn Ans. or must let them alone, if they be let alone till extraordinary men come with mira­cles and tongues as the Apostles did, then men are FAMILISTS, [Page 180] or if they must receive them, men must begin so to do. And then two men ioyning together may make a Church, (as you say) why may they not baptise, seing they can not conioyne into Christ but by Baptisme. Mat. 28. 19. compared with Mat. 18. 20 Gal. 3. 17. But it is evident that all Christs commaundements must be obeyed: Ergo, this commaundement, &c.

First for the visible ordinances of Christ, his Church hath right unto them, and his people are to have the vse of them by such means and Mini­stery as he hath appointed: but every man may not take upon him the administration of these ordinances, but * they whom the Lord hath given Heb. 5. 4. authoritie and office thereunto. God is not the † author of confusion Cor. 14. but of order. It wil not follow because the Church is to have baptisme therefore any one may administer it when al are vnbaptised. Thus might Ieroboam plead for the * Preists that he made of the lowest of the people, King. 12 that it was a necessity seing al the Priests of Levi were departed, and as at this d [...]y they plead in England for their vnpreaching Preists, that eyther they must have such, or be without service and Sacraments, which plea, as we condemne in them: so do we the administration of the Sacraments, or other of Gods ordinances without warrant from the Lord. And therefore they must be let alone til they may be had by that rule that Christ hath left vs for the injoying of the same. For this I am sure of, that the word of the Lord is perfect, and CHRIST hath left vs certayne directi­on for the practising of al his ordinances at all tymes. Now if the Scripture have not shewed who shal baptise in the Churches arising out of Apostacy, then who dare take vpon him to give direction? And though we are not to loke for extraordinary men (which to do, say you, were familis­me) yet must we loke for ordinary meanes: men must not do that which they are not warranted by the word, though the thing be to be done.

Secondly, for two being ioyned together in covenant with the Lord, to walk in his wayes, they have * warrant so to do (if there be no visible Church for them to ioyne unto) although I do not approve that every two Mat. 18 or three shall ioyne together & so walk, when they may conveniently ioyne to a Church set already in the wayes of God; neyther may they attempt any thing beyōd their measure & calling, least they fal into the sinne of Corah &c. And as for two baptising themselves or one an other, that can they not do without calling from God. And therefore you not having calling herevnto, & being as you say vnbaptised, I pray you tel me how you are authorised by Christ herevnto, & conjoyned into his name? [Page 181] The Admistration of Baptisme is by Christ Mat. 19. Ephe. 4. 11 12. commaunded to his Apostles and Ministers of the word, as before is shewed.

As for your reason which is: That els they can not conioyne into Christ, but by baptisme. I answer, we may be ioyned into Christ, by being vnited in one spirit into his covenant of life. And though persons that were never baptised, be received into the Church by baptisme, yet wil it not folow, that such as are baptised in apostate Churches [...], must any more be bapti­ed, thē they that being circūcised were recircūcised when they ioyned to the Church of the Iewes. And baptisme is not our graffing into Christ, but the signe or seale thereof, and so are those Scriptures which you alledg to be vnderstode. And as you say▪ The commaundement of God must be obeyed, and so this commaundement. It is true, being done according to the order and way that Christ hath appointed, & therefore you break the commaundement, to baptise your self & others without commission from Christ, & are guilty of that which he reproved in the Scribes & Pharisees, Mat. 15 3. who trāsgressed the commandements of God by their traditions: so you do in this your new baptisme transgresse Gods cōmaundement, to magnifie your own devised practise. Look well to it, the Lord hath thus pronounced upon such trans­gressors, Mat. 1. 5 [...] In vayn do they worship me, teaching doctrines mens precepts. & the Psal­mist sayth, Psal. 11 [...] 21. cursed are they that do erre frō thy cōmaudemēts: the which iudgemēt of God you may behold in your selves (if God so open your eyes) who of one company, are now at least divided into 3. ech one refusing com­munion with other, & stil increasing in nevv errors.

But for the baptising of a mans selfe, you say,

There is as good warrant as for a man churching him self, for two men singly are Ans. no Church joyntly they are a Church and they both of them put a Church vpon them­selves: So two men may put baptisme vpon themselves.

This phrase of Churching a mans selfe, is not the phrase of the holy Scrip­ture, Repl. it is the Lord that Mat. 2 [...] 19. Act. 1 46. 47. E [...] 4. 11. 12. calleth men out of the world & gathereth thē to­gether by his word, and buildeth them vp to be his Church as Christ sayth. Ioh. 10. other sheepe I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring and they shall heare my voice. And they whose harts the Lord openeth, do willingly o­bey his voice, and beleeving, Act. 2. 42. walk together in his wayes as before I have observed. To passe by your strange phrases, the scripture thus speaketh, that the Eunuch, Cornelius and others received baptisme administred [Page 182] unto thē by the Ministers of Chr. but that they or any other, did ever put baptisme, that is, (as I understand you) administer it upon thēselves, I never read thereof in the scriptures: unlesse we should think that Iohn B. did it, who if it were so, had his calling extraordinarie from heaven.

