CHAP.
III.
Hath
not
the
Lord
given
that
Covenant
of
grace
which
was
then
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
now
to
beleevers
and
our
seed
?
Secondly
,
it
is
presupposed
,
but
not
proved
,
that
Circumcision
was
a
seale
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
to
Abraham
,
and
to
his
naturall
seed
.
Thirdly
,
neither
is
it
proved
,
that
God
hath
made
a
Covenant
of
grace
now
with
Believers
and
our
naturall
seed
.
Fourthly
,
Neither
is
it
proved
,
that
Baptisme
with
water
is
given
us
of
God
in
stead
of
circumcision
.
It
is
true
,
For
the
first
there
is
a
truth
in
it
,
though
not
the
whole
truth
,
that
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
was
of
temporall
blessings
,
(
such
as
deliverance
from
Egypt
,
and
the
inheritance
of
Canaan
)
but
not
of
temporall
blessings
onely
nor
chiefly
,
even
as
the
Covenant
of
grace
with
us
,
though
it
chiefly
convey
spirituall
and
eternall
mercies
,
yet
it
reacheth
also
to
temporall
blessings
also
,
Hos.
2.18
,
19
,
20
,
21
,
22
,
23.
Reasons
hereof
from
the
word
are
plaine
and
strong
.
1.
From
the
Tenor
of
the
Covenant
,
I
will
bee
a
God
to
thee
and
to
thy
seed
after
thee
,
Gen.
17.7
.
Now
God
to
be
a
God
to
us
and
our
seed
,
is
more
then
a
temporall
blessing
,
even
all-sufficient
goodnesse
for
us
and
ours
,
for
our
soules
,
and
for
our
bodies
,
for
this
life
and
for
ever
:
God
giving
himselfe
to
be
our
God
,
the
Father
giveth
himselfe
to
be
our
Father
;
God
the
Son
giveth
himself
to
be
our
Redeemer
;
and
God
the
holy
Ghost
giveth
himself
to
be
our
Sanctifier
and
Comforter
.
And
indeed
,
that
Christ
was
promised
and
given
in
this
Covenant
,
is
clear
from
Luke
1.54
,
55.
and
Verse
69
,
72
,
73.
The
holy
Ghost
also
is
here
promised
and
given
in
this
Covenant
as
well
as
Christ
the
Angel
of
the
Covenant
,
Esa.
63.9
,
10
,
11.
Secondly
,
in
the
words
of
this
Covenant
,
God
giving
himselfe
to
be
a
God
to
Abraham
and
to
his
seed
:
hee
therein
promised
life
to
them
,
yea
life
after
death
.
For
the
Covenant
was
so
rehearsed
by
Moses
,
after
the
death
of
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Iacob
,
Exod.
3.6
.
Whence
Christ
undeniably
concludeth
that
God
promised
and
gave
to
them
resurrection
from
the
dead
,
and
eternall
life
,
Mat.
22.31
,
32.
Luke
20.37.38
.
Surely
resurrection
from
death
,
and
living
to
God
after
death
,
are
not
temporall
blessings
.
3.
Canaan
it selfe
was
not
given
as
a
meere
temporall
blessing
:
but
as
a
pledge
of
a
spirituall
inheritance
,
a
seale
of
the
Church
,
a
type
of
Heaven
.
The
Old
Covenant
spoken
of
Heb.
8.13
.
was
not
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
but
with
the
Israelites
on
Mount
Sinai
,
when
God
brought
them
out
of
Aegypt
,
as
is
expresly
said
,
Heb.
8.9
.
which
Covenant
comming
430.
yeares
after
the
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
is
expresly
distinguished
from
it
,
as
that
which
could
not
disanull
the
promise
or
Covenant
,
which
went
before
unto
Abraham
.
Ga.
3.17
.
The
Covenant
made
on
Mount
Sinai
is
not
called
old
in
comparison
of
the
Covenant
made
Abraham
:
bur
in
comparison
of
the
Evangelicall
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
by
the
Lord
Jesus
:
in
whom
the
sacrifices
and
Leviticall
Ceremonies
being
accomplished
and
abolished
,
we
look
for
atonement
not
in
bloud
of
Bulls
and
Goates
,
nor
in
Legall
Ablutions
,
but
in
the
bloud
of
Christ
onely
.
And
as
for
Circumcision
,
though
the
Apostle
say
,
that
every
one
circumcised
,
is
bound
to
keep
the
whole
Law
;
yet
that
doth
not
argue
,
that
circumcision
was
to
Abraham
a
signe
and
seale
of
the
Covenant
of
works
;
for
a
double
answer
may
justly
be
given
to
it
.
First
,
they
that
hold
that
the
Covenant
given
on
Mount
Sinai
,
was
the
Covenant
of
works
,
(
as
doe
Melancthon
,
Chemnitius
,
Piscator
,
&c.
)
They
would
answer
that
circumcision
was
a
signe
of
the
Covenant
of
workes
,
not
as
circumcision
was
given
to
Abraham
,
but
as
it
was
given
by
Moses
,
for
Moses
also
enjoyned
circumcision
as
a
Leviticall
rite
,
Lev.
12.3
.
But
Christ
himselfe
observeth
a
difference
between
circumcision
as
given
by
Moses
,
and
as
of
the
Fathers
,
John
7.22
,
23.
Secondly
,
but
they
that
hold
the
Covenant
on
Mount
Sinai
to
have
been
a
Covenant
of
grace
,
but
onely
vailed
under
types
and
shadowes
,
(
as
doe
Calvin
,
Bucer
,
Bucan
,
&c.
)
they
would
answer
,
that
circumcision
did
bind
to
the
keeping
of
the
whole
Law
;
not
as
it
was
given
either
to
Abraham
,
or
to
Moses
,
but
as
it
was
urged
by
the
false
Apostles
who
expected
justification
from
the
observation
of
it
.
To
such
indeed
it
is
truly
alledged
,
that
if
they
looke
for
justification
by
the
observation
of
circumcision
,
they
are
then
bound
to
observe
the
whole
Law
.
For
it
is
not
the
observation
of
one
commandement
of
the
Law
,
that
can
justifie
,
but
the
observation
of
the
whole
Law
,
for
hee
that
breaketh
any
one
commandement
of
the
Law
,
is
guilty
of
all
,
James
2.10
.
Whence
it
is
that
Paul
putteth
the
observation
of
circumcision
(
to
wit
,
in
the
sense
of
the
false
Apostles
)
as
all
one
with
justification
by
the
works
of
the
Law
,
Gal.
5.3
,
4.
And
thereby
proveth
that
if
the
Galatians
be
circumcised
,
Christ
should
profit
them
nothing
,
ver.
2.
they
were
fallen
from
grace
,
ver.
4.
And
yet
Timothy
who
received
circumcision
,
not
in
the
sense
of
the
false
Apostles
,
as
necessary
to
justification
;
but
for
other
respect
,
to
avoid
offence
,
hee
did
not
thereby
fall
from
Christ
,
or
lose
his
profit
in
Christ
Jesus
.
But
to
put
it
out
of
doubt
that
circumcision
given
to
Abraham
was
a
signe
and
seale
not
of
the
Covenant
of
works
,
but
of
grace
,
the
Apostles
words
are
evident
,
Rom.
4.11
.
Abraham
(
saith
he
)
received
the
signe
of
Circumcision
,
a
seale
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
.
Now
righteousnesse
of
faith
is
not
found
in
the
Covenant
of
works
,
but
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
onely
.
The
Covenant
of
works
holdeth
forth
no
righteousnesse
but
by
the
works
of
the
Law
.
I
would
not
deny
that
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
was
a
Covenant
of
grace
to
him
and
to
his
faithfull
seed
,
and
consequently
Circumcision
was
a
signe
and
seale
of
the
same
Covenant
of
grace
to
them
;
but
to
the
carnall
seed
(
such
as
Ismael
and
Esau
)
it
was
not
a
Covenant
of
grace
to
them
:
for
then
as
they
fell
away
from
that
Covenant
;
so
they
had
fallen
away
from
a
state
of
grace
,
which
would
too
much
countenance
and
cherish
the
Arminian
and
Popish
error
of
Apostasie
from
grace
.
Neither
could
circumcision
be
to
them
a
signe
or
seale
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
nor
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
given
in
that
Covenant
,
for
neither
had
they
faith
,
nor
righteousnesse
by
faith
before
their
circumcision
,
as
Abraham
had
;
nor
after
their
circumcision
,
as
the
elect
seed
had
.
And
how
could
then
God
set
his
seale
to
a
falshood
?
Answ.
No
greater
absurdity
then
to
say
,
that
circumcision
was
a
seale
of
the
Covenant
of
works
to
the
carnall
seed
of
Abraham
.
For
Paul
speaking
of
the
two
Covenants
under
which
the
twofold
seed
of
Abraham
lay
,
hee
saith
,
As
it
was
then
,
so
is
it
now
:
As
it
was
then
in
the
old
Testament
,
so
it
is
now
in
the
New
:
Gal.
4.29
.
Read
from
vers.
24.
to
the
end
of
that
chapter
.
As
it
was
then
,
so
is
it
now
;
not
onely
in
this
respect
,
that
he
that
was
borne
after
the
flesh
,
persecuted
him
that
was
borne
after
the
spirit
:
But
in
this
also
,
that
as
then
some
of
the
seed
of
Abraham
were
born
of
Hagar
,
that
is
,
born
of
the
Covenant
of
works
,
and
born
after
the
flesh
:
and
some
were
born
of
Sarah
the
free-woman
,
that
is
,
born
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
born
after
the
Spirit
;
so
is
it
now
,
in
the
days
of
the
new
Testament
.
But
to
give
you
a
further
answer
and
safer
,
and
more
generally
accepted
;
Let
me
shew
you
,
how
the
carnall
seed
of
Abraham
might
then
,
and
may
now
partake
(
after
a
sort
)
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
in
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
yet
fall
away
from
grace
:
and
neverthelesse
their
falling
from
grace
be
no
countenance
to
the
Arminian
error
of
apostasie
from
grace
.
There
is
a
double
state
of
grace
,
one
adherent
,
(
which
some
not
unfitly
call
federall
grace
)
sanctifying
to
the
purifying
of
the
flesh
,
Heb.
9.13
.
another
inherent
,
sanctifying
of
the
inner
man
.
And
of
this
latter
there
be
two
sorts
,
one
,
wherin
persons
in
Covenant
are
sanctified
by
common
graces
,
which
make
them
serviceable
and
usefull
in
their
callings
,
as
Saul
,
Jehu
,
Judas
,
and
Demas
,
and
such
like
hypocrites
.
Another
whereby
persons
in
Covenant
are
sanctified
unto
union
and
communion
with
Christ
and
his
members
in
a
way
of
regeneration
and
salvation
.
In
respect
of
adherent
or
federall
grace
,
all
the
children
of
a
believing
parent
are
holy
,
and
so
in
an
estate
of
grace
.
In
respect
of
inherent
common
graces
,
Saul
,
Jehu
,
and
Judas
and
Demas
were
sanctified
of
God
to
their
severall
callings
for
the
service
of
his
people
,
as
Apostates
may
be
,
Heb.
10.29
.
Now
there
is
no
doubt
but
men
may
fall
away
from
adherent
federall
grace
,
as
also
from
inherent
common
graces
;
and
yet
without
any
prejudice
to
the
perseverance
of
sincere
believers
,
and
without
any
countenance
to
the
Arminian
error
of
Apostasie
from
grace
,
to
wit
,
from
such
grace
as
accompanyeth
salvation
.
And
as
for
the
circumcision
of
Ismael
(
and
such
as
he
)
it
was
a
sign
and
seale
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
not
of
that
which
hee
had
received
,
but
of
that
which
God
offered
to
apply
to
him
in
the
use
of
the
meanes
of
grace
in
Abrahams
family
;
which
meanes
,
as
Abraham
having
circumcised
him
(
and
so
having
set
God●
seale
and
property
upon
him
)
was
bound
to
apply
to
him
,
(
Gen.
18.19
.
)
to
prepare
him
for
grace
.
So
Ismael
being
circumcised
,
was
bound
(
as
he
grew
up
to
understanding
)
to
yeeld
up
himself
in
professed
subjection
,
both
to
the
Lord
and
his
father
,
in
receiving
and
following
the
meanes
of
grace
applyed
to
him
:
for
God
having
by
Covenant
offered
himselfe
to
be
a
God
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
the
Lord
did
thereby
promise
to
afford
both
to
him
and
his
seed
,
the
meanes
whereby
they
might
come
to
enjoy
the
Lord
for
their
●od
.
For
he
which
promiseth
the
end
,
promiseth
also
the
meanes
that
lead
to
that
end
.
And
Abraham
for
his
part
accepting
the
Covenant
for
himselfe
and
his
seed
,
and
so
having
circumcised
himselfe
and
them
in
token
thereof
,
he
had
now
bound
himself
to
traine
up
and
educate
all
his
seed
in
the
meanes
and
wayes
of
grace
,
whereby
they
might
come
to
enjoy
that
great
promise
of
the
Covenant
,
to
have
the
Lord
for
their
God
,
which
also
Abraham
was
carefull
to
doe
,
as
the
Lord
testifieth
of
him
,
Gen.
18.19
.
Yea
,
and
Ismael
himselfe
with
the
rest
of
Abrahams
seed
having
been
received
into
the
Covenant
of
God
,
and
to
the
seale
thereof
,
he
and
they
all
were
bound
to
yeeld
up
themselves
to
the
Lord
,
and
to
Abraham
,
in
attending
to
the
meanes
of
grace
dispensed
to
them
in
that
Covenant
,
that
so
they
might
come
to
enjoy
the
sure
mercies
of
the
Covenant
,
to
have
the
Lord
for
their
God
.
But
now
when
Ismael
rejected
the
meanes
of
grace
,
as
he
did
by
mocking
at
Isaac
,
and
as
did
Esau
also
,
(
by
selling
the
birthright
of
the
Covenant
for
a
messe
of
pottage
)
now
their
circumcision
was
made
uncircumcision
,
as
Paul
speaketh
in
a
like
case
,
Rom.
2.25
.
And
so
they
did
discovenant
themselves
and
their
posterity
from
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
chose
to
be
(
as
the
bewitched
Galatians
did
,
Galat.
4.21
.
)
under
the
Covenant
of
works
.
It
is
therefore
a
groundlesse
and
false
collection
,
which
some
of
your
way
do
make
,
that
because
there
was
in
Abraham
(
when
God
made
a
Covenant
with
him
)
a
double
seed
,
(
the
one
a
spirituall
seed
,
the
other
a
fleshly
seed
)
and
accordingly
because
there
were
in
the
Covenant
some
spirituall
blessings
,
and
some
outward
and
carnall
blessings
:
therefore
they
must
be
thus
distinguished
,
that
the
spirituall
blessings
belonged
to
the
spirituall
seed
,
and
the
outward
blessings
to
his
carnall
seed
.
For
all
the
blessings
were
promised
to
all
the
seede
in
the
Covenant
.
To
the
spirituall
seede
,
both
spirituall
and
outward
blessings
were
promised
and
given
effectually
:
To
the
carnall
seede
,
not
carnall
blessings
onely
,
but
spirituall
also
were
promised
,
and
offered
:
So
as
that
their
falling
short
of
the
grace
of
God
,
was
not
from
the
defect
of
the
Covenant
,
but
from
their
prophane
refusall
of
it
,
and
of
the
meanes
of
grace
offered
in
it
.
For
it
is
an
evident
and
confessed
Truth
,
and
the
Text
is
cleare
for
it
,
That
in
the
Covenant
,
God
offered
himselfe
to
be
a
God
to
all
the
seede
.
Now
God
is
not
an
outward
or
carnall
blessing
:
but
as
himselfe
is
a
Spirit
,
so
is
he
also
a
spirituall
blessing
to
whomsoever
he
is
dispensed
.
Well
then
,
Both
these
may
be
well
proved
,
rightly
understood
;
First
,
from
the
testimony
of
Paul
to
the
Galatians
,
Gal.
3.14
,
15
,
16.
where
he
teacheth
us
,
that
by
Christ
his
redemption
of
us
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
the
blessing
of
Abraham
is
come
upon
the
Gentiles
,
vers.
14.
This
blessing
is
called
the
Covenant
,
verse
15
,
17.
And
this
Covenant
he
calleth
the
promises
,
verse
16.
And
these
promises
he
there
telleth
us
were
made
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
:
and
by
seed
he
meaneth
Christ
.
And
by
Christ
he
meaneth
Christ
mysticall
,
that
is
,
Christ
and
all
that
are
in
Christ
,
whether
by
election
,
or
by
their
owne
faith
,
(
as
all
the
living
members
of
Christ
be
)
or
by
adoption
,
as
all
the
Israelites
were
,
for
whom
Paul
had
continuall
sorrow
,
Rom.
9.4
.
Or
(
which
is
of
like
extent
)
by
participation
in
the
stocke
of
Abraham
,
the
stock
of
the
faithfull
,
as
Paul
calleth
the
Jews
,
the
children
of
the
stock
of
Abraham
,
to
whom
the
word
of
salvation
is
sent
,
Acts
13.26
.
And
such
are
in
Christ
,
as
branches
in
the
true
olive
,
or
in
the
vine
,
till
they
come
to
cut
off
themselves
,
by
casting
off
the
Covenant
,
and
the
faith
of
their
parents
.
For
the
Apostle
there
in
that
place
of
the
Galatians
,
speaketh
of
the
blessing
of
Abraham
as
come
upon
us
Gentiles
:
And
the
blessing
of
Abraham
was
the
Covenant
and
promises
of
the
Covenant
made
unto
Abraham
,
and
unto
his
seed
in
Christ
.
Now
that
seed
in
Christ
was
of
such
large
extent
,
as
that
Ismael
at
first
partaked
in
the
Covenant
made
to
it
,
and
in
the
seale
of
it
(
as
being
himselfe
one
of
the
seed
and
stock
of
Abraham
,
as
well
as
Isaac
)
untill
he
rejected
the
Covenant
in
rejecting
Isaac
,
and
the
grace
of
Christ
in
him
,
and
so
was
cast
out
of
the
family
of
Abraham
,
and
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
body
of
the
faithfull
.
For
Paul
speaketh
not
there
(
as
some
of
your
way
would
have
it
)
of
a
different
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
,
in
the
old
Testament
,
and
in
the
new
:
as
if
it
were
dispensed
in
the
old
Testament
unto
him
and
to
his
carnall
seed
:
and
now
in
the
New
,
to
him
,
and
to
his
seed
in
Christ
;
no
,
no
such
matter
.
But
he
speaketh
of
the
Covenant
as
it
was
dispensed
unto
Abraham
and
to
his
seed
of
old
.
And
his
seed
of
old
,
was
meant
Christ
,
and
all
in
Christ
,
then
,
as
well
as
now
.
And
therefore
,
if
then
Ismael
was
received
to
the
Covenant
,
and
to
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
as
the
seed
of
Abraham
,
and
yet
no
seed
of
Abraham
,
was
accounted
in
the
Covenant
,
but
the
seed
in
Christ
,
it
is
evident
that
Ismael
was
at
first
accounted
to
be
in
Christ
,
though
not
as
elect
in
Christ
,
nor
as
united
to
Christ
by
his
owne
faith
;
yet
as
abiding
like
a
branch
in
the
stock
of
Abraham
,
in
the
body
of
the
faithfull
,
in
the
adoption
of
God
,
and
in
the
communion
of
Abrahams
family
,
till
by
persecuting
Isaac
,
and
by
mocking
at
the
grace
of
Christ
in
him
,
hee
was
cut
off
from
that
vine
,
and
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
.
Whence
it
followeth
,
that
if
the
blessing
of
Abraham
bee
come
upon
us
Gentiles
,
and
this
blessing
of
Abraham
bee
the
promises
and
Covenant
made
to
him
and
his
seed
,
and
if
the
seed
of
Abraham
bee
accounted
all
that
are
in
Christ
,
and
all
are
accounted
to
bee
in
Christ
,
(
in
respect
of
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
)
not
onely
which
are
elect
,
and
which
are
faithfull
,
but
also
which
are
of
the
seed
of
the
faithfull
,
and
live
in
communion
with
them
,
(
till
they
come
to
reject
Christ
,
and
the
faith
in
him
)
then
it
standeth
undeniably
firme
and
certaine
that
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
is
made
with
believers
now
,
and
and
with
our
seed
too
,
even
in
these
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
.
The
same
truth
is
witnessed
unto
by
the
Apostle
Peter
also
in
Acts
2.39
.
as
hath
been
opened
above
.
The
promise
(
saith
hee
)
is
made
to
you
and
to
your
children
;
where
by
promise
is
meant
(
as
appeareth
by
the
former
verse
)
the
promise
of
remission
of
sins
,
and
of
receiving
the
holy
Ghost
;
which
are
of
the
principall
sort
of
the
sure
mercies
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
It
will
be
a
vaine
shift
to
distinguish
between
the
promise
and
the
Covenant
here
.
For
every
promise
of
God
,
is
a
promise
of
one
Covenant
or
other
.
Now
in
the
Covenant
of
works
there
is
no
free
promise
of
remission
of
sins
,
or
of
the
holy
Ghost
:
but
all
the
promises
are
given
to
workers
,
Doe
this
,
and
thou
shalt
live
:
doe
it
not
,
and
die
and
be
accursed
.
In
the
New
Testament
therefore
there
is
a
Covenant
of
grace
to
beleevers
and
to
their
children
,
as
was
to
Abraham
and
to
his
seed
.
If
it
be
said
,
this
Promise
and
Covenant
was
to
the
Jews
,
and
to
their
children
,
but
not
to
the
Gentiles
and
theirs
.
The
answer
is
plaine
and
easie
,
it
is
a
promise
of
the
New
Testament
;
and
in
the
new
Testament
,
the
Jew
hath
no
priviledge
above
the
Gentile
.
There
is
neither
Jew
nor
Gentile
,
there
is
no
difference
of
any
Nation
in
the
spirituall
priviledges
of
the
New
Testament
:
but
all
are
alike
in
Christ
Jesus
.
If
it
be
said
again
,
the
promise
is
to
them
,
and
to
their
repenting
and
believing
children
,
and
not
else
.
This
exception
hath
been
refuted
above
.
To
which
let
mee
adde
,
that
the
promise
was
not
onely
to
the
repenting
and
believing
Israelites
,
nor
onely
to
their
children
repenting
and
believing
;
but
God
had
promised
also
to
poure
his
Spirit
upon
their
children
that
they
might
repent
and
believe
;
when
Jacob
is
thirsty
,
and
like
the
dry
ground
,
God
promiseth
he
will
not
onely
pour
out
his
Spirit
like
water
upon
him
thus
dry
and
thirsty
;
but
also
I
will
poure
(
saith
he
)
my
Spirit
upon
thy
seed
,
and
my
blessing
upon
thine
off-spring
,
Isa.
44.3
.
For
it
is
the
same
water
of
the
bloud
and
spirit
of
Christ
,
of
which
God
speaketh
,
when
he
promiseth
to
poure
cleane
water
upon
them
,
and
therewith
to
take
away
their
hard
and
stony
hearts
,
which
must
be
removed
by
the
spirit
given
them
,
before
they
can
come
to
repent
and
believe
,
Ezek.
26
,
25.
It
is
to
the
same
purpose
that
upon
the
repentance
and
faith
of
Zacheus
,
the
Lord
pronounceth
salvation
to
bee
unto
his
house
,
Luke
19.9
.
This
day
(
saith
he
)
salvation
is
come
to
this
house
,
forasmuch
as
he
also
is
the
son
of
Abraham
:
which
is
not
only
in
respect
of
the
Religious
care
,
which
Zacheus
would
take
to
teach
his
houshould
the
way
of
salvation
,
but
also
in
respect
of
the
Covenant
,
by
which
not
onely
Zacheus
was
bound
to
teach
his
houshold
,
but
the
Lord
also
had
bound
himself
to
blesse
the
meanes
of
salvation
to
his
houshold
,
as
it
is
written
,
The
Lord
thy
God
will
circumcise
thine
heart
,
and
the
heart
of
thy
seed
,
to
love
the
Lord
thy
God
,
&c.
Deut.
30.6
.
And
againe
,
those
that
dwell
under
his
shadow
shall
returne
,
Hos.
14
7.
The
like
promise
of
grace
doth
Paul
and
Silas
preach
to
the
Jaylor
,
that
upon
his
faith
,
salvation
should
redound
to
his
houshold
;
Believe
(
say
they
)
on
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
thou
shalt
bee
saved
and
thine
house
,
Acts
16.31
.
which
also
was
done
and
tooke
effect
the
same
night
,
afore
that
the
Gaoler
could
take
any
great
paines
for
the
instruction
of
them
,
verse
34.
All
which
do
plainly
argue
,
that
the
faith
of
the
parent
doth
bring
the
children
and
houshold
of
a
Christian
,
even
now
in
the
days
of
the
new
Testament
,
under
a
Covenant
of
salvation
,
as
well
as
the
faith
of
Abraham
brought
his
houshold
of
old
under
the
same
covenant
.
Whence
also
it
is
,
that
Paul
proveth
the
conversion
of
the
Jews
(
after
the
fulnesse
of
the
Gentiles
be
come
in
)
from
the
Covenant
of
God
made
with
their
Fathers
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Iacob
.
For
(
saith
he
)
when
the
fulnesse
of
the
Gentiles
is
come
in
,
all
Israel
shall
be
saved
,
as
it
is
written
,
There
shall
come
out
of
Zion
a
Redeemer
,
and
shall
turne
away
ungodlinesse
from
Jacob.
For
this
is
my
Covenant
unto
them
,
when
I
shall
take
away
their
sins
:
As
concerning
the
Gospel
they
are
enemies
for
your
sake
,
but
as
touching
the
election
,
they
are
beloved
for
the
Fathers
sake
,
Rom.
11.25
,
26
,
27
,
28.
which
plainly
argueth
,
that
for
the
Covenant
sake
made
with
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
,
the
Lord
will
convert
and
call
home
the
Jews
in
the
latter
dayes
,
although
for
the
present
they
be
rejected
for
their
unbelief
.
Therefore
the
Covenant
of
grace
(
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
)
is
of
like
force
and
extent
now
(
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
)
unto
the
faithfull
and
their
seed
,
as
it
was
in
the
dayes
of
the
Old
Testament
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
this
proveth
no
more
,
then
this
,
that
when
the
Jewes
shall
turne
unto
Christ
by
faith
in
their
Redeemer
,
then
they
shall
inherit
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
,
as
all
believers
doe
.
Answ.
Yes
,
it
proveth
not
that
onely
,
but
this
more
,
that
before
their
faith
in
Christ
,
whilst
they
are
yet
enemies
,
the
Lord
will
turne
unto
them
,
and
give
them
faith
and
repentance
to
turne
to
him
,
and
that
out
of
his
Covenant
,
even
for
the
love
that
hee
beareth
to
them
for
their
godly
fathers
sake
.
Howbeit
,
we
willingly
grant
that
those
Jewes
who
shall
be
converted
in
the
latter
dayes
,
are
no
otherwise
under
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
then
in
respect
of
Gods
election
,
as
the
Apostle
speaketh
,
Rom.
11.28
.
But
otherwise
in
respect
of
the
actuall
enjoynment
of
the
priviledges
of
the
Gospel
(
such
as
Church-communion
,
and
the
seales
of
that
Communion
be
)
they
are
rejected
as
enemies
,
not
for
their
privative
want
of
faith
,
but
for
their
positive
rejection
of
the
faith
,
and
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
and
of
Christ
himself
.
But
when
they
shall
turne
unto
the
Lord
,
then
the
Covenant
shall
run
along
to
them
and
to
their
seed
,
as
it
did
of
old
unto
Abraham
and
to
his
seed
.
For
so
Esay
prophecyeth
of
those
times
,
This
is
my
Covenant
to
them
that
turn
from
transgression
in
Iacob
,
my
spirit
that
is
upon
thee
,
and
my
words
which
I
have
put
in
thy
mouth
,
shall
not
depart
out
of
thy
mouth
,
nor
out
of
the
mouth
of
thy
seed
,
nor
out
of
the
mouth
of
thy
seeds
seed
,
from
henceforth
and
for
ever
,
Esa.
59.20
,
21.
Finally
,
that
known
place
in
1
Cor.
7.14
.
though
it
have
beene
much
wrested
and
racked
to
looke
and
speake
another
way
,
yet
it
cannot
but
beare
witnesse
to
the
truth
in
hand
,
that
by
the
faith
of
either
Parent
,
the
children
are
received
into
a
state
of
holinesse
,
and
so
are
accounted
amongst
Gods
holy
people
,
which
is
by
fellowship
in
the
Covenant
.
By
the
text
and
context
it
appeareth
,
that
in
the
church
of
Corinth
,
sometimes
the
wife
had
been
converted
to
Christianity
,
when
the
husband
still
remained
an
infidell
(
or
as
it
is
translated
,
an
unbeleever
;
)
and
sometimes
the
husband
had
been
converted
,
when
the
wife
remained
an
infidell
;
whereupon
it
grew
a
just
and
weighty
doubt
,
whether
the
believer
were
not
bound
in
conscience
to
put
away
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
.
And
the
doubt
seemed
to
have
just
ground
from
that
which
might
seem
to
be
a
like
case
in
the
old
Testament
,
in
the
dayes
of
Ezra
and
Nehemiah
;
where
such
as
had
maried
strange
wives
,
were
commanded
of
God
,
and
covenanted
among
themselves
,
to
put
away
both
their
strange
wives
,
and
the
children
begotten
of
them
,
Ezra
10.2
,
3.
Nehem.
13.23
,
24
,
25.
For
resolving
this
doubt
(
as
well
as
of
some
others
)
the
Corinthians
by
letter
consulted
with
the
Apostle
,
1
Cor.
7.1
.
&c.
And
to
this
doubt
the
Apostle
answereth
,
that
the
believer
should
not
put
away
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
.
And
for
this
he
giveth
a
double
reason
.
First
,
from
the
sanctification
of
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
to
the
believer
,
verse
14.
Secondly
,
from
the
hope
,
or
possibility
at
least
,
which
the
believer
hath
of
converting
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
to
the
faith
,
verse
16.
Now
the
former
of
these
reasons
(
taken
from
the
sanctification
of
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
to
the
believer
)
the
Apostle
proveth
it
by
the
state
of
their
children
;
Else
were
your
children
uncleane
(
saith
he
)
but
now
they
are
holy
.
The
force
of
this
Reason
standeth
thus
,
If
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
were
not
sanctified
in
the
believer
,
and
to
the
believer
(
that
is
,
if
the
believer
had
not
a
sanctified
use
of
his
mariage
communion
with
his
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
)
then
were
your
children
unclean
.
But
your
children
are
not
uncleane
,
but
now
they
are
holy
:
Therefore
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
is
sanctified
in
the
believer
,
and
to
him
.
Where
,
in
the
assumption
,
the
Apostle
putteth
a
manifest
difference
betweene
the
estate
of
the
children
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
,
and
their
estate
in
the
Old
,
as
in
Ezra
and
Nehemiah's
time
.
In
the
Old
Testament
,
as
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
was
uncleane
to
the
Israelites
,
so
were
their
children
uncleane
also
:
And
therefore
both
wives
and
children
to
be
put
away
.
Why
so
?
Because
then
there
was
a
partition
wall
between
Jew
and
Gentile
,
the
Gentiles
were
then
strangers
from
the
Covenants
of
promise
(
Ephes.
2
12.
)
and
all
communion
with
them
was
accursed
,
Nehem.
13.25
.
more
feare
,
then
,
that
the
infidell
should
pervert
the
Israelite
,
then
hope
that
the
Israelite
should
convert
the
infidell
.
But
now
,
(
to
wit
,
now
in
the
New
Testament
,
now
that
the
partition
wall
is
broken
downe
between
Jew
and
Gentile
,
now
that
the
Covenant
is
extended
to
every
believer
in
each
Nation
,
and
to
his
seed
)
now
God
is
a
God
to
the
seed
of
every
believer
as
to
himselfe
,
God
hath
promised
to
bee
a
Father
to
his
children
;
and
so
they
are
holy
by
the
holinesse
of
his
Covenant
.
And
if
the
children
bee
holy
,
then
the
mariage
fellowship
of
the
Parents
is
sanctified
to
the
believer
,
though
the
other
yokefellow
remaine
an
infidell
.
And
if
the
mariage
fellowship
be
sanctified
,
then
the
maried
Parents
may
lawfully
cohabite
together
,
though
the
one
a
believer
,
the
other
an
fidell
.
This
is
the
plaine
meaning
and
scope
of
the
Apostles
words
,
and
discourse
.
Which
plainly
and
strongly
holdeth
forth
,
that
the
grace
of
the
Covenant
is
extended
to
the
children
of
believing
Parents
in
the
new
Testament
,
as
much
as
in
the
Old
,
yea
and
more
too
.
For
in
the
Old
Testament
the
Covenant
reached
not
to
the
children
,
in
case
an
Israelite
had
children
by
a
Pagan
wife
,
(
whether
Moabite
,
Ammonite
,
or
Canaanite
)
but
now
if
either
of
the
Parents
be
believers
,
and
so
in
Covenant
,
let
the
other
Pagan
Parent
bee
of
what
Nation
soever
,
yet
the
children
are
in
the
Covenant
,
and
so
holy
also
.
These
Scriptures
which
you
have
brought
to
prove
that
God
hath
made
a
Covenant
of
grace
with
believers
and
their
seed
,
As
first
touching
the
place
in
Gal.
3.16
.
It
is
said
,
that
if
the
place
be
well
considered
,
it
will
helpe
forward
the
truth
against
the
receiving
of
children
non-elect
into
the
Covenant
:
For
the
Apostle
here
speaketh
of
the
Covenant
,
as
comprehending
Christ
,
and
the
seed
in
him
elect
,
unto
everlasting
life
.
In
which
sense
,
the
Covenant
of
grace
was
not
made
to
Abraham
,
and
to
all
his
seed
without
exception
:
for
then
all
his
seed
must
either
be
saved
,
(
which
no
man
will
say
)
or
if
they
perish
,
then
must
they
fall
out
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
And
if
neither
,
then
there
were
some
of
the
seed
of
Abraham
comprehended
in
the
Covenant
in
one
sense
,
and
admitted
to
the
seale
thereof
,
whom
God
excepted
against
in
another
sense
;
some
of
which
were
Ismael
and
Esau
,
who
in
Abrahams
generation
signified
a
fleshly
seed
,
as
well
as
Isaac
and
Jacob
a
spirituall
.
Between
which
seeds
God
ever
held
forth
a
distinction
in
all
generations
,
from
Abraham
untill
Christ
,
who
put
an
end
to
the
type
and
the
flesh
,
to
al
priviledges
of
that
nature
thereunto
belonging
,
2
Cor.
5.16
.
Phil.
3.3
,
4
,
5.
So
that
now
all
is
laid
up
in
Christ
onely
for
such
as
believe
.
It
is
true
,
the
Covenant
of
grace
was
not
to
all
the
seed
of
Abraham
without
exception
;
that
is
,
to
such
of
the
seed
as
rejected
the
Covenant
,
or
the
faith
of
it
,
as
Ismael
and
Esau
did
in
riper
years
.
But
the
Covenant
was
to
all
the
infant
seed
of
Abraham
without
exception
,
and
to
all
the
infants
of
his
believing
seed
.
And
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
was
in
like
sort
dispensed
to
them
all
without
exception
,
to
Ismael
as
well
as
to
Isaac
,
to
Esau
,
as
well
as
to
Jacob.
Yet
neverthelesse
,
it
will
not
therefore
follow
,
that
some
of
the
seed
of
Abraham
were
comprehended
in
the
Covenant
,
and
admitted
to
the
seale
thereof
in
one
sense
,
whom
God
excepted
against
in
another
sense
.
For
hee
excepted
not
against
the
infant
seed
of
Abraham
,
or
his
family
in
any
sense
:
but
onely
against
the
seed
apostate
in
elder
yeares
.
In
respect
of
which
Apostacy
(
which
God
fore-knoweth
,
all
the
non-elect
seed
of
Abraham
will
fall
into
)
though
God
receive
all
the
infant-seed
of
Abrahams
family
(
that
is
,
of
the
Church
)
into
the
fellowship
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
seale
thereof
,
yet
he
giveth
a
peculiar
blessing
to
the
elect
seed
,
even
the
sure
mercies
of
his
Covenant
,
Esa.
55.2
.
And
though
you
say
,
that
between
these
two
seeds
,
God
ever
held
forth
a
distinction
in
all
generations
from
Adam
to
Christ
;
yet
that
distinction
was
onely
this
;
the
seed
of
all
the
flesh
,
and
the
seed
of
the
promise
,
Rom.
9.8
.
But
he
excluded
neither
of
them
in
their
infancy
from
the
Covenant
,
or
from
the
seale
of
it
:
Indeed
the
children
of
the
promise
,
being
the
elect
of
God
,
God
hath
not
onely
given
his
Covenant
to
them
and
the
seale
thereof
,
but
hath
also
established
it
unto
them
for
ever
.
But
the
seed
of
the
flesh
,
though
the
Lord
gave
his
Covenant
even
unto
them
also
,
and
the
seal
therof
;
yet
he
hath
not
established
it
unto
them
for
ever
;
whence
afterward
it
commeth
to
passe
that
they
reject
the
Covenant
and
the
faith
of
it
.
But
when
you
further
say
,
that
Christ
hath
put
an
end
to
the
type
,
and
to
the
flesh
,
and
to
all
priviledges
thereunto
belonging
;
so
that
now
all
is
laid
up
in
Christ
onely
for
such
as
believe
,
and
for
that
end
quote
2
Cor.
5.16
.
Phil.
3.3
,
4
,
5.
It
is
readily
granted
you
,
that
Christ
hath
put
an
end
to
all
types
and
to
fleshly
Ordinances
,
and
to
the
purifying
of
the
flesh
,
by
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Law
(
Heb.
7.16
.
&
9.13
.
)
But
that
Christ
hath
put
an
end
to
all
priviledges
either
of
the
Covenant
,
or
of
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
to
the
seed
of
believers
,
there
is
no
word
in
the
New
Testament
that
teacheth
us
any
such
doctrine
;
the
places
alledged
(
opened
above
by
me
)
prove
the
contrary
;
and
those
alledged
by
you
will
not
make
good
what
you
say
,
for
the
place
in
2
Cor.
5.16
.
that
a
man
regenerate
knoweth
no
man
after
the
flesh
,
argueth
onely
thus
much
,
that
a
man
in
Christ
resteth
in
no
outward
priviledges
,
no
not
in
seeing
and
knowing
Christ
in
the
flesh
,
nor
in
eating
and
drinking
in
his
presence
,
nor
in
hearing
him
preach
in
their
streets
,
but
in
the
spirituall
and
lively
fellowship
of
his
death
and
resurrection
,
which
maketh
him
whosoever
knoweth
Christ
,
a
new
Creature
.
And
so
say
we
too
;
and
so
it
was
with
the
faithfull
in
the
Old
Testament
as
well
as
in
the
New
.
It
was
not
the
outward
participation
of
the
Covenant
,
nor
of
the
seale
of
it
,
that
a
sincere
Israelite
could
rest
in
,
but
in
the
grace
of
the
Covenant
,
and
Circumcision
of
the
heart
in
the
Spirit
,
not
in
the
Letter
.
But
this
doth
not
at
all
argue
,
that
the
children
of
the
faithfull
,
who
are
yet
in
the
flesh
,
are
not
partakers
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
nor
of
the
seale
of
it
,
now
in
the
New
Testament
,
as
well
as
they
were
in
the
Old
.
But
only
argueth
,
that
though
before
regeneration
,
men
are
apt
to
rest
and
boast
in
the
outward
Letter
of
priviledges
and
Ordinances
:
yet
after
regeneration
they
doe
not
acknowledge
such
things
as
their
comfort
and
confidence
.
John
Baptist
endeavoured
to
beat
off
the
Jews
from
resting
in
such
outward
priviledges
,
Matth.
3.9
.
And
so
did
the
Prophets
before
Christ
,
Jerem.
9.25
,
26.
as
well
as
Paul
after
him
,
both
in
this
place
of
the
Corinthians
,
and
that
other
which
you
quote
out
of
Phil.
3.3
,
4
,
5.
When
you
say
,
that
now
all
is
laid
up
in
Christ
onely
for
such
as
believe
.
If
you
meane
all
spirituall
blessings
of
life
and
salvation
,
you
say
true
,
but
nothing
to
the
question
:
For
so
it
was
in
the
Old
Testament
,
as
well
as
now
.
But
as
it
was
then
,
the
seed
of
believers
partaked
of
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
seale
of
it
;
so
is
it
still
,
unlesse
you
could
shew
us
some
Scripture
whereby
they
are
more
excluded
now
then
in
the
old
Testament
.
Now
first
in
Christ
by
faith
,
and
then
to
the
Covenant
and
priviledges
thereof
,
Gal.
3.29
.
None
by
the
Gospel
are
approved
to
be
the
seed
of
Abraham
,
but
onely
such
as
walke
in
the
steps
of
his
faith
.
For
as
none
invisibly
before
God
are
by
him
approved
at
all
to
have
right
to
any
priviledges
of
grace
,
but
onely
as
he
looketh
upon
them
in
his
Son
:
no
more
are
there
any
before
man
visibly
to
be
approved
of
,
so
as
to
have
right
to
the
same
,
but
as
they
appeare
to
be
in
Christ
,
by
some
effect
of
faith
declaring
the
same
.
And
so
much
the
more
,
in
that
God
excludeth
all
from
his
holy
Covenant
,
so
as
to
have
right
in
the
outward
dispensation
thereof
,
but
onely
such
as
believe
,
Rom.
11.20
.
Heb.
3.18
.
&
4.1
,
2
,
3.
&
11.5
,
6.
Rom.
9.7
,
8.
Gal.
3.22
,
26
,
29.
When
you
say
,
none
are
approved
by
the
Gospel
to
be
the
seed
of
Abraham
,
but
onely
such
as
walke
in
the
steps
of
his
faith
;
the
place
whereto
you
alude
,
is
in
Rom.
4.12
.
which
only
holdeth
forth
,
that
such
as
walke
in
the
steps
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
,
they
are
the
seed
of
Abraham
,
who
are
justified
in
the
sight
of
God
:
for
Abraham
himselfe
was
so
justified
.
And
thus
it
is
in
the
new
Testament
,
and
thus
also
it
was
in
the
Old
:
And
yet
Abraham
then
had
,
and
so
have
the
faithfull
now
,
other
seed
who
are
partakers
of
the
covenant
,
and
of
the
seale
of
the
covenant
,
and
yet
are
not
justified
for
want
of
faith
.
You
say
,
none
invisibly
before
God
,
are
by
him
approved
at
all
to
have
right
to
any
priviledge
of
grace
,
but
onely
as
he
looketh
upon
them
in
his
Son
:
no
more
are
there
any
before
men
visibly
to
be
approved
of
,
so
as
to
have
right
to
the
same
.
This
saying
(
that
none
have
right
to
any
priviledge
of
grace
before
God
,
but
as
he
looketh
upon
them
in
his
Son
)
it
is
true
,
rightly
understood
,
but
nothing
availing
to
your
purpose
.
If
you
mean
by
grace
,
saving
grace
,
it
is
true
;
none
have
right
to
any
priviledge
of
saving
grace
,
but
as
God
looketh
at
them
in
his
Son
,
either
by
faith
,
or
by
election
unto
faith
.
If
you
meane
by
grace
,
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
covenant
of
grace
,
and
of
the
seal
thereof
,
it
is
true
,
none
have
right
to
any
priviledge
of
the
covenant
,
or
of
the
seale
of
it
,
but
as
they
are
in
Christ
either
by
faith
,
or
by
election
unto
faith
,
or
by
their
fellowship
with
the
church
,
whereof
Christ
is
the
head
.
In
which
respect
all
the
members
of
the
church
,
and
their
seed
are
in
Christ
,
as
branches
in
the
vine
,
or
olive
,
and
may
be
cut
off
from
him
for
want
of
faith
to
make
them
fruitfull
in
him
.
But
what
avayleth
this
to
your
purpose
?
Thus
it
is
in
the
new
Testament
,
and
thus
it
was
in
the
Old
.