As two persons unchurched have power to assume the church, ech of them for him­self Ans. with others in communion: so each of thē unbaptised have power to assume baptisme for himself with others in cōmunion.

These things would do wel if they were proved. Concerning 2. persons or moe cōing into cōmuniō together, I have before set down what I think. And now for assuming of baptisme, if you mean therby receiving of it, (be­ing lawfully administred) thē I grant, that they which are unbaptised † may [...]cts. 10. & 8. 12. [...] & ought to receive baptisme in the cōmunion of the Saincts. But that 2. persons or moe may take and baptise thēselves or one another in your cō ­munion, I abhorre as an humane invention. As for the exāples of Abr. and Iohn B. administring the Sacrament upon thēselves, if so it were, yet serve [...]en. 17, [...]. 13. [...] 26. Mat. 11. 10. 11. & [...] 25. - 27. [...]. 13. - 15 nothing to your purpose: for Abrabā had a * special cōmandement to cir­cumcise: so had Iohn for his “baptisme warrant frō God. But wil it follow because these 2. administred the Sacramēt upon themselves, therfore who list may consecrate his hands to that office? What is this [...]ls that you plead for, but to overthrow that order that Christ hath [...]et down in his Church, to make every one a Minister of the Lords Sacraments. Cōcerning the Pro­selytes, that they did every one circūcise thēselves, is not proved by that of Exo. 12, 48. for it is sayd there: when a stranger shal dwel with thee & wil observ the passeover of the Lord, every male shal be circūcised unto him. This scripture saith not that every one did circumcise himself, but that every male should be circumcised: Neyther if the Lord had sayd, as the Translation is, let him cir­cumcise al the males that belong unto him, had this proved that al the Proselytes had done it themselves; for it is sayd of Iosua, that the Lord bad him make sharp knives, † & return & circūcise the sons of Israel the second tyme. And [...]. 5. 2. yet wil any think that Iosuah did himself circumcise every uncircumcised male in Israel? or rather, that the Lord commanded him to see that it were done. And so that cōmandement given to Proselytes was, that they should cause al their males to be circumcised, or els they might not be admitted as members of the Church to eat the Passeover.

But graunt that this was a special precept to the stranger to circumcise himself and his familie, the Lord laying this upon him, he had good war­rant [Page 183] so to do: but seing the Lord hath commanded the administration of baptisme to the Apostles and Ministers of the word, now it is to pre­sume above that which is written, for any man to take upon himself, to administer baptisme to himself or to others. Neyther is this to follow the example of the Proselytes, if they had done as you alleadge: for then the Master onely and none els circumcised, and he circumcised but his familie. But this new opinion inableth any man, be he Master or servant to baptise himself, and also to baptise others that are not of his familie. Note wel how this example serves to your purpose.

Howbeit for circumcision, I take it, that it was administred by the Le­vites after that they were called of office, because Num. 8. 14. - 18. they were appointed in the roome of the first borne of Israel for the service of the Lord. And as I have heard, the Levites amongst the Iewes, do circumcise at this day.

But one thing more I would aske you, whether by two assuming bap­tisme in communion, you mean that two consenting together may the one baptise the other, at one and the same instant, or that one shal bap­tise the other first, and then he that is baptised, baptise him that was his baptiser, and what rule or warrant you have so to do? and do not with obscure termes seek to set a colour upon your errors to deceive the igno­rant.

As concerning the administration of the Lords Supper, to a mans self in communion with others, & prayer prophesying & praysing of God uttered for a mans self as wel as for others, of every unclean person washing himself at the door of the Ta­bernacle going to sacrifice, of every master of a familie administring the passeover to himself & all his familie, the Priest dayly sacrificing for himself & others. All these proves not your desyre.

For as touching the administration of the Lords supper, it apper­taines to the Ministers of Christ to do it & not to every man. And by vertue of their office they do administer, and as they are members of the church, they participate of those holy things with the rest of the bre­thren: And this is Gods ordinance: your case of baptising one another, is not alike: for there he administreth the Sacrament that hath no calling, and he that is unbaptised himself, presumeth to set the seal upon himself or upon an other. Also in the Lords Supper al are agents according to their estate and nature of the action: but in the receiving of baptisme we are onely patients.