But
when
you
say
,
none
have
right
to
the
same
,
but
as
they
appeare
to
be
in
Christ
,
by
some
effect
of
faith
declaring
the
same
.
This
you
cannot
make
good
from
Scripture
light
.
For
though
you
say
,
that
God
excludeth
all
from
his
holy
covenant
,
so
as
to
have
right
in
the
outward
dispensation
thereof
,
but
onely
such
as
believe
.
And
to
prove
that
,
you
alledge
many
Scriptures
;
yet
none
of
them
beare
witnesse
to
any
such
matter
.
All
the
Scriptures
which
you
alledge
will
easily
prove
one
of
these
two
things
,
(
both
which
we
willingly
grant
)
First
,
that
some
branches
in
Christ
were
broken
off
from
Christ
,
though
not
through
want
of
faith
,
but
yet
through
infidelity
,
rejecting
the
faith
of
Christ
,
either
in
themselves
or
in
their
parents
.
Secondly
,
that
through
faith
wee
receive
the
spirituall
saving
blessings
of
the
covenant
,
and
through
want
of
faith
fall
short
of
them
;
both
which
are
everlasting
truths
,
as
well
before
Christ
as
since
.
To
runne
over
all
your
places
briefly
,
that
you
may
see
how
your
Leaders
mis-leade
both
themselves
and
you
.
In
Rom.
11.20
.
it
is
said
,
the
Jewes
were
broken
off
through
unbeliefe
:
So
the
word
is
translated
;
but
the
true
sense
of
it
is
,
through
infidelity
:
and
so
the
same
word
is
translated
,
2
Cor.
6.15
.
What
part
hath
a
believer
with
an
infidell
?
The
meaning
of
that
place
in
the
Romans
is
,
the
Jews
were
broken
off
from
Christ
,
and
from
their
church-estate
and
Covenant
in
him
,
by
their
professed
infidelity
,
their
open
rejection
of
Christ
and
his
righteousnesse
,
and
that
not
out
of
ignorance
,
but
out
of
wilfull
obstinacy
against
the
light
of
the
gospel
revealed
to
them
.
For
the
Apostles
still
kept
communion
with
them
,
as
with
a
church
,
a
people
in
covenant
with
God
,
notwithstanding
their
want
of
faith
in
Christ
;
yea
,
notwithstanding
their
crucifying
of
Christ
,
untill
they
wilfully
&
obstinately
rejected
and
persecuted
the
Gospel
of
grace
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
it
,
Acts
13.45
,
46.
And
persisting
therein
,
then
indeed
they
were
broken
off
;
but
yet
this
argueth
that
they
were
in
Christ
before
;
or
else
how
could
they
now
be
broken
off
?
Your
next
place
is
quoted
out
of
Heb.
3.18
.
where
the
Israelites
are
said
to
fall
short
of
their
entrance
into
Canaan
because
of
their
unbeliefe
;
the
word
is
as
before
,
because
of
their
infidelity
.
For
it
is
not
likely
that
all
the
Israelites
who
wanted
saving
faith
,
were
kept
out
of
Canaan
:
Acban
who
troubled
Israel
,
doth
not
appeare
to
be
a
true
believer
.
But
the
body
of
them
who
were
kept
out
of
Canaan
,
had
carryed
themselves
like
infidels
,
they
thought
scorne
of
the
land
of
promise
,
and
preferred
Pagan
Egypt
before
it
.
And
therefore
for
rejecting
the
promise
and
the
faith
of
it
,
were
justly
rejected
from
entring
into
Canaan
.
But
what
maketh
this
to
the
purpose
in
hand
?
how
doth
this
prove
,
that
in
the
Gospel
God
excludeth
all
from
his
holy
Covenant
,
and
from
right
in
the
outward
dispensation
of
it
,
save
onely
such
as
believe
?
For
all
these
were
in
the
Covenant
,
and
had
been
circumcised
in
Egypt
,
and
so
had
the
priviledge
of
the
outward
dispensation
therof
,
though
they
believed
not
:
Besides
,
this
concerned
the
times
of
the
Old
Testament
;
of
which
your selfe
and
your
leaders
confesse
,
that
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
s●ales
of
it
pertained
,
not
onely
to
the
spirituall
&
b●lieving
seed
,
but
to
the
carnall
also
.
Your
next
place
in
Heb.
4.1
,
2
,
3.
proveth
only
,
that
such
as
do
not
mixe
the
word
with
faith
,
will
fall
short
of
entring
into
Gods
rest
.
So
it
was
in
the
Old
Testament
,
as
well
as
in
the
New
.
And
the
Apostle
himselfe
doth
so
expresse
it
;
The
Word
(
saith
he
)
which
was
preached
to
them
,
(
to
wit
,
the
Israelites
in
the
old
Testament
)
did
not
profit
them
,
because
it
was
not
mixed
with
faith
in
them
that
heard
it
:
From
whence
he
also
argueth
,
that
neither
will
the
Word
preached
to
us
now
,
profit
us
,
if
it
be
not
mixed
with
faith
.
But
what
maketh
this
to
prove
that
God
excludeth
all
from
the
outward
dispensation
of
his
holy
Covenant
,
but
onely
such
as
believe
?
Is
it
all
one
to
partake
in
the
outward
dispensation
of
Gods
Covenant
,
and
to
enter
into
Gods
rest
?
or
to
profit
by
the
Word
?
your
Leaders
should
make
more
conscience
of
alledging
and
applying
Gods
holy
Word
impertinently
,
impertinently
I
say
,
both
to
Gods
meaning
,
and
to
their
owne
:
which
is
one
kinde
(
but
too
frequent
)
of
taking
Gods
holy
name
in
vaine
.
The
next
place
which
you
quote
out
of
Heb.
11.5
,
6.
sheweth
us
,
that
without
faith
it
is
impossible
to
please
God
;
which
argueth
indeed
,
that
no
man
either
in
his
person
,
or
in
his
work
can
be
acceptable
to
God
without
faith
:
but
doth
not
prove
that
God
cannot
receive
any
into
the
outward
fellowship
of
the
Covenant
without
faith
;
much
lesse
doth
it
prove
,
that
the
New
Testament
doth
exclude
all
unbelievers
from
the
Covenant
,
more
then
did
the
Old
Testament
;
for
those
words
in
Hebrews
11.5
,
6.
were
spoken
of
Enoch
,
who
(
I
need
not
tell
you
)
lived
in
the
dayes
of
the
Old
Testament
.
Your
next
place
in
Rom
97
,
8.
sheweth
indeed
,
that
all
the
children
of
the
flesh
of
Abraham
,
are
not
the
elect
seed
of
Abraham
,
(
which
we
willingly
grant
)
but
doth
not
shew
,
●hat
the
children
of
Abrahams
flesh
,
were
not
the
seed
of
Abrahams
Covenant
.
Many
were
called
and
received
into
his
Covenant
,
who
yet
were
not
chosen
to
partake
in
the
sure
mercies
and
everlas●ing
blessings
of
the
Covenant
.
Your
last
place
out
of
Gal.
3.22
,
26
,
29.
argueth
the
same
that
the
former
places
have
done
,
that
believers
are
partakers
of
Christ
by
faith
,
and
of
adoption
by
Christ
;
that
they
are
the
justified
seed
of
Abraham
,
and
heires
according
to
promise
.
So
was
it
in
the
Old
Testament
,
and
so
is
it
still
to
this
day
.
But
this
doth
not
prove
now
,
no
more
then
it
did
then
,
that
all
are
excluded
from
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
but
believers
onely
.
But
notwithstanding
all
this
,
though
the
Covenant
which
God
made
with
Abraham
before
Christ
,
There
is
indeed
some
difference
betweene
the
Covenant
made
not
onely
with
Abraham
in
the
Old
Testament
,
and
with
us
in
the
New
;
but
also
in
the
Old
Testament
,
But
neverthelesse
,
the
differences
which
you
put
betweene
the
Covenant
with
Abraham
and
with
us
,
so
farre
as
they
are
brought
to
exclude
the
seed
of
believers
from
the
fellowship
of
the
Covenant
,
they
will
not
stand
nor
abide
triall
by
the
Scriptures
.
Seven
differences
you
put
,
let
us
weigh
them
in
the
ballance
of
the
Sanctuary
,
and
see
if
they
bee
not
too
light
.
"
First
,
say
you
,
that
Covenant
admitted
of
a
fleshly
seed
;
this
onely
of
a
spirituall
,
Gen.
17
,
with
Rom.
9.
Answ.
The
place
in
the
Romans
speaketh
of
the
seed
of
promise
to
be
the
seed
of
Abraham
,
and
to
be
accounted
not
onely
in
the
New
Testament
,
but
in
the
Old
also
.
For
the
Oracle
(
in
Isaac
shall
thy
seed
be
called
,
Rom.
9.7
.
)
was
given
to
Abraham
in
the
Old
Testament
,
Gen.
21.12
.
And
that
after
Ismael
was
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
for
his
mocking
and
persecuting
of
Isaac
.
So
that
this
Scripture
in
Rom.
9.15
.
is
three
wayes
wrested
and
wronged
in
this
Quotation
.
First
,
in
that
it
is
brought
to
prove
,
that
the
Covenant
of
grace
in
the
dayes
of
the
new
Testament
admitteth
onely
of
a
spirituall
seed
;
whereas
Paul
speaketh
not
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
but
of
the
election
of
grace
.
Secondly
,
in
that
the
place
is
brought
to
shew
what
is
now
the
seed
in
the
New
Testament
different
from
that
of
the
Old
;
whereas
Paul
speaketh
of
the
same
seed
both
in
the
Old
and
New
Testament
alike
.
Thirdly
,
in
that
Ismael
is
accounted
by
you
as
a
fleshly
seed
,
and
so
as
rejected
out
of
the
Covenant
from
the
womb
;
whereas
he
was
not
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
,
till
himselfe
cast
off
the
Covenant
by
mocking
and
persecuting
Isaac
.
The
second
difference
you
put
is
,
that
that
Covenant
in
the
old
Testament
was
in
the
flesh
;
this
in
the
heart
,
Gen.
17.13
.
with
Jer.
31.33
.
Rom.
2.28
,
29.
Answ.
This
difference
is
put
by
you
,
but
not
by
the
Spirit
of
God
in
Scripture
.
For
as
that
Covenant
(
that
is
,
the
signe
of
the
Covenant
)
was
in
the
flesh
:
so
is
Baptisme
(
the
signe
of
the
Covenant
now
)
upon
the
flesh
.
Secondly
,
as
our
Baptisme
signifieth
and
sealeth
the
washing
away
of
the
filth
of
flesh
and
spirit
;
so
did
their
circumcision
of
the
flesh
signifie
and
seale
the
circumcision
of
the
heart
,
Deut.
30.6
.
Thirdly
,
as
in
our
Baptisme
the
Lord
doth
not
regard
nor
esteeme
the
outward
washing
of
the
flesh
,
(
1
Pet.
3.21
.
)
So
neither
was
the
circumcision
of
the
flesh
without
circumcision
of
the
heart
of
any
account
before
God
,
either
before
Christ
,
or
since
.
It
was
not
only
so
adjudged
in
Pauls
time
in
the
New
Testament
,
that
Circumcision
of
the
flesh
,
was
nothing
without
Circumcision
of
the
heart
,
but
also
in
Ieremies
time
in
the
Old
Testament
.
For
Ieremy
threatneth
●hat
God
will
punish
the
circumcised
with
the
uncircumcised
,
Egypt
,
Edom
,
Ammon
and
Moab
with
Iudah
:
for
all
these
Nations
are
uncircumcised
;
&
al
the
house
of
Israel
are
uncircumcised
in
heart
,
Ier.
9.25
,
26.
It
hath
been
said
of
old
,
shall
a
man
make
Gods
to
himself
,
and
they
are
no
Gods
?
So
may
it
be
said
in
some
proportion
,
shall
a
man
make
differences
to
himself
to
turn
him
off
from
the
way
of
God
,
and
they
are
no
differences
?
To
the
third
,
there
is
as
little
difference
in
that
as
in
the
former
:
for
as
the
seale
of
that
Covenant
confirmed
faith
in
things
to
come
,
but
the
seale
of
this
confirmes
faith
in
things
already
done
:
so
the
seale
of
that
Covenant
confirmed
the
faith
of
Abraham
in
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
which
he
had
already
received
;
and
the
faith
of
those
that
were
in
Canaan
of
the
possession
of
it
:
And
our
Baptisme
sealeth
up
to
us
mortification
of
sin
,
deliverance
out
of
affliction
,
resurrection
of
the
body
,
whereof
some
are
yet
to
come
in
part
,
some
wholly
.
The
like
may
bee
said
of
the
other
Ordinances
of
the
Covenant
.
But
what
is
it
to
the
purpose
?
what
if
sundry
ordinances
of
the
Covenant
,
as
it
was
dispensed
in
the
old
Testament
,
confirmed
faith
in
things
to
come
?
and
what
if
the
Ordinances
of
the
New
Testament
confirmed
faith
in
things
past
?
yet
what
is
this
to
argue
that
children
of
believing
Parents
are
excluded
from
the
Covenant
of
grace
in
the
new
testament
,
though
not
in
the
Old
?
To
the
fourth
,
when
you
say
,
that
Covenant
was
Nationall
,
and
admitted
all
of
the
Nation
to
the
seales
thereof
:
But
this
personall
,
and
admitteth
of
none
but
such
as
believe
.
This
difference
is
founded
in
an
untruth
:
for
it
is
untrue
,
that
the
Covenant
given
to
Abraham
was
Nationall
,
it
was
rather
domesticall
at
first
:
and
did
not
comprehend
the
whole
Nation
of
any
of
Abrahams
seed
,
till
Iacobs
time
.
And
Iacob
speaketh
of
his
blessing
(
which
was
a
proper
adjunct
,
and
peculiar
priviledge
of
the
Covenant
)
that
it
did
exceed
the
blessing
,
and
so
the
Covenant
)
of
his
progenitors
,
Gen.
49.26
.
For
whereas
in
Abrahams
house
,
though
Isaac
was
received
to
the
blessing
of
continuance
in
the
Covenant
,
yet
Ismael
and
the
seed
of
Keturah
were
excluded
:
and
in
Isaac's
house
,
though
Iacob
inherited
the
blessing
,
yet
Esau
was
excluded
,
yet
in
Iacobs
family
all
his
sonnes
were
received
to
the
blessing
of
continuance
under
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
,
and
not
themselves
onely
,
but
all
their
posterity
,
the
whole
twelve
Tribes
,
which
proceeded
from
them
.
Now
it
is
not
said
in
Scripture
,
that
the
blessing
of
Jacob
is
come
upon
the
Gentiles
,
(
for
then
none
of
our
posterity
might
cut
themselves
off
from
the
outwa●d
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
,
and
then
our
Covenant
would
be
Nationall
,
and
admit
all
of
the
Nation
to
the
seales
thereof
)
but
the
Scripture
saith
,
that
the
blessing
of
Abraham
(
and
so
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
)
is
come
upon
the
Gentiles
,
Gal.
3.14
.
that
is
,
upon
the
believing
Gentiles
,
and
their
seed
,
whereby
it
commeth
to
passe
,
that
believing
Gentiles
,
and
their
Infant-seed
are
admitted
to
the
Covenant
,
and
to
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
as
Abraham
and
his
Infant
seed
were
:
But
if
when
they
bee
growne
up
to
yeares
,
they
shall
grow
to
mocke
and
sleight
the
Covenant
,
as
Ismael
and
Esau
did
,
then
they
and
their
seed
are
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
,
and
that
keepeth
the
Covenant
from
being
national
.
And
so
it
was
in
Abrahams
time
,
&
so
it
is
now
.
When
you
say
,
this
Covenant
with
us
is
personall
and
admitteth
onely
of
such
as
believe
.
It
hath
been
refuted
above
,
and
this
truth
cleared
,
that
upon
the
faith
of
the
Parents
,
the
grace
of
the
Covenant
is
promised
also
unto
their
seed
.
And
if
the
Covenant
did
admit
onely
of
such
as
believe
,
then
the
faith
whereby
we
believe
,
were
not
given
to
any
by
Covenant
.
Whereas
it
hath
been
shown
above
,
that
faith
,
and
the
saving
knowledge
of
God
by
faith
,
and
the
writing
of
the
Law
of
faith
(
as
well
as
of
love
)
in
our
hearts
,
is
given
by
Covenant
,
Jer.
31.33.34
.
Your
fifth
difference
is
like
the
rest
,
devised
in
your
own
imagination
,
not
founded
in
Scripture
.
That
Covenant
(
say
you
)
begot
children
after
the
flesh
;
but
this
onely
begets
children
after
the
Spirit
,
and
onely
approveth
of
such
as
are
begotten
and
born
from
above
,
&c.
Answ.
Doe
you
any
where
read
in
Scripture
,
that
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
approved
of
any
then
,
more
then
now
,
but
such
as
are
begotten
from
above
?
Did
not
Abraham
and
Israel
of
old
renounce
the
owning
and
acknowledgement
of
such
children
of
theirs
,
as
were
degenerate
from
their
faith
and
obedience
?
Esay
63.16
.
When
you
say
that
that
Covenant
begot
children
after
the
flesh
,
doe
you
not
meane
,
that
men
under
that
Covenant
begot
children
after
the
flesh
?
And
if
that
be
your
meaning
,
doe
you
thinke
it
is
not
so
now
,
that
men
under
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
,
as
well
as
in
the
Old
,
doe
beget
children
after
the
flesh
?
It
is
true
,
those
believing
Parents
who
doe
beget
children
by
believing
the
Promise
and
Covenant
of
grace
to
them
and
to
their
children
they
doe
bring
forth
,
and
bring
up
spirituall
children
,
or
as
you
call
it
,
children
after
the
Spirit
.
But
so
did
Abraham
and
other
faithfull
parents
in
the
Old
Testament
,
as
well
as
now
.
The
places
which
you
quote
out
of
Ier.
31.
Ezek
36.
Heb.
8.
Ioh.
3.5
,
6.
doe
neither
prove
your
assertion
,
nor
disprove
ours
,
but
rather
approve
it
.
For
in
Ier.
31.
the
Law
of
faith
and
saving
knowledge
is
written
in
our
hearts
by
the
Covenant
:
so
it
is
now
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
so
it
was
in
the
Old
.
In
Ezek.
36.
God
takes
away
the
heart
of
stone
,
and
gives
an
heart
of
flesh
,
and
a
new
spirit
;
so
hee
doth
now
to
his
chosen
;
and
so
he
did
then
,
Numb
.
14.24
.
The
place
in
the
Heb.
8.
is
the
same
with
that
in
Ieremy
31.
That
in
Iohn
3.5
;
6.
argueth
that
none
born
of
flesh
can
enter
into
the
kingdome
of
heaven
,
but
are
carnall
and
fleshly
.
But
thus
it
was
in
the
Old
Testament
,
as
well
as
in
the
New
;
there
is
no
difference
in
this
point
.
Your
sixth
difference
is
,
that
that
Covenant
with
Abraham
and
his
posterity
before
Christ
,
comprehended
a
civill
state
,
and
a
worldly
government
,
with
the
like
carnall
subjects
for
the
service
of
the
same
:
But
this
Covenant
now
under
Christ
comprehendeth
onely
a
spirituall
state
,
and
an
heavenly
government
,
with
the
like
spirituall
subjects
of
this
also
.
Answ.
1.
The
Civill
State
and
worldly
government
was
not
expressed
in
the
Covenant
given
to
Abraham
,
but
in
the
Covenant
,
and
blessing
of
Iacob
.
It
was
Iacob
that
blessed
his
son
Iudah
with
a
scepter
,
Gen.
49.10
.
But
to
Abraham
it
was
foretold
,
that
his
seed
should
bee
a
stranger
and
a
servant
,
and
in
an
afflicted
estate
400
yeares
.
And
though
the
Lord
did
not
deny
them
civill
government
,
yet
neither
did
he
expresly
promise
it
to
his
seed
.
And
(
as
was
said
above
)
it
is
the
blessing
of
Abraham
that
is
come
upon
us
,
and
not
of
Iacob
,
so
far
as
that
of
Iacob
,
exceeded
the
blessing
of
his
progenitors
.
Answ.
2.
It
is
more
then
can
be
proved
,
that
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
,
and
his
posterity
after
Christ
,
doth
not
comprehend
a
civill
State
:
for
the
prophecy
of
Daniel
promiseth
,
that
after
the
destruction
of
the
four
Monarchies
,
the
Kingdom
and
the
Dominion
,
and
the
greatnesse
of
the
Kingdome
under
the
whole
heaven
shall
be
given
to
the
people
of
the
saints
of
the
most
High
,
&c.
Dan.
7.27
.
Answ.
3.
Civill
State
and
Government
is
but
an
accessary
to
the
Covenant
;
And
though
the
people
of
God
in
the
new
Testament
should
never
enjoy
it
,
(
which
is
not
to
be
granted
:
)
yet
what
is
this
to
the
maine
promise
of
the
Covenant
,
That
God
will
bee
a
God
to
his
people
,
and
to
their
seed
,
throughout
all
generations
?
The
seventh
and
last
difference
which
you
put
is
as
little
pertinent
to
the
cause
,
as
all
the
former
.
For
what
if
that
Covenant
held
forth
Christ
in
the
flesh
to
an
heart
vailed
?
And
this
holdeth
him
forth
in
the
Spirit
to
a
face
open
,
2
Cor.
3.
Yet
this
argueth
onely
a
different
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
by
Moses
and
by
Christ
;
But
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
which
was
given
430
yeares
before
the
Covenant
of
Moses
,
did
not
so
vaile
,
nor
darken
the
face
of
Christ
,
but
that
Abraham
saw
Christ
,
though
afarre
off
,
yet
clearely
,
and
rejoyced
,
I●hn
8.56
.
And
so
did
all
his
spirituall
seed
after
him
,
more
or
lesse
,
as
well
as
wee
.
But
what
if
the
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
had
been
more
vayled
in
all
the
times
of
the
Old
Testament
to
all
the
seed
,
then
indeed
it
was
?
yet
what
is
this
to
the
maine
promise
of
the
Covenant
,
that
God
will
be
a
God
to
a
believer
and
his
seed
,
throughout
all
generations
?
"
1.
What
the
Covenant
is
?
"
2.
What
is
that
which
admits
into
the
Covenant
?
"
3.
Who
are
the
true
approved
subjects
of
the
Covenant
?
4.
Whether
all
have
not
one
and
the
same
way
of
entrance
into
this
Covenant
?
And
the
manner
of
this
is
in
effect
,
Gods
calling
of
a
man
to
an
agreement
with
himself
in
his
Son
,
wherein
he
promiseth
to
be
his
God
,
and
to
give
him
life
and
happinesse
,
and
all
things
in
Christ
;
and
that
he
shall
believe
and
rest
upon
his
faithfullnesse
and
truth
,
and
so
take
him
for
his
God
,
&c.
So
that
the
Covenant
consisteth
of
3.
Essentialls
:
1.
The
persons
(
two
or
moe
)
disposed
to
agree
.
2.
Something
to
agree
upon
.
3.
Their
mutuall
consent
,
which
is
the
agreement
it self
.
It
is
a
second
error
,
that
in
describing
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
you
omit
the
seed
of
believers
,
&
exclude
them
from
the
fellowship
of
the
Covenant
,
as
being
unable
to
expresse
their
consent
and
agreement
to
the
Covenant
.
Let
it
be
considered
in
the
feare
of
God
,
whether
ever
God
made
any
Covenant
with
any
man
or
people
,
which
did
not
comprehend
their
posterity
also
?
God
made
a
Covenant
with
Noah
did
,
it
not
reach
his
posterity
also
?
Gen.
9.
God
made
a
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
Gen.
17.
did
it
not
reach
his
posterity
also
?
God
made
a
Covenant
with
the
people
of
Israel
,
Exod.
19.
did
it
not
reach
their
posterity
also
?
God
made
a
Covenant
with
Phinehas
,
Numb
.
25.
did
it
not
reach
to
his
posterity
also
?
God
made
a
Covenant
with
David
,
Psal
.
89.28
.
did
it
not
reach
to
his
posterity
also
?
If
then
the
Scripture
never
hold
forth
any
Covenant
which
ever
God
made
with
any
of
the
sons
of
men
,
but
it
did
reach
and
comprehend
his
posterity
also
;
why
should
the
Covenant
of
grace
be
conceived
to
run
a
different
course
from
all
the
rest
of
Gods
covenants
,
namely
,
to
reach
unto
believers
,
but
not
to
their
posterity
?
We
are
shallow
and
narrow
our selves
,
and
so
we
measure
the
grace
of
God
,
and
the
Covenant
thereof
,
according
to
our
owne
scantling
,
our
narrow
capacity
.
Proceed
then
to
declare
,
what
is
the
second
thing
you
wisht
might
bee
well
considered
:
to
wit
,
what
is
that
which
admits
into
the
Covenant
?
That
which
admits
any
into
the
Covenant
,
The
Covenant
hath
these
essentiall
parts
and
visible
branches
.
1.
Grace
in
the
agent
,
God
.
2.
Faith
in
the
subject
,
Man
.
3.
An
uniting
or
closing
of
these
together
:
which
is
that
mutuall
consent
and
agreement
,
by
faith
in
the
same
grace
revealed
by
the
gospel
,
which
is
the
word
of
reconciliation
.
So
that
it
is
the
blessed
word
of
life
and
faith
in
the
same
,
that
giveth
right
and
admitteth
into
Covenant
with
God
.
We
deny
not
that
faith
in
the
subject
doth
admit
into
the
Covenant
rightly
understood
;
to
wit
,
faith
in
Christ
,
the
words
are
plaine
,
thou
foundest
his
heart
faithfull
before
thee
,
and
madest
a
Covenant
with
him
,
to
give
to
his
seed
the
l●nd
of
the
Canaanites
.
And
your self
with
your
Leaders
doe
easily
acknowledge
,
that
in
the
old
Testament
,
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
admitted
his
carnall
seed
into
the
fellowship
of
it
.
And
doubtlesse
Nehemiah
speaketh
of
Abraham
,
and
of
his
faithfull
heart
,
and
holy
Covenant
,
as
it
stood
in
the
dayes
of
the
Old
Testament
.
How
commeth
it
then
to
passe
,
that
his
faithfull
heart
,
whereby
he
received
the
Covenant
to
himselfe
and
his
seed
,
should
be
alledged
to
prove
,
that
the
faith
of
Abraham
admitted
him
into
the
Covenant
,
but
not
his
seed
?
But
proceed
to
your
third
thing
which
you
woul●
have
to
bee
well
considered
,
and
consider
(
I
pray
you
)
how
far
off
it
is
from
concluding
your
purpose
.
The
third
thing
to
be
considered
,
is
,
who
are
the
approved
subjects
of
this
Covenant
;
and
they
are
onely
such
as
believe
.
For
God
in
his
Word
approveth
of
none
in
Covenant
with
him
out
of
Christ
,
nor
of
any
in
Christ
without
faith
.
Nay
,
God
denyeth
his
approving
of
any
in
fellowship
with
him
,
that
doe
not
believe
,
as
John
3.5
,
6
,
36.
Heb.
11.6
.
Nor
doth
he
approve
of
any
subjects
of
his
gracious
Covenant
,
but
onely
such
as
hee
hath
elected
and
chosen
in
Christ
,
and
so
appearing
by
some
fruits
and
effects
of
the
same
,
as
these
Scriptures
(
with
many
other
)
witnes
,
Rom.
8.9.29
,
30.
Rom.
11.7
.
Ephes.
1.4
,
5
,
6.
2
Thes.
2.13
,
14.
1
Pet.
1.2
.
Acts
2.47
.
&
13.48
.
Surely
all
the
Israelites
in
the
wildernesse
were
sometimes
admitted
into
Covenant
with
God
:
yet
with
many
of
them
God
was
not
pleased
,
1
Cor.
10.5
.
What
though
those
whom
God
elcteth
he
calleth
(
to
wit
,
by
an
effectuall
calling
,
according
to
his
purpose
:
)
yet
may
hee
not
,
yea
,
doth
he
not
call
many
to
place
in
his
vineyard
,
(
the
Church
)
yea
,
to
office
also
whom
he
hath
not
chosen
?
Mat●h
.
20.16
.
What
though
the
elect
obtaine
(
what
they
seek
for
)
the
sure
mercies
of
the
Covenant
,
and
the
rest
come
to
be
hardened
?
May
not
therefore
the
non-elect
partake
in
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
,
and
yet
afterwards
bee
hardened
in
hypocrisie
?
What
though
the
elect
onely
come
on
to
believe
,
though
not
with
a
justifying
faith
,
yet
with
an
historicall
and
temporary
faith
?
May
they
not
bee
holy
by
Covenant
,
who
yet
are
not
holy
by
the
Spirit
of
Regeneration
?
May
they
not
be
sprinkled
with
the
blood
of
sprinkling
unto
the
common
graces
of
the
Spirit
(
Heb.
10.29
.
)
who
yet
are
not
sprinkled
therewith
to
the
remission
of
their
sins
?
Finally
,
what
though
it
bee
said
,
the
Lord
added
to
the
Church
daily
such
as
should
bee
saved
,
Acts
2.47
?
were
not
Ananias
and
Sapphira
added
also
,
and
Simon
Magus
too
,
who
yet
(
for
ought
that
appeareth
)
were
none
of
them
saved
?
Proceed
wee
the●
to
the
fourth
thing
,
which
you
wi●h
might
be
well
considered
,
and
see
if
there
be
any
more
weight
in
that
.
The
fourth
and
last
is
,
You
now
labour
againe
of
the
same
fallacy
,
which
was
noted
in
you
before
.
It
is
readily
granted
you
,
that
the
Gospel
of
Christ
approveth
of
none
in
the
Lords
Covenant
,
but
such
as
believe
.
Neither
did
the
Old
Testament
approve
any
in
the
Lords
Covenant
,
but
such
as
believed
.
But
as
hath
been
said
,
it
is
one
thing
to
approve
them
in
the
Covenant
,
another
thing
to
approve
them
to
be
in
the
Covenant
.
See
it
in
a
similitude
,
God
did
never
approve
either
Saul
or
Jehu
in
the
Kingdome
of
Israel
;
yet
hee
did
approve
it
that
both
of
them
should
be
admitted
to
the
kingdome
.
So
is
it
here
,
God
did
never
approve
Ismael
in
Abrahams
house
,
nor
Esau
in
Isaacs
.
And
yet
he
approved
it
,
that
they
should
be
in
their
Fathers
houses
,
and
also
bee
admitted
to
the
Covenant
of
their
Fathers
,
and
to
the
seale
thereof
,
till
their
own
prophanenesse
cast
them
out
.
And
therefore
what
though
there
bee
no
other
way
of
comming
into
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
but
only
by
Jesus
Christ
?
And
what
though
in
Christ
all
the
promises
are
confirmed
,
and
made
over
onely
to
such
as
believe
?
Yet
neverthelesse
Christ
hath
opened
a
way
for
the
comming
of
the
Covenant
and
promises
through
himselfe
,
not
onely
to
such
as
believe
,
but
also
(
for
their
sakes
)
to
their
children
and
housholds
.
In
the
Old
Testament
God
prospered
Ismael
for
Abrahams
sake
,
Gen.
21.13
,
17
,
18
,
19
,
20.
In
the
New
Testament
God
visited
with
grace
and
salvation
,
the
Families
of
Zacheus
,
and
of
the
Jaylor
for
the
housholders
sake
,
Luke
19.9
.
Acts
16.31
.
The
holy
Covenant
consisteth
of
three
essentialls
for
entrance
thereinto
.
First
,
the
word
of
God
to
reveale
the
same
.
Secondly
,
Christ
to
open
the
way
,
and
to
enright
the
party
therein
.
Thirdly
,
faith
,
without
which
none
can
enter
thereinto
,
for
as
none
can
come
unto
God
,
or
into
Covenant
with
him
,
but
by
Christ
;
so
none
can
come
unto
Christ
,
but
by
faith
,
Job
.
14.6
.
with
John
6.44
,
45.
Heb.
11.6
.
Let
all
this
be
well
considered
,
and
then
see
how
infants
can
be
discovered
to
be
in
the
Covenant
,
and
what
way
of
entrance
hath
God
by
his
word
appointed
for
them
to
come
in
,
and
denyed
the
same
unto
other
.
I
will
not
straine
at
your
word
Essentialls
;
First
,
the
Word
of
God
revealeth
such
a
Covenant
of
grace
,
wherein
God
giveth
himselfe
to
be
a
God
to
the
faithfull
Parent
,
and
to
his
seed
.
So
hee
gave
himselfe
to
faithfull
Abraham
and
to
his
seed
,
Gen.
17.7
.
This
Covenant
of
Abraham
,
the
Scripture
revealeth
to
be
come
upon
the
believing
Gentiles
and
their
seed
,
as
hath
been
shewed
above
.
Secondly
,
Christ
himselfe
hath
opened
the
way
to
enright
the
children
of
believing
Parents
into
the
Covenant
,
by
redeeming
us
(
Gentiles
,
as
well
as
Jews
)
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
that
the
blessing
of
Abraham
might
come
upon
the
Gentiles
,
Gal.
3.13
,
14.
And
the
blessing
of
Abraham
is
to
a
believer
and
his
seed
,
Gal.
3.16
.
And
this
hath
been
further
cleared
above
.
Thirdly
,
faith
is
not
wanting
,
to
enstate
the
seed
of
believing
Parents
into
the
Covenant
,
seeing
God
hath
promised
upon
the
faith
of
the
Parent
,
salvation
to
his
houshold
,
Acts
10.31
.
Luke
19.9
.
It
is
a
vaine
exception
to
say
,
that
if
infants
bee
entred
into
the
Covenant
by
the
faith
of
their
Parents
,
that
then
they
who
bee
not
naturally
begotten
and
born
in
the
Covenant
,
are
denyed
the
same
way
of
entrance
into
the
Covenant
which
is
granted
to
infants
.
For
first
,
wee
doe
not
say
,
that
any
man
is
naturally
begotten
and
born
in
the
Covenant
:
For
the
children
of
believing
parents
are
naturally
the
children
of
wrath
,
as
well
as
others
,
Ephes.
2.3
.
But
yet
neverthelesse
,
though
naturally
they
bee
the
children
of
wrath
,
yet
by
vertue
and
grace
of
the
Covenant
,
they
are
holy
,
1
Cor.
7.14
.
Secondly
,
though
they
who
are
not
begotten
and
borne
of
faithfull
Parents
,
cannot
plead
right
in
the
Covenant
,
by
the
faith
of
their
Parents
:
yet
they
may
claime
it
by
their
owne
faith
,
if
God
grant
it
to
them
.
If
not
,
it
is
no
marvaile
to
a
Christian
heart
,
that
the
faith
of
believing
Parents
conveyeth
a
greater
blessing
to
their
children
,
then
unbelieving
Parents
can
expect
to
themselves
,
or
theirs
.
Doth
not
obedience
to
the
Law
convey
a
farre
greater
blessing
unto
a
godly
man
and
his
seed
,
even
to
a
thousand
generations
,
then
a
wicked
carnall
parent
can
expect
to
him
and
his
?
Exod.
20.5
,
6.
And
if
so
,
then
doubtlesse
the
obedience
of
faith
may
expect
a
far
greater
blessing
to
a
beleever
and
his
seed
,
then
an
infidell
or
unbeliever
can
hope
for
in
his
naturall
and
carnall
estate
and
course
to
himself
or
his
.
If
infants
be
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
by
vertue
of
their
birth
from
believing
parents
,
then
such
infants
are
borne
in
a
saving
state
of
grace
,
and
were
never
out
of
the
same
.
Which
doctrine
maketh
void
many
heavenly
and
divine
truths
,
which
speake
to
the
contrary
:
which
lay
all
under
sinne
and
curse
,
till
Christ
by
his
blood
redeeme
them
,
and
by
his
heavenly
voice
call
them
,
and
by
his
Spirit
beget
them
unto
a
lively
hope
:
who
are
therefore
said
to
bee
borne
againe
from
above
.
For
none
can
be
under
grace
,
and
under
wrath
and
curse
at
one
and
the
same
time
,
in
the
outward
dispensation
of
the
same
.
Neither
doth
this
make
void
any
heavenly
and
divine
truth
at
all
.
For
though
all
bee
under
sinne
and
wrath
and
curse
til
Christ
by
his
blood
redeem
them
,
and
by
his
heavenly
voice
call
them
,
by
his
Spirit
beget
them
:
yet
Christ
was
a
Lambe
slaine
(
in
respect
of
the
vertue
and
efficacy
of
his
death
)
from
the
beginning
of
the
world
.
And
though
elect
vessels
may
bee
under
the
curse
till
they
bee
called
and
regenerated
from
above
,
yet
are
they
at
one
and
the
same
time
under
grace
,
but
in
divers
respects
:
Under
the
curse
and
wrath
by
nature
;
under
grace
by
the
election
of
God
,
and
the
Covenant
of
their
fathers
.
At
one
and
the
same
time
Apiathar
was
a
man
of
death
by
desert
,
and
yet
by
the
Kings
favour
a
man
of
life
,
1
Kings
2
26.
The
Israelites
at
one
and
the
same
time
were
enemies
for
our
sakes
,
and
yet
beloved
for
their
fathers
sake
,
Rom.
11.28
.
And
in
very
truth
,
if
the
elect
children
of
God
were
not
under
grace
before
Christ
call
them
by
his
heavenly
voyce
,
or
before
hee
regenerate
them
by
his
Spirit
,
how
is
it
possible
they
should
be
effectually
called
,
or
regenerate
at
all
?
For
in
the
feare
of
God
consider
,
is
not
effectuall
calling
a
regeneration
,
a
worke
of
Gods
grace
in
Jesus
Christ
?
is
it
not
a
fruit
of
Gods
electing
and
redeeming
grace
in
Christ
?
The
one
wrought
for
us
before
the
world
was
made
,
the
other
before
wee
were
borne
?
And
can
the
sin
of
our
nature
which
followed
after
,
extinguish
or
make
voyd
the
rich
grace
of
Christ
,
which
was
before
all
causes
in
us
?
If
effectuall
calling
and
regeneration
bee
the
worke
of
Gods
grace
,
then
it
is
the
effect
of
Gods
grace
;
and
if
it
be
the
effect
of
Gods
grace
,
then
the
grace
of
Christ
is
the
efficient
cause
of
our
effectuall
calling
and
regeneration
;
and
the
efficient
cause
is
alwayes
in
nature
,
and
ordinarily
in
time
before
the
effect
.
And
therefore
it
cannot
be
,
but
that
the
elect
children
of
God
are
under
grace
before
their
effectuall
calling
and
regeneration
.
It
is
not
our
Doctrine
therefore
but
yours
,
that
maketh
void
many
heavenly
and
divine
truths
,
even
the
fundamentall
truths
of
the
free
grace
of
Christ
.
which
your
predecessors
in
this
way
did
plainly
discerne
;
and
therefore
they
thought
it
best
not
to
contradict
themselves
as
you
doe
,
To
say
,
that
children
are
not
under
grace
,
nor
under
a
Covenant
of
grace
,
till
they
be
called
by
Christs
heavenly
voice
,
and
by
his
Spirit
begotten
from
above
;
and
yet
withall
to
grant
election
and
regeneration
to
be
of
grace
.
But
they
seeing
plainly
these
could
not
stand
together
,
the
utterly
denyed
election
to
bee
of
grace
,
but
of
foreseen
faith
or
works
.
And
they
denyed
also
regeneration
to
bee
of
Gods
free
grace
,
but
of
mans
free
will
:
which
whether
it
make
void
many
heavenly
and
divine
truths
of
grace
,
let
the
word
and
Spirit
of
grace
judge
.
Well
,
thus
at
large
wee
have
examined
the
exceptions
,
which
you
wil●●
to
be
considered
against
some
of
those
proofes
from
Scripture
,
which
were
alledged
to
confirme
,
that
as
in
the
Old
Testament
God
made
a
Covenant
with
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
so
now
in
the
New
Testament
,
the
faithfull
inherit
the
same
Covenant
with
us
and
our
seed
.
But
you
said
above
,
you
had
heard
sundry
exceptions
against
the
rest
of
the
proofes
from
Scripture
,
which
were
alledged
to
the
same
purpose
.
If
you
please
,
then
let
us
now
consider
of
those
other
exceptions
,
if
there
be
any
more
weight
in
them
then
the
former
.
Zacheus
,
Luke
19.9
.
to
prove
,
that
when
Zacheus
was
converted
,
his
houshold
was
received
unto
a
Covenant
of
grace
and
salvation
:
Because
Christ
said
,
This
day
is
salvation
to
this
house
,
in
as
much
as
hee
also
is
the
son
of
Abraham
;
you
alledged
also
Rom.
11.27
,
28.
to
prove
that
the
Jewes
(
the
posterity
of
Abraham
)
shall
be
converted
to
the
faith
,
out
of
respect
to
the
Covenant
of
their
Fathers
.
And
likewise
you
alledged
the
Apostles
speech
(
in
1
Cor.
7.14
.
)
to
prove
that
the
faith
of
either
Parent
did
bring
their
children
under
the
holinesse
of
the
Covenant
.
And
I
said
no
more
but
truth
;
that
I
have
heard
some
exceptions
against
all
these
proofes
.
For
1.
it
is
not
said
in
the
originall
,
this
day
is
salvation
come
to
this
house
(
though
it
be
so
translated
)
but
this
day
salvation
is
to
this
house
,
which
argueth
,
Christ
spake
not
of
his
commi●g
to
dine
in
Zacheus
his
house
;
but
of
his
salvation
resting
upon
the
family
.
2.
The
reason
which
Christ
giveth
,
why
salvation
is
to
the
house
,
will
not
stand
with
the
glosse
;
for
(
saith
hee
)
salvation
is
to
this
house
,
inasmuch
as
he
also
is
the
son
of
Abraham
.
Now
if
Zacheus
his
becomming
the
son
of
Abraham
,
had
been
the
reason
of
Christ
his
comming
into
his
house
to
dinner
,
it
would
have
argued
that
unlesse
hee
had
been
a
penitent
convert
,
Christ
would
not
have
come
into
his
house
to
dine
.
But
the
same
evangelist
telleth
us
the
contrary
,
That
Christ
went
into
the
House
of
one
of
the
Pharisees
to
dine
with
him
,
whom
yet
hee
sharply
reproveth
,
as
one
whose
inside
was
full
of
ravening
and
wickednes
,
Luke
11.37
,
38
,
39.
But
what
exception
have
you
heard
or
read
against
the
conversion
of
the
Jews
,
out
of
respect
to
the
Covenant
of
their
Fathers
,
according
to
Rom.
11.26
,
27
,
28
?
I
have
read
that
there
be
divers
difficulties
that
will
not
bee
granted
about
the
Jews
comming
in
;
The
Books
in
which
you
read
of
divers
difficulties
about
the
Jews
comming
in
;
they
speake
not
without
cause
,
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
out
of
his
love
to
their
Fathers
,
and
yet
no
man
is
partaker
of
grace
by
the
Covenant
of
his
Fathers
,
till
himselfe
doth
actually
believe
.
For
can
men
actually
believe
till
they
be
converted
?
And
is
not
conversion
it selfe
made
a
fruit
and
effect
of
Gods
love
?
(
his
Covenanted
love
)
unto
their
Fathers
,
and
for
the
Fathers
sake
unto
their
seed
?
Besides
,
this
will
be
another
difficulty
(
and
as
hard
to
be
resolved
as
the
former
)
how
the
Apostle
can
call
the
Jewes
the
naturall
branches
of
the
good
Olive
tree
,
and
make
their
conversion
much
more
kindly
,
and
as
it
were
,
more
easie
and
naturall
,
then
the
conversion
of
the
Gentiles
was
;
and
yet
hold
(
as
your
Bookes
doe
)
that
in
the
New
Testament
,
God
hath
not
respect
in
his
Covenant
to
the
naturall
seed
or
branches
at
all
.
It
is
easily
acknowledged
and
justly
bewayled
by
the
fall
of
our
first
Parents
,
corruption
of
nature
is
alike
in
all
men
:
Conversion
unto
grace
is
as
much
above
and
against
the
corrupt
nature
of
the
Jews
,
as
of
the
Gentiles
.