As for praying, prophesying and praysing of God, uttered for a mans self as wel as for others; this is Gods ordinance that men should † pray & [...]at. 6, 6, [...] &c. [...]ph. 6. 18 [...]. 2. 42. [...]. 47. Tim. 2. 1. praise God for themselves and others, and is not onely a work of the mi­nisterie, (save in publike) but a general duty apperteyning to * all the bre­thren: but the administration of baptisme, is appointed to the Ministerie. And there is great difference between our prayers and sacrifices offered to God, and the Lords Sacraments and word ministred unto us, the former we are commanded to doe our selves in our due place: the other is from the Lord unto us, and we are the subjects to receive the same by the admi­nistration of Gods Ministers, and al these things are the commandements of God.

Concerning those in the old Testament, that being unclean did purifie or wash themselves, they did thereby shew forth their continuall & volun­tarie repentance and fayth to be clensed from their pollutions and sinnes by Iesus Christ. Ioh. 13, 10. Neyther did they this without the Lords Lev. 13. [...]. & 15. [...]. 27. commandement. For were not the * purifyings of the unclean prescri­bed by Moses? shew us the like warrāt for the new baptising of your selves, and the controversie is ended; and unlesse you do it, what do all these ex­amples prove for you? seing al these were done by warrant of the word, and you have no scripture to alleadge for your doings. And for the Priests washing themselves in the Laver, Exod. 30 [...]. 21. God so commanded. But the Priests (you say) washing in the Laver at the door of the Tabernacle was a type of baptisme the doore of the church. would you then have us to think that every one cō ­ing to the Church: should baptise himself, yea & that also every tyme they come to publike worship? For if you hold thus, you might also thus rea­son from your similitude. But similitudes and allegories must not be pres­sed further then the intendement of them, & proportion of fayth wil suf­fer. That washing, no doubt did signifie that such as come into Gods presence to offer any sacrifices, must be clean and holy: & the water in the Laver might wel be a type of the blood of Iesus Christ, & of regeneration▪ in him, teaching that al the faythful (being made Priests unto God) should be washed from al their sinnes in the bloud of Christ, and sanctified in him to the service of the Lord. And that therefore they should continually re­pent of their sinnes and have fayth in Iesus Christ, that so through him, they and their works & service, may be accepted of the Lord, and they in the end be received into his heavenly kingdome. But this wil not justifie [Page 185] your baptising of your selves, for besides that which is answered before, the Priests were commanded to wash their hands & their feet themselves, for such use as is aforesayd. But in the new Testament we are appointed to be baptised by the Lords Ministers, as hath bene declared already. The same answer may be given to that of the Priests sacrificing for themselves, that they had the word for their warrant, and were first to offer for their owne sinnes and then for the peoples. And this was an offering up to God: but baptisme is the Lords ordinance to be administred to us, and therefore in this respect also, your reason is not alike.

Lastly, for that of every Master of a familie administring the Passeo­ver, the same is to be mynded, as in the former instances. And seeing they were altogether to eat of one food, (which shadowed out Iesus Christ and our Redemption by his death,) it lay upon the father of the family, not onely to do the things of ministration parteyning to him, but to partake also himself of the same common food and banket with the rest. Moreo­ver, although the master of the familie did so as then was appointed to be done by him: yet wil it not follow that every man may now administer baptisme to himself and others. The Master did that then for himself and his familie, by the Exo. 12. 3 [...] 4. - 10. commandement of the Lord, who was as a Bishop & a Priest in his owne howse, and besides him none in the howse might do it. But after that God had to his church by Moses given lawes and ordi­nances, and the Priests to do the service of the Lord: the 2 Chr. 3 [...] 17. & 35. 1 [...] 11. killing of the Passeover was performed by the Levites and Priests: which teacheth us that it is not in every mans power to be a Minister of the Lords ordināces, save they that have calling thereunto. And therefore I marveil that you will bring in so many instances so unfitting to your practise: all which exam­ples might have taught you rather the unlawfulnes of your action, they being al done by warrant, & yours without altogether.

Lastly, you say, A man cannot baptise others into the Church himself being out of the church. Then I pray you Sir, resolve me how you can baptise your self into the church being out of it, yea and where there was no church? or how you could baptise others, your self being out of the Church? or how two can baptise themselves to be a church that are unbaptised and with­out the church? And what conclusion is this to say, A man can not baptise others into the Church himself being unbaptised: therfore it is lawful for a man to bap­tise himself with others in communion? If you have no better warrant for the [Page 186] practise of your doings, then these reasons which you have already alledged, youn [...]ed not to boast of your Plerophory of your Practise. But what is now become of your plerophory and ful perswasion about it, seing you have already chaunged your mind againconcerning your baptising of your self, & for this cause & other the like matters, are by some of your people ex­cōmunicate,. It were good for you to remember and keep that saying of the Apostle, It is good alwayes to be zealous in a good thing. Gal. 4. 18.