But
yet
presuppose
a
covenant
of
grace
with
the
believing
Ancestors
of
the
Jews
to
continue
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
to
their
natural
posterity
.
And
then
it
wil
be
easie
to
conceive
,
how
the
Jewes
though
by
corrupt
nature
they
are
as
averse
to
be
graffed
into
Christ
as
the
Gentiles
be
,
yet
by
nature
of
the
Covenant
,
they
are
much
more
easily
graffed
in
then
the
Gentiles
.
More
easily
(
I
say
)
not
in
respect
of
their
owne
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
the
goodnesse
of
their
owne
nature
,
or
naturall
disposition
,
and
propension
to
grace
,
for
they
are
naturally
as
stiffenecked
as
any
people
)
but
in
respect
of
the
nature
and
kinde
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
given
to
their
Ancestors
,
and
to
their
seed
:
According
to
which
,
God
is
more
readily
inclined
to
poure
out
the
Spirit
of
his
grace
upon
the
seed
and
off-spring
of
his
covenanted
people
,
then
upon
strangers
and
aliens
.
But
take
away
the
Covenant
of
grace
from
believing
parents
to
their
children
;
and
truly
this
difficulty
of
the
more
easie
conversion
of
naturall
branches
will
prove
(
as
the
former
did
)
inexplicable
.
Moreover
,
there
will
yet
bee
another
difficulty
(
and
as
hard
as
both
the
former
)
how
to
make
good
sense
of
the
Apostles
Argument
,
whereby
he
proveth
the
conversion
and
holinesse
of
the
Jewes
in
future
ages
,
from
the
holinesse
of
their
godly
Ancestors
in
times
past
:
and
yet
deny
(
as
your
Bookes
doe
)
the
continuance
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
from
believing
Parents
to
their
naturall
children
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
.
The
Apostle
in
Rom.
11.11
.
and
so
forward
,
declaring
the
ends
of
the
rejection
of
the
Jewes
,
hee
made
this
to
be
one
,
the
reconciliation
and
salvation
of
the
Gentiles
,
to
be
a
meanes
to
provoke
the
Jewes
to
emulation
,
that
at
length
they
also
might
come
on
to
salvation
by
the
example
of
the
Gentiles
;
which
he
further
declareth
will
bee
a
great
advantage
to
the
Gentiles
.
And
that
he
proveth
verse
15.
by
an
argument
from
the
lesse
to
the
greater
:
if
the
cas●ing
away
of
the
Jewes
was
the
reconciling
of
the
world
,
what
(
saith
he
)
shall
the
receiving
of
them
bee
but
life
from
the
dead
?
And
that
there
shall
be
such
a
receiving
of
them
;
he
proveth
,
from
the
holinesse
,
which
by
the
institution
of
God
is
derived
from
the
first
fruits
to
the
whole
lumpe
;
and
by
the
Covenant
of
God
from
the
root
to
the
branches
,
ver.
16.
For
(
saith
hee
)
if
the
first
fruits
be
holy
,
so
is
the
whole
lumpe
;
and
if
the
root
be
holy
,
so
are
the
branches
.
The
force
of
this
Argument
dependeth
upon
the
force
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
the
continuance
thereof
from
parents
to
their
naturall
children
,
even
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
,
as
well
as
of
the
Old
.
For
by
the
tenor
of
the
Covenant
God
is
a
God
to
holy
Fathers
,
and
to
their
seed
after
them
.
And
if
God
be
a
God
to
their
seed
,
it
reacheth
forth
a
twofold
blessing
to
their
seed
,
that
all
their
seed
are
holy
by
Gods
adoption
(
Rom.
9.4
.
)
and
so
by
their
appropriation
and
relation
unto
God
,
till
themselves
doe
reject
him
.
Secondly
,
that
some
or
other
of
them
God
will
ever
reserve
(
to
wit
,
all
the
elect
seed
)
to
be
called
effectually
to
the
fellowship
of
his
holinesse
,
and
to
the
holinesse
of
their
holy
Ancestors
.
And
these
blessings
being
presupposed
and
granted
by
Covenant
,
the
Apostles
argument
is
plaine
and
strong
:
That
if
the
Patriarchs
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
be
holy
,
(
who
were
the
first
fruits
,
and
the
root
of
the
house
of
Israel
)
then
,
as
all
the
house
of
Israel
were
an
holy
people
till
they
obstinately
rejected
the
Lord
Jesus
.
So
will
God
reserve
an
elect
seed
of
them
to
be
called
and
received
to
the
fellowship
of
his
holinesse
,
and
the
holinesse
of
their
Ancestors
in
his
due
time
.
But
if
you
abrogate
the
continuance
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
from
holy
Parents
to
their
naturall
children
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
,
it
will
bee
a
difficulty
(
in
my
weake
judgement
)
past
all
resolution
,
how
the
Apostles
Argument
can
be
of
any
force
to
prove
the
conversion
of
the
Jews
unto
holinesse
from
the
holinesse
of
their
Ancestors
,
seeing
their
Ancestors
are
no
first
fruits
and
root
unto
them
,
till
they
come
to
bee
converted
,
and
being
converted
,
doe
believe
as
well
as
their
Ancestors
.
And
whether
ever
they
will
come
to
bee
converted
or
no
,
is
as
uncertain
(
for
all
their
relation
to
their
holy
Ancestors
,
and
for
all
their
Ancestors
Covenant
with
God
)
as
is
the
conversion
of
any
other
Infidels
.
The
Gospel
holdeth
forth
Abraham
for
a
root
of
Jews
and
Gentiles
:
Again
it
is
not
true
,
that
you
say
,
that
the
Jews
were
broken
off
onely
for
their
want
of
actuall
believing
the
Gospel
,
and
for
their
opposing
of
the
same
simply
.
For
Stephen
beareth
witnesse
against
them
,
they
had
resisted
the
holy
Ghost
from
the
days
of
their
Fathers
.
And
that
there
was
none
of
the
Prophets
,
but
whom
their
Fathers
had
persecuted
,
as
themselves
had
also
betrayed
and
murthered
the
Lord
Jesus
,
Acts
7.51
,
52.
But
yet
after
all
this
actuall
unbeliefe
in
Christ
,
and
their
opposition
against
Christ
,
the
Apostles
still
kept
communion
with
them
as
the
Church
and
people
of
God
(
as
hath
been
shewed
above
)
Acts
3.1
.
&
13.15
,
26.
untill
they
did
not
onely
not
believe
,
and
actually
oppose
the
Gospel
,
but
wilfully
and
obstinately
,
malignantly
and
blasphemously
resist
and
persecute
the
cleare
light
of
the
Gospel
,
Act.
13.45
,
46.
And
as
upon
the
Parents
actuall
malicious
persecution
of
the
Gospel
,
not
onely
themselves
,
but
their
children
also
were
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
,
who
had
yet
no
hand
in
their
parents
blasphemy
and
persecution
;
so
the
Gentiles
upon
their
actuall
believing
and
profession
of
the
faith
,
they
were
received
into
Covenant
,
and
by
like
proportion
their
children
also
,
who
did
not
expresse
their
actuall
faith
for
receiving
in
,
●o
more
then
the
children
of
the
Jews
did
expresse
their
actuall
unbeliefe
for
their
casting
off
.
Againe
,
it
is
not
true
that
you
say
,
the
Word
condemneth
none
but
for
actuall
sinne
.
For
by
the
offence
of
one
(
to
wit
,
of
the
first
Adam
)
judgement
or
guilt
came
upon
all
men
to
condemnation
,
Rom.
5.18
.
And
by
that
one
man
sinne
entred
into
the
world
,
and
death
by
sin
,
and
so
death
passed
upon
all
men
,
even
upon
them
that
had
not
sinned
,
after
the
similitude
of
Adams
transpression
,
(
to
wit
,
actually
,
and
of
their
owne
accord
,
as
Adam
did
)
Rom.
5.12
,
14.
And
whereas
you
say
,
the
Word
doth
not
justifie
any
,
but
with
respect
to
actuall
faith
:
There
is
an
ambiguity
in
your
word
,
actuall
faith
;
for
actuall
faith
may
be
meant
,
either
faith
actually
indwelling
in
the
heart
;
or
faith
actually
expressing
it selfe
in
some
acts
or
fruits
of
profession
.
If
you
meane
actuall
faith
in
the
former
sense
,
it
is
true
what
you
say
,
but
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
For
though
God
doth
not
justifie
any
but
with
respect
to
actuall
faith
;
yet
many
are
within
the
Covenant
whom
God
doth
not
justifie
;
else
all
the
house
of
Israel
,
whose
carkasses
fell
in
the
wildernesse
,
and
with
whom
God
was
not
pleased
,
had
been
all
of
them
justified
,
for
they
were
all
in
the
Covenant
.
If
you
mean
actuall
faith
in
the
latter
sense
,
your
speech
is
untrue
.
For
God
doth
justifie
many
,
whose
faith
doth
not
actually
expresse
it selfe
in
fruits
of
profession
.
For
they
who
are
filled
with
the
holy
Ghost
from
the
wombe
(
as
John
Baptist
,
and
Jeremy
were
)
they
are
sanctified
:
And
they
who
are
sanctified
,
are
also
justified
:
And
yet
their
faith
did
not
at
that
age
expresse
it selfe
actually
in
fruits
of
profession
.
Neither
is
it
a
commodious
or
true
speech
,
that
as
every
mans
owne
faith
in
Christ
enrights
him
to
life
;
so
every
mans
owne
faith
in
Christ
enrights
him
to
the
priviledges
of
life
.
For
faith
it selfe
is
the
life
of
the
soule
(
the
just
man
liveth
by
his
faith
:
)
and
is
it
a
convenient
speech
,
yea
,
is
it
not
absurd
to
say
,
faith
enrights
to
it selfe
?
But
what
is
it
that
enrights
to
faith
,
and
and
so
to
life
by
faith
?
Is
it
not
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
by
which
God
hath
promised
to
write
his
Law
(
even
the
Law
of
faith
,
as
well
as
of
all
holinesse
)
in
the
hearts
of
the
chosen
children
of
his
Covenant
?
Jer.
31.33
.
As
for
the
priviledg●●
of
life
,
if
you
meane
justification
,
glorification
,
and
the
saving
mercies
of
the
Covenant
,
your
speech
is
true
,
every
mans
owne
faith
enrights
him
to
them
;
but
that
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
For
many
have
had
right
in
the
Covenant
,
who
yet
have
fallen
short
of
the
sure
mercies
of
the
Covenant
.
But
if
you
meane
by
the
priviledges
of
life
,
the
Covenant
,
and
the
seale
of
it
;
it
is
not
true
,
that
every
mans
faith
,
(
and
none
else
)
enrights
him
to
such
priviledges
of
life
.
For
the
faith
of
Abraham
enrighted
Ismael
,
and
the
saith
of
Isaac
enrighted
Esau
to
the
Covenant
,
and
to
the
seale
thereof
(
Circumcision
)
and
not
their
owne
faith
,
which
they
never
had
.
The
generall
scope
of
the
Apostles
discourse
in
this
11
Chapter
to
the
Romans
,
is
concerning
the
breaking
off
of
the
Jews
,
and
the
occasion
thereof
,
as
also
their
calling
by
the
Gospel
.
Now
the
Jews
were
the
people
of
God
in
a
twofold
consideration
.
First
,
as
a
Nationall
people
descending
from
the
loynes
of
Abraham
by
naturall
generation
after
the
flesh
.
Secondly
,
some
of
them
God
owned
in
a
more
speciall
manner
,
with
reference
to
his
gracious
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
and
established
with
Isaac
,
and
his
seed
after
him
for
an
everlasting
Covenant
:
which
cannot
bee
the
estate
of
the
whole
Nation
;
for
then
all
of
them
had
been
in
a
true
saving
estate
of
grace
;
and
so
all
saved
:
or
else
fallen
from
grace
:
But
in
this
whole
body
there
was
a
Church
consisting
of
an
holy
Assembly
of
Worship
and
Worshippers
,
a
spirituall
state
;
all
the
whole
body
with
these
held
●●mmunion
together
,
because
God
tooke
into
one
body
,
that
whole
Nation
for
his
own
people
.
And
all
these
springing
out
of
Abrahams
loynes
,
did
assume
to
themselves
an
equall
right
and
priviledge
in
Gods
gracious
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
supposing
God
had
bound
his
Covenant
generally
upon
him
and
his
seed
,
in
his
naturall
generation
after
the
flesh
.
But
God
respected
in
the
same
onely
his
chosen
in
Christ
with
whom
hee
confirmed
his
Covenant
with
Isaac
in
reference
to
Christ
,
Gen.
17.
Gal.
3.
Whom
in
Gods
owne
time
he
calleth
to
the
faith
;
and
these
the
Apostle
ever
defends
against
the
generall
rejection
of
that
Nation
.
For
though
such
were
rejected
as
were
not
elected
,
yet
this
made
not
the
promise
of
God
of
none
effect
to
those
who
stood
firme
in
the
Covenant
by
grace
in
Christ
Jesus
,
as
branches
in
their
root
,
which
grace
the
●●st
opposed
,
and
were
cast
off
for
their
unbeliefe
.
And
when
the
fu●nesse
of
Gods
time
is
come
to
call
them
to
beliefe
,
they
shall
be
received
againe
into
their
former
estate
,
as
alive
from
the
dead
,
as
Rom.
11.23
,
24.
Luke
15.24
.
Therefore
the
Apostle
after
hee
hath
proved
the
rejection
of
the
Jews
,
hee
labours
to
make
good
the
faithfulnesse
of
God
in
his
promise
of
grace
,
and
the
effectuall
power
of
the
Gospel
in
the
saving
effects
thereof
,
in
such
as
believe
through
grace
,
though
the
Jewes
in
their
Nationall
respect
were
rejected
,
and
few
of
them
gained
to
the
truth
.
And
hee
giveth
a
reason
of
it
thus
:
Though
the
Jewes
were
all
of
them
under
an
outward
forme
of
profession
of
Gods
name
and
truth
,
yet
there
was
but
a
remnant
whom
hee
approved
of
in
the
Covenant
according
to
his
election
of
grace
,
unto
whom
the
promise
of
life
did
belong
,
Rom.
11.5
,
7.
Now
to
these
Gods
speciall
care
is
to
performe
his
Covenant
,
and
all
that
he
promised
to
them
in
their
father
Abraham
,
with
reference
to
Christ
,
in
whom
,
as
the
root
,
God
established
his
Covenant
for
these
his
holy
branches
,
Rom
,
11.12
.
&
verse
.
26.
Now
the
lump
generally
considered
comprehends
all
,
both
the
first
fruits
and
the
latter
:
For
except
the
first
fruits
were
part
of
the
lumpe
,
it
could
not
give
testimony
that
the
lumpe
was
holy
;
which
lumpe
is
Gods
elect
in
Christ
,
with
reference
to
their
believing
in
him
,
and
so
the
approved
subjects
of
Gods
gracious
Covenant
,
and
heires
aprarent
to
the
Kingdome
of
Christ
,
as
were
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
J●cob
,
believing
,
the
first
fruits
of
that
lumpe
.
They
first
appearing
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
in
a
visible
way
by
faith
,
they
were
holy
.
And
so
that
remnant
which
God
had
still
among
them
,
was
holy
,
with
reference
to
the
same
estate
the
first
fruits
were
in
.
The
same
consideration
is
to
bee
had
of
the
lumpe
,
with
reference
to
that
estate
which
God
in
his
time
shall
call
them
unto
by
his
Gospel
,
and
so
are
holy
also
:
for
this
must
respect
a
visible
holinesse
suitable
to
that
in
the
first
fruits
,
otherwise
it
maketh
nothing
to
the
thing
in
hand
.
Now
a
word
or
two
also
of
the
root
and
branches
;
the
root
here
,
is
that
from
which
the
Jewes
were
cut
off
,
and
the
Gentiles
graffed
in
.
And
that
is
not
onely
believing
Parents
,
(
and
so
the
same
with
the
first
fruits
)
but
Christ
mystically
considered
,
with
reference
to
the
rules
of
Order
,
Ordinances
,
and
Government
laid
downe
in
the
New
Testament
,
for
all
such
to
believe
and
submit
unto
,
whom
God
approveth
true
subjects
of
the
same
.
In
which
respect
Christ
is
called
a
vine
,
a
root
,
and
the
foundation
,
Joh.
15.1
,
Rom.
15.12
.
Rev.
5.5
,
22
,
16.
Isa.
28.16
.
1
Cor.
3.11
.
Ephes.
2.20
.
That
the
root
is
meant
Christ
as
aforesaid
,
appeareth
,
First
,
in
that
he
is
the
root
or
olive
tree
out
of
which
the
Jewes
are
cast
,
and
the
Gentiles
graffed
in
,
Rom.
11.17
,
19
,
23
,
24.
Secondly
,
in
that
the
Apostle
chargeth
the
Gentiles
,
that
if
they
boast
themselves
against
the
Jewes
,
they
beare
not
the
root
,
but
the
root
them
,
vers.
18.
That
is
,
thou
appearest
not
to
have
the
truth
of
grace
,
and
so
not
the
true
nature
of
the
truth
and
life
of
Christ
in
thy
heart
,
but
onely
an
outward
forme
of
the
profession
of
him
,
as
John
15.2
.
Thirdly
,
from
the
consideration
of
that
which
the
Jewes
refused
,
and
the
Gentiles
received
,
which
was
Christ
aforesaid
.
Therefore
it
is
Christ
in
his
mysticall
Order
and
Government
amongst
his
Saints
,
that
is
here
the
root
and
olive
tree
with
his
Spirit
in
his
Ordinances
issuing
forth
sap
,
and
fatnesse
of
life
and
comfort
into
every
believing
heart
,
as
a
branch
of
the
same
.
This
will
yet
more
clearly
appeare
,
if
we
consider
what
was
the
Jews
owne
naturall
root
and
olive
tree
,
whereof
they
were
naturall
branches
onely
by
faith
,
as
the
Apostle
so
declares
them
.
Vers.
20
,
21
,
24.
which
was
union
and
communion
onely
with
God
in
all
his
Divine
Ordinances
and
Worship
,
which
in
the
Old
Testament
was
Mosaicall
and
typicall
,
in
which
respect
the
Jewes
were
the
first
that
ever
God
tooke
in
communion
with
himselfe
in
such
an
holy
way
of
Worship
,
and
therefore
called
the
first
fruits
of
his
love
,
and
naturall
branches
,
which
order
and
manner
of
Worship
(
but
not
the
matter
)
was
changed
at
the
comming
of
Christ
in
the
flesh
,
and
a
new
forme
and
order
set
up
by
him
,
called
the
Gospel
or
New
Testament
;
which
order
the
Jews
opposed
,
and
were
rejected
:
Christ
the
sure
foundation
laid
in
Zion
,
becomming
a
stumbling
stone
,
and
rock
of
offence
to
the
Jews
,
the
Kingdome
of
God
was
taken
from
them
;
that
is
,
they
were
cast
out
of
fellowship
and
communion
with
God
,
in
respect
of
his
Worship
,
for
their
unbeliefe
:
and
the
Gentiles
that
did
submit
to
the
Gospel
,
were
taken
in
by
faith
in
Christ
,
to
bee
his
worshippers
and
heires
both
of
grace
●●d
glory
.
And
when
God
pleaseth
to
call
the
Jews
by
the
Gospel
to
beleeve
in
his
Son
,
and
to
submit
to
him
,
as
he
is
the
Mediator
of
the
New
Testament
,
then
shall
they
be
received
in
againe
into
their
old
fellowship
and
communion
with
God
according
to
the
order
of
Moses
.
And
thus
the
Apostle
proves
their
first
estate
to
be
holy
,
as
the
first
fruits
of
th●t
holy
and
blessed
relation
wherein
they
stood
towards
God
by
faith
.
From
which
they
for
their
unbelief
are
cut
off
;
and
the
Gentiles
by
faith
admitted
in
,
of
meere
grace
,
and
not
to
boast
.
And
yet
there
is
a
remnant
of
them
to
be
called
as
the
Lumpe
,
and
a
second
fruit
,
which
are
also
holy
in
reference
to
the
same
holy
root
as
aforesaid
.
And
as
the
root
is
holy
,
so
shall
these
branches
be
when
they
come
to
bee
graffed
in
againe
to
their
own
root
and
olive
tree
,
as
at
the
first
,
which
is
union
and
communion
with
God
in
his
holy
way
of
Worship
.
And
so
much
of
the
root
or
olive
tree
,
which
must
bee
understood
of
Christ
mystically
considered
;
and
not
of
beleeving
Parents
,
as
aforesaid
.
Now
a
word
of
the
branches
,
which
being
holy
,
are
believers
onely
in
the
Apostles
sense
.
First
,
they
are
branches
onely
,
as
they
subsist
and
grow
in
the
root
or
vine
,
and
so
beare
the
true
nature
of
the
same
,
by
which
they
appear
to
be
holy
by
the
fruits
therof
.
Christ
being
the
root
or
vine
as
aforesaid
,
the
branches
can
no
way
be
said
to
subsist
and
grow
in
him
as
their
root
but
onely
by
faith
,
and
hee
in
them
by
his
Spirit
,
without
which
there
is
no
holinesse
in
the
Apostles
sense
,
who
speaketh
of
such
an
holinesse
as
is
produced
in
the
branch
by
the
holy
root
,
in
which
it
ingrows
,
and
so
partakes
of
the
nature
of
the
root
,
by
vertue
of
union
and
communion
which
it
hath
with
the
same
.
All
which
is
by
faith
,
as
the
word
revealeth
.
Secondly
,
there
is
no
branch
that
is
alive
in
the
vine
,
but
partakes
of
the
sap
and
life
of
the
same
:
by
vertue
of
which
the
branch
,
though
never
so
young
and
small
,
is
discovered
to
be
alive
,
and
inabled
to
bring
forth
(
in
its
season
)
such
fruit
,
as
whereby
the
same
may
be
discerned
.
So
it
is
hereby
the
spirituall
branches
,
they
cannot
properly
bee
called
branches
in
the
Apostles
sense
,
but
as
they
partake
of
the
life
and
grace
of
Christ
,
(
their
true
vine
and
olive
tree
)
by
which
they
appeare
(
at
the
least
)
to
bee
alive
in
him
by
faith
,
and
enabled
by
the
same
to
bring
forth
such
fruits
as
may
discover
them
to
bee
in
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
so
to
be
admitted
●●to
the
priviledges
thereof
;
as
,
John
15.1
,
7.
Nature
it self
teacheth
as
much
;
for
no
man
will
admit
of
dead
plants
to
be
set
in
his
vineyard
,
or
graffed
into
a
stock
,
but
onely
such
as
are
capable
to
comply
with
the
same
in
the
sap
,
and
nourishment
thereof
,
to
the
end
it
may
grow
and
bring
forth
fruit
;
and
so
it
is
with
Christ
,
who
commeth
not
short
of
nature
.
And
therefore
hee
admits
not
of
any
dead
plants
to
be
set
in
his
spirituall
vineyard
,
nor
dead
members
to
bee
joyned
in
his
mysticall
body
,
but
onely
such
as
are
capable
by
faith
to
comply
with
the
head
.
Neither
tooke
he
for
himself
a
compound
body
,
consisting
both
of
living
and
dead
members
,
which
all
are
that
have
not
a
living
principle
of
grace
and
faith
in
him
,
which
unbelievers
have
not
,
no
nor
all
the
Infants
of
believers
,
nor
any
at
all
,
untill
they
are
born
again
of
the
Spirit
,
Joh.
3.5
,
6.
The
Church
of
God
,
which
is
the
mysticall
body
of
Christ
,
is
not
a
mixt
company
,
but
onely
one
substantiall
and
royall
substance
suitable
to
her
head
and
matter
,
by
which
she
was
produced
,
being
the
immortall
seed
of
the
Word
.
And
therefore
one
holy
,
spirituall
,
uniforme
,
compacted
body
,
both
for
nature
and
forme
,
Cant.
6.9
.
Mal.
2.15
.
Ephes.
2.14
.
to
22.
Job
.
4.23
.
All
which
considered
,
proves
the
body
of
Christ
,
or
Church
of
God
under
the
New
Testament
not
to
consist
of
unbelievers
,
nor
of
Infants
,
neither
in
whole
nor
in
part
:
and
so
the
branches
aforesaid
,
not
to
be
understood
of
unbelievers
,
or
infants
,
but
of
believers
onely
.
That
which
you
say
,
This
is
not
rightly
spoken
according
to
the
tenor
of
Scripture
language
.
For
none
of
the
Jews
(
much
lesse
the
whole
Nation
)
was
the
people
of
God
as
they
descended
from
the
loynes
of
Abraham
by
Naturall
generation
according
to
the
flesh
,
but
onely
with
reference
to
his
gracious
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
and
with
his
seed
after
him
.
If
you
set
aside
the
consideration
of
the
Covenant
,
the
seed
of
the
most
holy
of
Gods
Saints
are
children
of
wrath
,
and
not
a
people
of
God
.
Neither
let
this
seem
to
you
of
dangerous
consequence
,
that
if
God
accounted
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jewes
to
bee
his
people
with
reference
to
his
gracious
Covenant
,
then
all
the
whole
Nation
must
have
been
in
a
true
and
saving
estate
of
grace
,
and
so
all
of
them
either
saved
,
or
fallen
from
a
state
of
grace
.
For
this
consequence
will
not
follow
,
as
hath
been
shewed
above
.
But
it
is
true
that
you
say
,
that
God
did
in
a
speciall
manner
owne
Isaac
and
so
all
the
elect
seed
,
with
whom
he
established
his
Covenant
,
not
so
with
Ismael
.
And
yet
it
may
not
be
denyed
,
that
God
did
establish
his
Covenant
to
all
the
seed
of
Isaac
by
Jacob
,
and
that
not
onely
to
the
elect
seed
,
but
to
the
whole
Nation
,
till
the
ten
Tribes
rejected
not
onely
the
house
of
David
,
and
the
Worship
of
God
in
the
Temple
,
(
where
God
had
put
his
name
:
)
but
also
the
Ministery
of
the
Prophets
whom
God
sent
to
reclaime
them
,
as
afterwards
the
two
Tribes
of
Judah
and
Benjamin
(
commonly
called
the
Jewes
)
rejected
Davids
Lord
,
the
Lord
Jesus
and
his
righteousnesse
,
and
the
Ministry
of
the
Apostles
.
But
before
that
rejection
evident
it
is
,
that
in
the
wildernesse
God
did
by
his
gracious
Covenant
even
establish
the
whole
Nationall
posterity
of
Jacob
to
be
a
people
to
himselfe
,
Deut.
29.10
,
11
,
12
,
13.
And
the
Word
used
in
the
originall
for
the
establishing
of
the
whole
Nation
to
become
Gods
people
(
ver.
13.
)
is
the
very
same
which
God
used
when
he
promised
to
establish
his
Covenant
with
Isaac
,
Gen.
17.19
.
And
therefore
it
is
not
true
which
you
say
,
That
in
the
naturall
children
of
Abraham
,
God
onely
respected
his
chosen
in
Christ
,
with
whom
he
confirmed
his
Covenant
with
Isaac
in
reference
to
Christ
.
For
the
words
of
the
Text
doe
plainly
expresse
;
that
God
by
Covenant
did
confirme
or
establish
the
whole
house
of
Iacob
to
be
a
people
to
himselfe
,
according
to
the
Covenant
which
he
had
sworn
to
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Iacob
,
Deut.
29.13
.
whence
it
was
that
(
as
the
Apostle
saith
)
to
the
Israelites
(
one
and
other
)
pertained
the
adoption
,
and
the
glory
,
and
the
Covenants
,
and
the
law
,
and
the
service
of
God
,
and
the
promises
,
&c.
Rom.
9.4
.
where
he
speaketh
of
such
Israelites
,
as
for
whom
he
had
great
heavinesse
,
and
continuall
sorrow
in
his
heart
in
respect
of
their
unbelief
,
vers.
2.
Neverthelesse
,
this
I
willingly
grant
you
;
that
God
had
a
speciall
respect
to
the
elect
and
faithfull
seed
,
as
to
whom
hee
reserved
the
effectuall
application
of
the
spirituall
and
sure
mercies
of
the
Covenant
,
though
the
externall
dispensation
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
seales
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
all
the
Ordinances
of
Gods
worship
was
generally
granted
to
all
the
seed
,
whether
elect
or
non-elect
,
faithfull
or
hypocrites
.
But
to
passe
by
your
generall
discourse
of
the
state
of
the
people
of
the
Jews
in
the
Old
Testament
,
let
us
attend
to
that
which
commeth
nearer
to
the
argument
in
hand
,
to
wit
,
to
the
generall
scope
of
the
Apostles
discourse
in
the
11.
Chapter
of
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
;
which
you
say
is
,
concerning
the
breaking
off
of
the
Jewes
,
and
the
occasion
thereof
,
as
also
their
calling
by
the
Gospel
;
wherein
you
tell
me
,
the
Apostle
ever
defends
the
faithfull
seed
of
the
Jews
against
the
generall
rejection
of
that
Nation
.
And
it
is
true
,
he
doth
so
in
the
former
part
of
the
chapter
from
ver.
1.
to
10.
but
that
is
not
his
generall
scope
throughout
the
whole
Chapter
.
For
his
general
scope
is
to
declare
three
things
touching
the
rejection
of
the
Jews
.
First
,
that
it
is
not
universall
,
ver.
1.
to
10.
Secondly
,
that
it
is
not
unprofitable
,
ver.
11.
Thirdly
,
that
it
is
not
irrecoverable
,
which
he
prophecyeth
,
proveth
,
and
amplifyeth
,
v.
12.
to
the
end
of
the
Chapter
.
For
the
1.
That
their
rejection
was
not
universall
,
he
proveth
,
first
from
his
owne
example
,
who
was
an
Israelite
,
ver.
1.
2.
From
Gods
fore
knowledge
which
is
immutable
,
ver.
2.
3.
From
the
like
reservation
,
which
God
made
of
a
remnant
,
in
the
dayes
of
Elijah
,
ver
.
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
And
this
reserving
of
a
remnant
he
amplifieth
by
the
cause
,
the
election
of
grace
,
ver.
5
,
6.
And
by
the
contrary
,
the
rejection
of
the
rest
,
which
he
proveth
by
the
testimony
of
Isay
7.8
.
also
of
David
,
ver
.
9
,
10.
And
thus
farre
he
defendeth
the
faithfull
seed
of
the
Jewes
against
the
generall
rejection
of
that
Nation
.
2.
He
proveth
that
their
rejection
is
not
unprofitable
,
by
giving
an
instance
,
in
an
unspeakable
blessing
,
which
thereby
redounded
unto
the
Gentiles
,
to
wit
,
the
salvation
of
the
Gentiles
,
ver.
11.
3.
That
their
rejection
is
not
irrecoverable
or
finall
,
but
on
the
contrary
,
that
their
restoring
and
conversion
is
to
be
expected
,
He
proveth
first
,
from
the
great
benefit
which
hee
prophecyeth
shall
thereby
redound
to
the
Gentile-churches
,
which
will
be
our
riches
and
fulnesse
,
and
as
it
were
our
life
from
the
dead
.
And
that
he
proveth
by
an
argument
from
the
lesse
,
ver.
12
,
15.
Secondly
,
he
proveth
their
conversion
is
to
bee
expected
by
the
end
of
his
owne
Ministery
,
which
he
professeth
to
bee
to
save
the
Gentiles
,
for
this
end
,
that
so
hee
may
provoke
the
Jewes
to
the
emulation
of
the
Gentiles
in
receiving
of
the
Gospel
,
and
by
that
meanes
save
some
of
them
,
ver.
13
,
14.
and
thereby
also
bring
on
a
greater
increase
of
light
and
life
to
the
Gentiles
,
ver.
15.
Thirdly
,
he
proveth
their
rejection
is
not
irrecoverable
,
but
rather
that
there
is
certain
ground
of
their
conversion
from
the
holinesse
of
their
Ancestors
,
which
deriveth
in
like
sort
holinesse
to
them
,
as
the
first
fruits
being
holy
,
derive
holinesse
(
by
Gods
institution
)
to
the
whole
lump
;
and
the
root
being
holy
,
deriveth
holinesse
(
by
Gods
Covenant
)
to
the
branches
,
ver.
16.
Whereupon
,
by
the
way
he
inserteth
a
grave
admonition
to
the
Church
of
Rome
,
to
beware
of
boasting
,
either
against
the
Jewes
for
their
Apostasie
,
or
within
themselves
for
their
owne
stability
in
the
saith
.
For
the
Holy
Ghost
did
foresee
that
the
Church
of
Rome
,
(
above
all
the
Churches
of
the
Gentiles
)
would
bee
most
forward
to
boast
of
their
infallibility
and
stability
in
the
faith
,
by
reason
of
the
promise
pretended
to
be
made
to
Peters
Chaire
,
above
all
the
promises
made
to
Hierusalem
of
old
;
which
boasting
,
the
Apostle
represseth
,
1.
By
calling
them
to
consider
their
former
state
,
they
were
branches
of
the
olive
tree
wilde
by
nature
,
vers.
17.
2.
By
putting
them
in
minde
they
received
the
Gospel
from
the
Iewes
,
not
the
Iewes
from
them
,
thou
bearest
not
the
root
,
but
the
root
thee
,
v.
18.3
.
By
the
greater
danger
or
possibility
of
apostasie
and
rejection
of
the
Romans
,
then
of
the
Iewes
:
for
if
God
spared
not
the
naturall
branches
(
to
wit
,
the
Iewes
)
take
heed
lest
he
also
spare
not
thee
,
v.
19.
to
22.
4.
He
both
together
represseth
the
Arrogancy
of
the
Romans
,
and
withall
proveth
that
the
Rejection
of
the
Iewes
is
not
irrecoverable
,
but
their
conversion
more
hopefull
,
then
the
conversion
of
the
Romans
was
,
by
an
Argument
taken
both
from
Gods
power
,
v.
23.
and
also
from
the
naturall
estate
of
the
branches
,
v.
24.
which
maketh
their
conversion
more
easy
,
If
thou
Roman
wert
cut
off
the
Olive
Tree
,
which
is
wild
by
nature
,
and
wert
(
by
a
power
above
nature
)
graffed
contrary
to
nature
into
a
good
Olive
Tree
:
how
much
more
shall
these
which
be
naturall
Branches
,
bee
graffed
into
their
owne
Olive
Tree
?
5.
He
Represseth
the
same
Arrogancy
of
the
Romans
,
and
with
all
proveth
the
conversion
of
the
Iewes
,
by
a
word
of
prophecy
both
by
his
owne
Testimony
,
v.
25.
and
by
the
Testimony
of
the
Prophet
Isay
,
v.
26
,
27.
6
Hee
prosecuteth
the
same
conclusion
of
the
conversion
of
the
Jewes
,
and
demonstration
,
that
their
rejection
is
not
small
,
and
irrecoverable
,
by
an
argument
taken
from
the
immutability
of
Gods
electing
love
to
the
children
of
such
,
whose
fathers
he
hath
given
an
effectuall
calling
unto
,
in
the
fellowship
of
his
Covenant
of
grace
,
v.
28
,
29.
7
He
proveth
and
amplifieth
the
same
by
an
argument
à
Pari
,
from
equalls
,
thus
,
As
you
when
you
were
unbeleivers
have
now
obtained
mercy
through
their
unbeleife
:
so
they
now
not
beleiving
shall
obtaine
mercy
through
your
mercy
,
v.
30
,
31
,
32.
Finally
he
concludeth
all
with
an
holy
and
Affectionate
Admiration
of
the
depth
of
the
riches
of
the
knowledge
and
wisedome
of
God
in
these
his
unsearchable
Iudgements
and
wayes
,
v.
33.
to
36.
I
have
the
more
fully
opened
to
you
the
Analysis
of
this
whole
chapter
,
that
you
may
the
better
discern
both
the
true
scope
of
the
Apostle
,
and
withall
your
owne
fallacy
in
perverting
the
Apostes
scope
to
such
a
meaning
as
will
not
suite
with
his
words
.
For
you
so
carry
the
Apostles
scope
,
as
if
he
wholly
intended
throughout
all
this
discourse
to
defend
a
remnant
of
faithfull
Iewes
against
the
generall
Apostasie
and
rejection
of
that
Nation
.
And
lest
it
might
appeare
that
the
Apostle
had
a
principall
ayme
in
the
latter
halfe
of
the
chapter
,
to
prove
(
as
he
evidently
doth
)
the
conversion
and
restoring
of
the
Nation
from
the
state
of
Apostasie
and
infidelity
unto
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
and
his
Gospell
,
you
would
have
the
Apostle
understood
to
speake
of
the
Iewes
in
a
state
of
faith
and
holinesse
,
and
the
whole
lumpe
of
them
to
be
holy
by
faith
,
as
their
first
fruits
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Iacob
.
And
lest
it
should
be
thought
that
God
will
convert
and
restore
the
Iewes
(
as
some
of
the
Apostles
Arguments
carry
it
)
out
of
respect
to
his
Covenant
with
their
holy
Ancestors
Abraham
,
Isaaoc
,
and
Iacob
,
(
out
of
whom
they
descended
as
branches
out
of
a
root
)
you
would
have
the
root
not
to
be
meant
,
their
holy
Ancestors
,
but
Christ
:
and
themselves
to
be
holy
not
by
vertue
of
any
Covenant
of
God
with
their
Ancestors
,
(
for
that
you
see
would
fetch
in
Infants
,
and
others
of
their
Naturall
seede
within
the
bounds
and
benefit
of
the
Covenant
)
but
by
vertue
of
their
actuall
Union
and
Communion
with
Christ
through
faith
in
his
Name
.
And
lest
it
should
be
humbled
at
(
as
justly
it
might
)
why
the
Apostle
should
spend
so
many
Arguments
to
prove
the
restoring
and
ingraffing
of
the
Iewes
into
Christ
after
●●●y
have
come
to
injoy
Union
and
Communion
with
Christ
,
you
would
have
Christ
to
be
understood
not
personally
(
as
a
Redeemer
and
(
Saviour
but
mystically
as
he
is
the
head
of
the
Church
and
one
body
with
it
,
and
so
their
restoring
to
be
nothing
else
but
receiving
into
Church-fellowship
in
the
Order
,
and
Worship
and
Government
thereof
.
Such
hard
shifts
the
wits
of
men
will
make
to
seek
any
evasions
to
avoid
the
light
and
power
of
the
truth
of
the
word
,
when
it
will
not
stand
with
their
owne
forestalled
imaginations
.
But
let
us
consider
how
you
goe
about
to
make
these
imaginations
of
your
owne
,
to
stand
with
the
Apostles
words
.
The
lumpe
(
say
you
)
generally
considered
comprehendeth
all
both
the
first
fruits
and
the
latter
:
for
except
the
first
fruits
were
part
of
the
lump
,
it
could
not
give
Testimony
that
the
whole
lump
was
holy
,
which
lump
so
considered
is
Gods
elect
in
Christ
with
reference
to
their
beleivin●
on
him
,
and
so
the
apparent
Subjects
of
Gods
gracious
Covenant
,
a
remnant
according
to
Gods
election
with
reference
to
Faith
,
appearing
in
Abrahams
,
Isaacks
,
and
Iacobs
beleeving
,
as
the
first
fruits
of
the
same
.
Where
1.
It
may
be
marvelled
why
you
should
make
the
holy
Ancestors
of
the
Jewes
,
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Iacob
,
the
first
fruits
of
the
Jewes
:
and
yet
not
make
them
in
like
sort
,
the
roote
also
.
For
the
Apostle
putteth
no
difference
between
the
first
fruits
and
the
Roote
,
but
speaketh
of
them
as
two
similies
to
expresse
one
and
the
same
thing
:
If
the
first
fruits
be
holy
,
so
is
the
whole
lumpe
;
If
the
roote
be
holy
,
so
are
the
branches
,
v.
16.
And
as
Christ
is
in
some
other
places
of
Scripture
called
a
Roote
,
so
is
he
also
called
the
first
fruits
,
1
Cor.
15.20
,
23.
And
sure
hee
hath
the
first
preheminence
in
all
relations
of
holinesse
and
grace
unto
his
people
.
But
let
your
interpretation
stand
so
farre
;
let
the
first
fruits
of
the
lumpe
of
the
Jewes
be
the
holy
Ancestors
of
the
Jewes
,
that
is
indeed
the
true
meaning
of
the
Apostle
here
;
onely
consider
if
you
can
see
any
cause
why
you
should
not
as
well
take
them
in
like
sort
for
the
root
also
.
2.
Why
should
you
make
the
first
fruits
part
of
the
lump
,
more
then
the
root
part
of
the
branches
?
As
the
first
fruits
bee
to
the
lumpe
;
so
is
the
root
to
the
branches
.
The
root
is
not
part
of
the
branches
,
though
they
be
both
part
of
the
tree
:
No
more
are
the
first
fruits
part
of
the
lumpe
,
though
they
bee
both
parts
of
the
fruits
of
the
field
:
The
first
fruits
are
ripe
before
the
rest
of
the
fruits
of
the
field
:
and
being
first
reaped
and
presenced
〈◊〉
the
Lord
,
and
accepted
as
holy
unto
him
,
they
make
the
whole
lumpe
left
in
the
field
holy
also
.
Obj●ct
.
But
(
say
you
)
except
the
first
fruits
were
par●
of
the
lumpe
,
they
could
not
give
testimony
that
the
lumpe
was
holy
.
Answ.
Both
parts
of
this
reason
are
unsound
;
for
neither
doe
the
first
fruits
give
testimony
that
the
lumpe
is
holy
;
nor
is
it
necessary
,
that
that
which
giveth
testimony
of
the
holinesse
of
another
,
should
be
part
of
the
same
.
Paul
gave
testimony
of
the
holinesse
of
such
children
,
of
whom
either
Parent
was
holy
,
yet
he
was
no
part
of
them
himself
.
Besides
,
the
first
fruits
did
not
give
testimony
that
the
lumpe
was
holy
,
(
their
hallowing
of
the
lumpe
was
not
by
way
of
testimony
,
or
as
one
part
of
an
Homogeneall
body
giveth
testimony
of
the
whole
,
as
one
cup
of
good
wine
out
of
a
vessell
giveth
testimony
,
that
all
the
wine
in
that
vessell
is
good
)
but
by
way
of
a
morall
instrumentall
efficient
cause
:
God
accepting
the
first
fruits
of
the
field
,
given
to
himselfe
as
holy
;
he
therefore
alloweth
to
the
owner
an
holy
use
of
the
whole
lumpe
of
the
fruits
of
his
field
.
3.
Take
that
for
granted
(
which
is
in
it selfe
not
much
materiall
)
that
the
first
fruits
were
part
of
the
lumpe
:
what
will
follow
thereupon
?
Why
then
(
saith
the
Author
)
as
those
first
fruits
of
that
blessed
crop
in
Gods
holy
Covenant
were
holy
by
faith
,
and
so
appeared
:
so
is
the
lumpe
out
of
which
these
first
fruits
appeared
by
faith
,
as
part
of
the
same
,
holy
also
in
the
same
consideration
.
For
this
must
respect
a
visible
holinesse
suitable
to
that
of
the
first
fruits
:
otherwise
it
maketh
nothing
to
the
thing
in
hand
.
But
how
can
this
collection
arise
out
of
this
comparison
of
the
first
fruits
?
The
first
fruits
of
the
field
were
visibly
presented
to
the
Lord
in
his
Sanctuary
,
and
being
visibly
accepted
,
appeared
visibly
to
be
holy
.
But
as
for
the
lumpe
of
the
fruits
of
the
field
,
there
was
no
visible
appearance
,
either
of
their
presentation
in
the
Sanctuary
before
the
Lord
,
or
of
the
Lords
visible
acceptance
of
them
,
but
onely
in
their
first
fruits
.
And
so
indeed
it
is
here
,
the
first
fruits
of
Gods
holy
Covenant
,
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
,
being
holy
by
faith
,
and
accepted
of
God
as
holy
to
himselfe
,
they
visibly
appeared
so
to
be
.
And
through
their
holinesse
,
and
Gods
acceptance
of
them
,
and
of
their
seed
in
his
holy
Covenant
,
the
lumpe
of
their
posterity
from
their
infancy
upward
,
were
holy
also
,
though
they
did
not
appeare
in
visible
holinesse
,
till
in
fulnesse
of
time
they
came
to
be
presented
before
the
Lord
in
his
Temple
.
And
neither
then
did
they
appeare
visibly
holy
by
their
owne
faith
,
but
by
the
faith
of
their
Parents
presenting
them
to
the
Lord
.
But
(
say
you
)
if
there
be
not
a
visible
holinesse
in
the
lumpe
suitable
to
that
in
the
first
fruits
,
it
maketh
nothing
for
the
thing
in
hand
.
I
willingly
grant
you
that
the
Apostles
intendment
here
,
is
to
prove
the
conversion
of
the
Jewes
not
onely
to
a
relative
holiness
suitable
to
the
holinesse
that
was
in
the
first
fruits
their
Ancestors
of
old
,
which
was
visible
in
their
Fathers
,
and
credible
in
their
Infants
by
vertue
of
the
Covenant
,
and
visible
seale
of
it
.
But
herein
you
commit
a
double
prevarication
in
your
plea
:
1.
That
you
will
not
allow
such
an
holinesse
to
be
found
in
the
Jewes
after
they
shall
come
to
be
converted
,
as
is
suitable
unto
the
holinesse
of
their
Ancestors
.
For
their
holinesse
reached
from
parents
to
their
infant
seed
.
But
you
would
wholly
exclude
their
infants
in
the
New
Testament
.
Againe
,
whereas
the
Apostle
a●gueth
the
conversion
of
the
Jewes
unto
holinesse
from
the
holy
Covenant
of
their
Ancestors
,
and
so
would
make
the
holinesse
of
their
Ancestors
a
meanes
to
derive
holinesse
to
them
,
you
would
utterly
make
void
the
force
of
that
argument
.
For
the
Apostles
argument
proceedeth
from
the
vertue
of
the
first
fruits
by
Gods
institution
to
sanctifie
the
whole
lumpe
;
but
you
will
admit
no
such
vertue
or
efficacy
by
Gods
institution
in
the
holy
Covenant
of
their
Ancestors
,
as
to
derive
holinesse
to
their
posterity
,
which
is
to
make
the
Apostles
argument
and
comparison
of
none
effect
.
4.
This
let
me
further
adde
,
that
whereas
you
in
this
discourse
of
the
first
fruits
and
lump
speake
of
the
Jewes
to
bee
converted
,
as
but
a
remnant
:
The
Apostle
declareth
himselfe
to
the
contrary
,
that
then
all
Israel
shall
be
saved
,
Rom.
11.26
.
Yea
,
not
onely
a
body
of
the
Jewes
,
but
of
the
ten
Tribes
also
,
all
Israel
,
according
to
what
Ezekiel
had
prophecyed
of
old
,
Ezek.
37.16
.
to
22.
And
indeed
,
when
the
Apostle
calleth
the
conversion
of
Israel
a
mystery
,
(
Rom.
11.25
.
)
he
giveth
us
to
expect
a
more
generall
conversion
of
them
,
then
of
a
remnant
.
The
Apostle
in
like
sort
called
the
conversion
of
the
Gentiles
a
mystery
,
Ephes.
3.1
,
2
,
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
And
a
mystery
(
and
hidden
secret
)
indeed
it
was
to
the
Jews
of
old
;
and
yet
it
was
never
a
mystery
to
them
the
conversion
of
a
remnant
,
or
of
a
sprinkling
of
the
Gentiles
,
but
the
comming
in
of
such
a
great
body
and
multitude
of
the
Gentiles
,
that
was
indeed
a
mystery
to
them
.
And
so
is
the
conversion
of
the
Jewes
a
mystery
now
unto
the
Gentiles
,
not
the
conversion
of
a
remnant
,
but
of
so
great
a
multitude
and
body
of
the
house
of
Israel
,
as
have
been
scattered
like
dry
dead
bones
(
Ezek.
37.
)
that
indeed
seemeth
to
be
a
mystery
like
the
resurrection
from
the
dead
,
whereto
the
Apostle
resembleth
it
.
To
proceed
to
the
other
comparison
of
the
Apostle
which
was
taken
from
the
holinesse
of
the
root
conveying
holinesse
to
the
branches
,
to
prove
the
conversion
of
the
Jewes
to
holinesse
from
the
holinesse
of
their
Ancestors
.
Whereto
your
Author
answereth
.
By
root
is
meant
not
onely
believing
Parents
,
and
so
the
same
with
first
fruits
,
but
Christ
mystically
considered
with
reference
to
rules
of
Order
,
Ordinances
,
and
Government
of
his
Church
laid
downe
in
the
New
Testament
.
In
which
respect
he
is
called
a
vine
,
a
root
,
and
foundation
.
Answ.
I
know
no
reason
why
the
root
in
this
Text
should
bee
meant
not
onely
their
believing
parents
(
their
holy
Ancestors
)
but
Christ
also
,
as
hath
been
touched
afore
.
Onely
it
seemeth
you
were
afraid
,
that
if
believing
Parents
,
or
holy
Ancestors
were
brought
in
,
as
any
means
of
the
conversion
of
their
posterity
unto
faith
and
holinesse
,
it
would
establish
the
vertue
and
continuance
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
from
Parents
to
children
,
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
;
the
which
you
carefully
shun
.
And
therefore
though
you
cannot
but
see
,
that
the
first
fruits
,
and
the
root
are
used
and
applyed
in
one
and
the
same
sense
,
and
to
the
same
purpose
,
and
so
are
forced
to
confess
,
that
as
by
the
first
fruits
,
so
by
the
root
is
meant
believing
Parents
;
yet
you
will
have
the
root
to
be
meant
,
not
onely
believing
Parents
,
but
Christ
:
and
indeed
you
bring
such
arguments
for
Christ
,
as
doe
seeme
to
restrain
it
wholly
to
Christ
,
and
(
in
a
manner
)
to
exclude
believing
Parents
.
But
all
in
vaine
;
for
neither
will
your
Arguments
evince
,
Christ
to
be
here
expresly
intended
by
the
Apostle
,
(
but
onely
by
consequence
)
neither
will
we
deny
that
Christ
,
and
fellowship
with
Christ
is
intended
in
their
fellowship
with
the
root
,
though
by
the
root
bee
here
expresly
meant
their
holy
Ancestors
.
It
is
true
,
Christ
is
called
in
Scripture
phrase
,
the
vine
,
the
root
,
the
foundation
,
and
so
indeed
he
is
primarily
and
eminently
.
But
neverthelesse
,
the
Church
also
is
called
a
vine
,
Esa.
5.1
.
Psal.
80
,
8.
And
Abraham
called
a
root
,
Mat.
3.10
.
and
the
rock
out
of
which
the
house
of
Israel
was
hewed
,
Esa.
51.1
.
And
the
Apostles
are
called
foundations
,
Ephes.
2.20
.
Rev.
21.14
.
yea
,
every
righteous
man
is
called
an
everlasting
foundation
,
Prov.
10.25
.
And
therefore
it
is
not
the
name
of
a
root
,
that
will
cast
the
root
to
be
here
meant
of
Christ
,
and
not
of
Abraham
.
"
Yes
,
(
say
you
)
for
first
,
Christ
is
here
the
root
or
olive
tree
,
ou●
of
which
the
Jews
are
cast
,
and
the
Gentiles
graffed
in
,
Rom.
11.17
,
19
,
23
,
24.
Answ.
The
Church
is
called
an
olive
tree
(
as
well
as
a
vine
)
yea
and
the
branches
of
it
are
said
to
be
broken
off
,
Jer.
11.16
.
And
when
the
Axe
is
said
by
John
Baptist
to
bee
laid
to
the
root
of
the
tree●
,
Mat.
3.10
.
It
is
his
meaning
to
threaten
the
Jewes
,
that
God
is
about
to
cut
them
off
from
the
Covenant
of
their
father
Abraham
,
of
whom
they
were
the
off-spring
and
the
branches
.
And
thereby
he
confirmeth
his
admonition
to
them
in
the
former
verse
,
(
vers.
9.
)
thinke
not
(
saith
hee
)
to
say
with
your selves
,
wee
have
Abraham
to
our
Father
,
for
God
is
able
even
of
these
stones
(
and
so
of
stony
hearted
Gentiles
)
to
raise
up
children
unto
Abraham
.
And
lest
they
might
object
,
that
themselves
were
the
children
of
Abraham
,
rooted
in
him
not
onely
by
naturall
generation
,
but
by
an
everlasting
Covenant
,
he
strengtheneth
his
admonition
with
this
threatening
,
verse
10.
Now
is
the
Axe
laid
to
the
root
of
the
trees
,
(
to
wit
,
to
cut
off
barren
branches
from
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
:
)
every
tree
therefore
that
bringeth
not
forth
good
fruit
,
is
hewen
downe
,
and
cast
into
the
fire
.
And
therefore
it
is
proper
enough
(
according
to
Scripture
phrase
)
to
interpret
the
root
to
be
meant
of
Abraham
;
and
surely
as
fitly
in
this
place
of
Paul
,
as
in
that
of
Matthew
;
but
whether
more
proper
,
wee
shall
see
anon
.
Secondly
,
say
you
,
it
appeareth
,
Christ
here
to
bee
meant
the
root
,
in
that
the
Apostle
chargeth
the
Gentiles
,
that
if
they
boast
in
themselves
against
the
Jewes
;
Thou
bearest
not
the
root
,
but
the
root
thee
,
v.
18.
that
is
,
say
you
,
thou
appearest
not
to
have
the
truth
of
grace
,
and
so
not
to
have
the
true
nature
of
the
root
and
life
of
Christ
in
thy
heart
,
but
onely
an
outward
form
of
th●●●ofession
of
him
,
Job
.
15.2
.
Answ.
This
interpretation
the
words
of
the
Text
will
not
bear
;
for
if
this
were
the
meaning
of
the
Apostles
words
,
Thou
bearest
not
the
root
,
but
the
root
thee
;
that
is
,
thou
appearest
not
to
have
the
truth
of
grace
,
and
so
not
the
true
nature
of
the
root
,
and
life
of
Christ
in
thine
heart
:
Then
it
will
follow
,
that
if
the
Gentiles
did
not
boast
,
but
had
indeed
the
truth
of
grace
,
and
life
of
Christ
in
their
hearts
,
then
it
might
be
said
to
the
Gentile
,
the
root
beareth
not
thee
,
but
thou
bearest
the
root
:
which
is
indeed
contrary
to
the
truth
of
Religion
,
yea
,
to
the
principles
of
grace
.
The
absurdity
of
this
interpretation
may
give
good
light
to
shew
,
that
indeed
Christ
is
not
properly
meant
to
bee
the
root
here
spoken
of
.
For
if
Christ
were
here
intended
to
bee
the
Root
,
the
Apostle
would
not
apply
this
as
a
check
to
the
arrogancy
of
the
boasting
Gentile
,
the
root
beareth
thee
.
For
it
is
no
check
,
but
a
comfort
,
yea
,
the
greatest
comfort
and
safety
of
a
true
and
humble
believer
,
not
so
much
that
he
beareth
Christ
,
as
that
Christ
beareth
him
.
But
take
the
Apostle
to
meane
Abraham
to
be
the
root
of
the
Jewes
(
as
the
context
carryeth
it
)
and
then
his
admonition
is
grave
and
weighty
against
the
arrogancy
of
the
boasting
Gentile
.
If
some
of
the
branches
be
broken
off
,
and
thou
being
a
wilde
olive
tree
,
wer
't
graffed
in
among
them
(
that
is
,
among
the
Jewes
)
boast
not
thy self
against
the
branches
.
But
if
thou
boast
,
(
take
this
for
a
check
)
thou
bearest
not
the
root
.
Thou
art
not
the
stock
or
root
into
which
they
were
engraffed
,
but
theirs
is
the
root
,
into
which
thou
art
engraffed
.
For
salvation
is
of
the
Jews
(
John
4.22
.
)
thou
receivedst
it
from
them
,
not
they
from
thee
:
Hierusalem
as
a
mother
bare
Rome
,
not
Rome
,
Hierusalem
.
Abraham
as
a
father
by
his
faith
,
begot
thee
;
as
a
root
by
his
Covenant
,
he
beareth
thee
,
not
thou
him
,
nor
the
Church
of
his
Covenant
.
But
thirdly
,
you
argue
from
the
consideration
of
that
which
the
Jewes
refused
,
and
the
Gentiles
received
,
that
it
is
Christ
in
his
mysticall
Order
and
Government
amongst
his
Saints
,
that
is
here
the
root
and
olive
tree
,
who
by
h●●
Spirit
in
his
Ordinances
issueth
forth
sap
and
fatnesse
of
life
and
comfort
into
every
very
believing
heart
,
as
a
branch
of
the
same
.
Answ.
The
weaknesse
and
fallacy
of
this
Argument
will
easily
appeare
,
if
you
cast
it
into
the
forme
of
an
argument
,
thus
it
proceedeth
.
That
which
the
Jews
refused
,
and
the
Gentiles
received
,
that
is
the
root
here
spoken
of
,
to
wit
,
that
root
which
being
holy
,
the
branches
also
are
so
too
.
But
Christ
mystically
considered
,
is
that
which
the
Jewes
refused
,
and
the
Gentiles
received
.
And
therefore
Christ
mystically
considered
,
is
the
root
here
spoken
of
,
which
being
holy
,
the
branches
are
also
so
too
.
But
here
the
Major
or
former
Proposition
is
justly
denyed
.
For
though
Christ
himselfe
be
a
root
which
the
Jewes
refused
,
and
the
Gentiles
received
,
yet
hee
is
not
that
root
here
intended
,
whose
holinesse
inferreth
and
concludeth
the
conversion
of
the
Jewes
to
holinesse
.
But
the
Apostle
here
speaketh
of
such
a
root
,
who
being
holy
,
argueth
that
his
branches
,
(
though
now
broken
off
)
will
come
on
againe
to
holinesse
;
which
cannot
bee
argned
from
the
holinesse
of
Christ
.
For
take
Christ
for
the
root
,
and
will
the
Apostles
Argument
then
follow
;
If
Christ
be
holy
,
then
the
Jews
(
though
now
broken
off
)
are
,
or
shall
be
holy
also
?
Is
there
any
soundnesse
in
such
an
inference
?
If
you
say
,
Nay
,
but
all
that
you
would
infer
from
thence
,
is
this
,
that
if
Christ
the
root
bee
holy
,
then
the
Jewes
,
when
they
shall
come
to
bee
graffed
into
him
againe
,
they
will
be
also
holy
:
That
is
true
indeed
,
and
needs
no
proof
.
But
that
is
not
the
Apostles
scope
,
to
shew
that
they
shall
be
holy
,
when
they
are
engraffed
into
Christ
,
but
to
prove
that
they
shall
be
engraffed
into
Christ
,
and
become
holy
because
their
root
is
holy
▪
which
will
indeed
strongly
follow
,
by
vertue
of
the
Covenant
with
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
if
Abraham
bee
here
taken
for
the
root
,
but
not
so
,
if
Christ
:
What
then
will
you
say
?
is
Abraham
better
then
Christ
?
Not
so
neither
;
but
Christ
doth
more
delight
to
communicate
his
grace
,
rather
in
the
way
of
the
Covenant
of
his
grace
,
then
out
of
it
.
Neither
will
it
appeare
(
though
you
say
it
will
)
that
Christ
is
here
meant
by
the
Apostle
to
be
the
root
of
the
Jews
,
if
we
consider
what
was
the
Jews
own
naturall
root
and
olive
tree
,
whereof
they
were
naturall
branches
onely
by
faith
;
as
the
Apostle
so
declareth
them
,
〈◊〉
20
,
21
,
24.
which
was
union
and
communion
with
God
in
all
his
Divine
Ordinances
of
Worship
,
the
manner
and
forme
whereof
was
Mosaicall
and
typicall
in
the
Old
Testament
,
which
is
now
changed
in
the
New
,
but
not
the
matter
,
&c.
as
above
.
Answ.
It
is
utterly
untrue
which
you
say
,
that
the
Jews
were
the
naturall
branches
of
their
owne
naturall
root
,
onely
by
faith
,
and
that
the
Apostle
so
declareth
them
,
v.
20
,
21
,
22.
For
it
is
evident
the
Apostle
expressely
declareth
the
naturall
branches
not
to
be
spared
of
God
,
but
to
be
broken
off
for
their
unbeliefe
,
v.
19
,
20
,
21.
And
therefore
unbeliefe
was
found
in
the
naturall
branches
;
and
then
they
were
not
naturall
branches
onely
by
faith
;
for
then
no
naturall
branches
could
have
been
broken
off
.
Neither
could
the
naturall
branches
bee
said
to
bee
graffed
in
againe
,
much
more
readily
then
the
Romans
,
v.
24.
for
the
Romans
standing
by
faith
,
had
equally
as
ready
accesse
unto
union
and
communion
with
Christ
in
his
Ordinances
,
which
you
take
to
bee
the
root
,
as
the
Jewes
when
they
shall
bee
converted
to
the
faith
.
It
is
readily
granted
,
and
needed
no
proofe
,
that
the
Jewes
of
old
enjoyed
union
and
communion
with
Christ
in
the
Mosaicall
Ordinances
of
the
Old
Testament
(
whereof
some
were
typicall
,
and
some
morall
.
)
And
it
is
a
confessed
truth
also
,
that
God
changed
the
Order
and
manner
of
that
Worship
(
but
not
the
matter
)
in
the
New
Testament
.
But
that
the
Jewes
were
broken
off
for
their
opposing
and
rejecting
that
new
order
,
is
not
safely
spoken
.
For
they
were
broken
off
for
resisting
and
opposing
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
in
Christ
Iesus
.
Rom.
10.3
.
which
was
no
new
order
brought
in
by
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
,
but
was
the
principall
matter
of
all
their
Typicall
and
Mosaicall
Worship
,
which
your selfe
confesse
was
not
changed
.
Besides
it
cannot
be
denyed
,
That
the
faithfull
and
their
seede
was
the
subject
matter
of
the
Church
,
and
so
part
of
the
Order
of
the
Worship
in
the
Old
Testament
.
And
this
was
neither
Mosaicall
nor
Typicall
,
but
before
both
.
And
if
the
matter
of
the
worship
bee
not
changed
(
though
the
manner
be
)
then
as
the
faithfull
and
their
(
seede
whether
Iews
or
proselyte
Gentiles
)
were
the
subject
matter
of
the
Church
,
and
a
Morall
part
of
church
order
of
old
,
then
are
they
so
still
,
and
neither
of
them
to
be
excluded
.
It
was
wholly
needlesse
and
impertinent
to
prove
that
the
Iews
were
cast
off
from
Communion
with
God
in
his
worship
for
their
unbeleife
,
and
that
the
Gentiles
who
submitted
to
the
Gospell
of
Iesus
Christ
are
taken
in
,
and
doe
stand
in
relation
to
God
by
Faith
in
him
:
And
that
the
Iews
when
God
shall
please
to
call
them
by
the
Gospell
to
beleive
in
his
Son
,
they
shall
be
received
in
againe
to
fellowship
and
Communion
,
with
God
in
his
service
as
worship
,
as
of
old
.
But
take
all
this
for
granted
,
and
yet
it
reacheth
not
neare
the
Apostles
Words
and
discourse
in
this
chapter
who
proveth
that
the
Iews
shall
be
called
in
againe
to
Faith
and
Holinesse
,
by
reason
of
their
relation
as
branches
to
their
root
.
Which
though
they
be
broken
off
from
it
by
their
enmity
against
the
the
Gospell
;
yet
they
still
belong
to
it
,
according
to
the
Election
of
God
,
and
according
to
his
love
which
by
his
everlasting
Covenant
he
bare
and
promised
to
beare
to
their
Fathers
and
to
their
seed
after
them
throughout
all
Generations
.
To
proceede
then
.
As
your
discourse
of
the
roote
hath
not
hitherto
proved
Christ
to
be
the
roote
:
So
neither
will
your
discourse
of
the
Branches
prove
either
Christ
to
be
the
root
,
or
the
Branches
,
to
be
such
,
and
can
be
no
other
then
such
as
doe
subsist
and
grow
in
Christ
onely
by
Faith
.
For
1.
It
hath
beene
(
as
I
conceive
)
cleared
already
,
that
Christ
is
not
the
roote
here
meant
by
the
Apostle
:
2.
If
the
branches
be
such
,
and
can
be
no
other
but
such
,
as
doe
subsist
and
grow
in
Christ
onely
by
Faith
,
how
then
came
it
to
passe
,
that
the
branches
were
broken
off
?
can
such
as
doe
subsist
in
Christ
(
as
in
a
roote
)
onely
by
Faith
,
can
they
be
broken
off
?
What
is
then
become
of
Christs
prayer
for
all
that
doe
,
or
shall
beleive
on
him
?
Joh.
17.20
,
21
,
22
,
23
,
24.
But
(
say
you
)
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
such
branches
as
are
in
him
by
faith
and
he
in
them
by
his
spirit
,
without
which
(
Faith
and
Spirit
)
there
is
no
holinesse
in
the
Apostles
sense
.
Answer
.
It
is
true
,
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
such
an
Holinesse
in
the
branches
(
v.
16.
)
as
proceedeth
from
the
Spirit
and
Faith
:
But
that
is
an
holynesse
which
is
not
found
in
all
Branches
(
for
then
no
branches
should
be
cut
off
,
but
which
shall
be
found
in
the
Iews
at
their
conversion
,
as
the
Apostle
proveth
by
reason
of
their
relation
to
Abraham
as
their
root
,
through
the
grace
of
his
Covenant
.
But
will
not
prove
,
that
there
is
no
way
for
the
branches
to
subsist
in
the
root
,
but
onely
by
Faith
and
Spirit
.
For
,
these
branches
who
shall
be
converted
to
holinesse
,
were
in
Abraham
before
by
Naturall
Generation
,
and
did
pertaine
to
Abrahams
Covenant
by
the
grace
of
Election
:
by
vertue
of
both
which
(
both
of
the
Election
of
grace
,
and
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
)
they
shall
come
at
last
to
be
converted
to
the
fellowship
of
the
Spirit
,
and
of
the
faith
of
Abraham
.
But
2.
Say
you
,
There
is
no
branch
that
is
alive
in
Christ
,
but
partaketh
of
the
sap
and
life
of
Christ
,
and
bringeth
forth
such
fruit
,
be
they
never
so
young
and
small
,
whereby
the
same
may
bee
discerned
.
So
it
is
here
by
these
spirituall
branches
,
they
cannot
properly
bee
called
branches
in
the
Apostles
sense
but
as
they
partake
of
the
life
and
Grace
of
Christ
.
Answer
.
It
is
true
,
There
is
no
branch
alive
in
Christ
,
but
partakes
of
the
Sap
and
Life
of
Christ
.
But
it
is
not
true
,
that
every
such
living
branch
in
Christ
(
bee
it
never
so
young
and
small
)
bringeth
forth
such
fruits
whereby
the
same
may
be
discerned
.
For
what
discernible
fruit
of
the
life
of
Christ
,
did
Jeremy
shew
forth
,
when
he
was
sanctified
from
his
mothers
wombe
?
Jer.
1.5
.
Yea
,
Christ
himselfe
who
was
full
of
the
spirit
of
life
from
his
Mothers
wombe
,
what
discernible
fruits
thereof
did
hee
bring
forth
?
Doth
the
Gospell
and
story
of
his
life
expresse
any
?
or
can
your selfe
imagine
any
?
Neither
is
it
true
that
you
say
,
that
the
spirituall
branches
cannot
properly
be
called
branches
in
the
Apostles
sense
,
but
as
they
partake
of
the
life
and
grace
of
Christ
.
For
the
Apostle
doth
not
call
them
spirituall
Branches
,
nor
are
they
all
such
,
unlesse
by
spirituall
,
you
mean
Metaphoricall
.
But
he
expresly
calleth
them
naturall
branches
,
and
such
as
God
did
not
spare
,
but
cut
them
off
,
v.
21.
And
therefore
they
did
not
all
of
them
partake
of
the
grace
and
life
of
Christ
,
but
some
of
them
were
indeed
dead
and
fruitlesse
.
But
(
say
you
)
nature
it selfe
teacheth
,
no
man
will
admit
of
dead
plants
to
be
set
in
his
vineyard
,
or
Graffed
into
a
stocke
,
&c.
And
so
it
is
with
Christ
,
who
cometh
not
short
of
Nature
:
And
th
refore
he
admits
not
of
any
dead
plants
to
be
set
in
his
Vineyard
,
nor
dead
members
to
joyned
in
his
mysticall
Body
.
Neither
took
he
to
himself
a
compounded
body
,
consisting
of
living
and
dead
members
:
And
all
unbeleivers
be
dead
,
and
all
the
infants
of
beleevers
,
till
they
be
borne
again
of
the
Spirit
,
Iohn
.
3.5.6
.
Neither
is
the
Church
of
God
(
which
is
the
mysticall
body
of
Christ
)
a
mixt
company
,
but
suitable
to
her
head
,
&
to
the
matter
of
which
he
was
produced
,
the
immortall
seed
of
the
word
,
one
holy
spirituall
body
.
Cant.
6.9
.
Mal.
2.15.22
.
Ephes.
2.14
.
to
Ioh.
4.23
.
All
which
proveth
the
Church
of
God
under
the
New
Testament
,
not
to
consist
of
unbeleevers
neither
in
whole
,
nor
in
part
.
Answer
.
Nature
it self
sheweth
that
in
a
Vine
many
dead
branches
are
found
:
and
many
that
have
some
kinde
of
life
,
and
yet
are
not
fruitfull
:
And
therefore
the
husbandman
in
time
cutteth
them
off
:
and
so
is
it
in
the
spirituall
Vine
;
and
therefore
such
dead
and
fruitlesse
branches
,
the
Father
(
who
is
the
Husbandman
)
cutteth
them
off
,
Ioh.
15.1
,
2.
though
for
a
time
he
may
spare
them
,
as
he
did
the
Barren
Figge-tree
,
foure
yeares
,
Luke
,
13.
7
,
8
,
9.
And
though
no
man
will
admit
of
dead
plants
to
be
se●
in
his
Vineyard
,
or
graffed
into
a
stock
:
yet
many
plants
set
and
graffed
may
prove
dead
;
Men
indeed
would
not
willingly
admit
dead
plants
to
be
set
,
or
graffed
,
because
they
know
not
what
to
do
with
them
when
they
are
dead
.
But
if
dead
plants
being
set
or
graffed
would
grow
either
to
be
fruitfull
,
and
if
not
fruitfull
,
yet
to
be
good
fire-wood
,
it
would
be
no
bad
husbndry
to
set
or
graff
dead
plants
.
And
so
is
it
here
,
God
thinks
it
no
bad
husbandry
in
him
,
to
admit
dead
plants
to
bee
set
and
grow
in
his
Vineyard
,
and
if
they
grow
fruitfull
,
well
,
if
not
,
to
tolerate
them
there
,
till
they
grow
up
to
fulfill
their
iniquity
(
as
hee
did
the
Iews
,
Mat.
23.32
.
)
because
then
he
knows
how
to
illustrate
the
glory
of
his
justice
in
casting
them
into
the
fire
of
Hell
,
John
15.6
.
Mat.
3.10
.
It
is
true
,
which
you
say
,
Christ
cometh
not
short
of
Nature
:
but
in
this
,
he
exceedeth
Nature
.
Nature
cannot
make
a
dead
plant
set
in
a
Vineyard
,
or
graffed
in
a
stock
,
to
grow
:
But
Christ
can
make
a
dead
plant
set
in
his
Church
to
grow
living
and
fruitful
.
For
else
how
came
John
Baptists
Ministry
to
turn
the
hearts
of
so
many
Publicans
,
souldiers
,
and
other
people
to
bring
forth
fruits
meete
for
repentance
?
Luke
3.10
.
to
14.
But
otherwise
,
if
Christ
make
not
dead
plants
set
in
his
Church
to
grow
living
and
fruitfull
,
he
can
make
them
grow
up
to
yeeld
more
fewell
to
the
fire
of
his
wrath
,
and
to
grow
ripe
for
greater
damnation
.
Mat.
23
14.
It
is
utterly
therefore
untrue
which
you
say
,
that
Christ
admits
not
of
any
dead
plants
to
be
set
in
his
Vineyard
:
or
that
he
taketh
not
to
himself
a
compounded
body
of
living
and
dead
members
:
or
that
the
Church
of
God
is
not
a
mixt
company
&c.
For
who
called
Iudas
to
the
Apostleship
?
did
not
the
Lord
Jesus
himselfe
?
Did
not
hee
plant
him
in
his
Vineyard
?
And
doth
hee
not
hyre
and
send
forth
many
labourers
into
his
Vineyard
,
who
yet
afterwards
many
of
them
prove
murmurers
?
Mat.
20.1
.
to
16.
The
Church
of
Christ
is
often
in
the
Gospell
called
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
,
and
in
Mat.
25.1
.
The
Kingdome
of
heaven
is
given
for
the
stile
of
such
Churches
,
as
are
most
pure
,
such
as
they
will
bee
after
the
destruction
of
Antichrist
,
and
the
calling
of
the
Jews
prophecyed
of
in
chapter
24.
wherein
all
the
members
are
virgins
(
none
defiled
with
Antich●istian
Whoredome
:
)
All
servants
,
none
enemies
:
all
as
clean
beasts
,
whether
sheep
or
goats
,
the
goates
themselves
being
cleane
for
meate
(
as
chewing
the
Cud
,
and
dividing
the
hoofe
,
)
and
cleane
also
for
sacrifice
.
And
yet
are
there
not
to
be
found
amongst
these
Virgin-members
of
the
Church
,
some
wise
,
some
foolish
?
amongst
these
servants
,
some
thriving
,
some
unprofitable
?
amongsts
these
clean
beasts
,
some
sheep
,
some
goates
,
who
shall
stand
accursed
at
the
left
hand
of
Christ
?
It
is
true
,
the
Church
which
is
the
mysticall
body
of
Christ
,
ought
to
be
suitable
unto
Christ
her
head
,
and
to
the
immortall
seed
of
the
word
,
of
which
shee
is
begotten
,
and
many
times
so
shee
is
:
but
not
alwayes
every
member
:
yea
very
seldome
,
every
member
,
if
at
any
time
.
I
cannot
tell
if
at
any
time
,
the
King
that
made
a
Marriage
for
his
sonne
shall
come
in
,
and
not
finde
one
guest
at
least
,
that
hath
not
on
a
Wedding
garment
,
Mat.
22.11
.
The
pl●c●
which
you
alledge
to
the
contrary
will
not
prove
it
,
as
that
in
Cant.
6.9
.
proveth
indeed
that
whereas
Christ
hath
manay
Queenes
(
Churches
marryed
to
him
by
Covenant
,
and
invested
with
Royall
Authority
,
and
more
concubines
(
that
enter
not
by
Covenant
,
nor
are
indued
with
authority
in
the
house
of
God
)
yet
one
,
or
some
few
are
chast
and
harmelesse
and
undefiled
,
but
so
a
Church
may
bee
when
the
Doctrine
,
and
Worship
,
and
Government
thereof
is
received
and
administred
according
to
the
pattern
,
although
some
members
have
a
name
to
live
,
but
are
dead
,
and
have
not
(
as
you
speake
)
a
living
Principle
of
grace
and
faith
in
them
.
Christ
himselfe
acknowledgeth
one
Churth
to
bee
all
Faire
,
and
to
have
no
spot
in
her
,
Cant.
4.7
.
and
that
is
interpreted
by
some
Expositors
,
and
(
as
I
take
it
)
most
fitly
of
the
Primitive
Apostolick
Church
at
Hierusalem
described
,
Acts
2.
and
Acts
4.
towards
the
end
of
both
chapters
.
And
yet
even
in
that
Church
were
found
Ananias
and
Saphira
,
who
were
but
dead
members
,
and
neither
suitable
to
their
head
Christ
,
nor
to
the
immortall
seed
of
the
word
,
of
which
that
Chuch
was
begotten
.
The
place
in
Mal.
2.15
.
speaketh
lesse
to
the
purpose
:
for
what
though
God
sought
a
godly
seed
:
doth
hee
alwayes
finde
what
hee
is
said
to
seeke
?
God
sought
for
one
to
stand
in
the
gap
,
but
hee
found
none
,
Ezek.
20.30
.
Besides
the
godly
seede
there
spoken
of
,
is
in
the
Originall
the
seed
of
God
:
which
is
not
meant
of
every
Church-member
(
for
what
is
the
marryage
of
one
man
with
one
woman
)
in
our
first
Parentes
unto
that
,
Seeing
it
is
a
patterne
that
bindeth
Pagans
as
well
as
Christians
)
but
it
is
meant
of
Christ
Jesus
.
The
place
in
Ephes.
2.14
.
to
20.
sheweth
what
the
Church
of
Gods
Redeemed
bee
,
and
all
the
spirituall
members
thereof
:
but
neither
proveth
that
all
the
members
of
the
Church
are
such
,
or
that
the
Infants
of
beleevers
are
not
such
.
The
Church
of
God
in
Zion
was
built
upon
the
foundation
of
the
Prophets
:
and
it
was
an
habitation
to
the
Lord
.
Psal.
102.13
.
yet
infants
were
members
of
it
.
The
place
in
John
4.23
.
sheweth
(
as
I
said
before
)
what
God
seeketh
:
not
that
hee
findeth
all
such
in
every
Church
:
much
lesse
that
hee
excludeth
Infants
out
of
the
Church
,
till
they
can
make
it
appeare
by
open
profession
of
their
faith
,
that
they
doe
worship
him
in
Spirit
and
truth
.
It
hath
bin
proved
above
,
that
of
Infants
is
the
Kingdome
of
God
(
Mar.
10.14
.
)
that
is
,
the
Church
:
and
yet
they
cannot
professe
and
declare
any
such
worship
in
their
owne
Persons
:
though
indeed
the
Acts
of
their
godly
parents
in
that
case
are
there
accepted
of
Christ
,
as
the
Acts
of
the
Infants
.
For
Christ
accepted
their
Parents
bringing
of
them
to
him
,
as
if
they
had
come
to
him
in
their
owne
persons
.
Suffer
(
saith
hee
)
little
children
to
come
unto
mee
:
and
yet
they
came
not
,
but
as
they
were
brought
.
which
doth
not
now
continue
in
Christian
Churches
.
Of
the
Iews
came
Christ
,
the
Saviour
of
man
;
and
therefore
salvation
is
said
to
bee
of
the
Iews
,
Rom.
9.5
.
Iohn
4.22
.
In
respect
of
which
there
was
a
blessed
promise
passed
upon
the
Iews
for
the
bringing
forth
of
the
Messiah
,
and
the
promised
seede
,
in
whom
all
Nations
should
be
blessed
.
And
therefore
all
of
that
Nation
were
admitted
to
the
outward
Priviledges
,
as
figures
of
him
whom
that
Nation
was
to
bring
forth
.
So
that
a
fruitfull
wombe
was
counted
a
great
blessing
among
the
Iews
,
as
not
knowing
who
might
be
so
honourable
,
as
to
bring
forth
that
blessed
,
and
all
blessing
seede
.
And
therefore
God
honoured
the
Naturall
birth
with
such
outward
blessings
and
priviledges
,
which
belong
not
to
the
Gentiles
at
all
.
The
Gentiles
now
are
to
looke
for
their
bringing
forth
Christ
according
to
the
Spirit
,
as
the
Iews
did
then
according
to
the
flesh
:
and
likewise
their
birth
:
and
their
seed
and
all
things
suitable
to
the
same
,
as
Joh.
3.3.5
,
6.
Ioh.
1.12
,
13.
And
therefore
wee
are
said
now
to
know
no
man
after
the
flesh
.
2.
Cor.
5.16
.
And
Circumcision
was
one
Priviledge
of
the
flesh
,
Phil.
3.4
,
5.
Therefore
though
the
Iews
Infants
were
admitted
to
all
those
outward
Priviledges
being
a
Nationall
people
,
and
so
a
Nationall
body
,
with
a
naturall
birth
,
and
the
like
seede
in
generall
:
yet
the
Gentiles
Infants
cannot
bee
admitted
to
their
spirituall
priviledges
,
they
being
a
personall
People
called
by
the
word
of
Grace
,
and
so
a
spirituall
body
with
a
spirituall
birth
,
and
the
like
seed
.
It
is
true
,
there
is
some
difference
between
the
Iews
and
the
Gentiles
,
But
two
things
let
mee
here
put
you
in
minde
of
:
first
,
that
when
the
Elder
brother
,
for
his
demerit
is
disinherited
of
his
Birth-right
(
as
Reuben
sometime
was
)
his
preheminence
of
honour
and
double
portion
is
divided
amongst
his
younger
brethren
:
no
part
of
it
is
lost
.
So
is
it
here
.
The
Church
of
Israel
being
disinherited
,
all
the
spirituall
priviledges
,
all
the
honour
and
power
which
they
injoyed
either
in
their
Synagogue
,
or
in
their
Nationall
Assemblies
,
is
now
set
over
to
our
Congregationall
Churches
;
and
as
for
the
outward
Priviledges
,
which
the
house
of
Israel
injoyed
(
as
a
wordly
Kingdome
and
the
power
and
glory
thereof
)
they
were
no
part
of
the
priviledges
of
their
Church
estate
,
but
accessories
and
additaments
thereunto
.
For
in
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
God
spake
nothing
of
a
worldly
kingdome
,
but
of
affliction
for
400.
yeares
,
Gen.
15.13
.
as
therefore
worldly
power
and
glory
,
were
cast
in
as
accessorie
to
the
Church
of
the
Old
Testament
,
so
they
may
be
also
in
the
New
.
If
the
Churches
of
the
New
Testament
shall
bind
Kings
in
chaines
,
as
is
prophecyed
Psal.
140.8
.
and
execute
upon
them
the
judgement
written
,
then
surely
Christian
Churches
shall
have
some
Kings
to
bee
members
of
their
body
,
else
what
have
they
to
doe
to
judge
them
that
are
without
?
the
Apostle
saith
,
Godlinesse
hath
the
promises
of
this
life
as
well
as
of
that
which
is
to
come
,
1
Tim.
4.8
.
What
though
Church
power
bee
not
administred
with
worldly
pompe
?
and
what
though
all
the
children
of
the
Church
bee
equall
in
Church-Priviledges
?
yet
some
or
other
of
the
children
of
the
Church
ate
capable
of
great
preheminence
even
in
outward
Priviledges
:
They
may
be
Princes
in
all
Lands
,
Psal.
45.16
.
which
though
some
understand
of
spirituall
power
,
yet
not
so
properly
:
for
spiritual
power
is
not
princely
in
the
earth
.
Besides
,
if
civil
Magistracy
be
lawful
amongst
men
(
which
you
deny
not
)
some
of
the
children
of
the
Church
may
bee
as
fitly
employed
in
such
a
principality
,
as
Pagans
.
And
surely
the
time
shall
come
when
according
to
the
prophecy
of
Daniel
(
chapt
.
7.27
.
)
the
Kingdome
and
the
Dominion
and
the
greatnesse
of
the
Kingdome
under
the
whole
heaven
shall
bee
given
to
the
people
of
the
Saints
of
the
most
High
.
A
second
thing
which
I
would
put
you
in
minde
of
(
which
also
hath
been
mentioned
above
)
is
that
wee
doe
not
stand
upon
Nationall
Iewish
priviledges
,
but
upon
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
,
which
was
given
with
the
Seale
thereof
to
him
and
his
seed
before
any
of
the
Jewes
and
Israelites
were
borne
,
when
Abraham
and
his
seed
were
confidered
rather
as
a
Domesticall
Church
,
then
a
as
national
.
And
then
the
Covenant
was
given
to
him
as
walking
before
God
in
uprightnesse
of
heart
,
Gen.
17.1.7
.
which
cannot
bee
without
faith
;
and
the
signe
of
the
Covenant
was
given
him
as
a
signe
and
seale
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
,
Rom.
4.11
.
and
both
Covenant
and
seale
were
given
to
his
infant
seed
for
his
faith
sake
,
Gen.
17.7
.
And
in
case
his
infant
seede
should
grow
up
to
riper
yeares
,
and
then
not
take
hold
of
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
,
but
prophanely
reject
,
they
were
cast
out
of
their
Church
Estate
,
as
was
Ismael
,
and
Esau
.
And
so
the
seed
of
Abraham
could
never
grow
up
to
a
Nationall
Church
,
unlesse
when
they
grew
up
to
yeares
,
they
should
continue
in
a
visible
Profession
of
the
Faith
of
Abraham
:
or
unlesse
god
should
afterwards
enlarge
the
wings
of
his
Covenant
to
reach
over
the
whole
Nation
,
as
hee
began
to
doe
in
the
Testament
of
Iacob
,
Gen.
49.26
.
and
more
fully
and
solemnely
declared
the
same
,
Exod.
19.3
.
to
8.
and
Deut.
29.10
.
to
13.
But
it
is
not
the
Covenant
of
Jacob
to
him
,
and
to
all
his
Posterity
,
during
their
lives
,
that
wee
plead
for
:
But
the
Covenant
and
blessing
of
Abraham
:
which
the
Apostle
saith
is
co
ue
upon
us
Gentiles
,
Gal.
3.14
.
which
onely
admitteth
the
faithfull
and
their
infant
seed
,
not
during
their
lives
,
in
case
their
lives
should
grow
up
to
Apostasie
,
or
open
scandall
:
but
during
their
infancy
,
and
so
long
after
as
they
shall
continue
in
a
visible
profession
of
the
Covenant
,
and
faith
,
and
the
religion
of
their
fathers
;
Otherwise
if
the
children
of
the
faithfull
grow
up
to
Apostasie
or
to
any
open
scandall
,
(
as
Ismael
and
Esau
did
)
as
they
were
then
,
so
such
like
now
,
are
to
be
cast
out
of
the
fellowship
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
seales
thereof
.
But
you
willingly
take
no
notice
here
of
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
to
him
and
to
his
seed
.
And
because
say
you
,
the
Jews
had
a
promise
for
the
bringing
forth
the
Messias
the
promised
seed
in
whom
all
Nations
should
bee
blessed
,
therefore
all
of
that
Nation
were
admitted
to
the
outward
Priviledges
,
as
figures
of
him
whom
that
Nation
was
to
bring
forth
:
which
made
a
fruitfull
wombe
accounted
so
great
a
blessing
among
the
Jewes
,
as
not
knowing
who
might
bee
so
far
honoured
as
to
bring
forth
that
blessed
seed
.
But
Christ
came
of
Abraham
,
and
of
Isaae
,
as
well
as
of
Judah
(
the
father
of
the
Jews
:
)
and
yet
that
did
not
admit
all
the
Nations
which
sprang
of
them
to
the
outward
Priviledges
,
as
you
call
them
(
though
very
absurdly
(
if
you
meane
(
as
you
seeme
to
doe
)
the
Covenant
,
and
the
seale
thereof
.
For
the
Covenant
whereby
wee
and
our
seed
have
God
for
our
God
is
not
a
meere
outward
Priviledge
,
but
a
spirituall
and
heavenly
Priviledge
to
such
as
know
the
worth
of
it
.
Besides
,
many
Tribes
of
Israel
were
admitted
(
they
and
their
seed
)
to
the
Priviledge
of
the
Covenant
,
and
to
the
seale
thereof
,
of
whom
yet
it
was
evident
,
that
Christ
was
not
to
spring
of
any
of
of
them
.
The
Iewes
who
descended
all
of
them
of
Iudah
,
they
were
but
one
tribe
of
twelve
.
And
why
should
all
the
other
eleven
Tribes
bee
circumcised
as
well
as
the
Jews
,
in
respect
of
their
bringing
forth
their
promised
seed
,
when
yet
old
Jacob
had
limited
the
bringing
forth
of
the
Messi●h
to
the
Tribe
of
Judah
?
Gen.
49.10
.
Were
all
the
children
of
the
eleven
Tribes
figures
of
the
Messiah
as
well
as
the
children
of
the
Jews
?
Besides
,
in
Davids
time
,
there
was
a
promise
given
to
him
,
that
the
Messiah
should
come
out
of
his
loynes
,
2
Sam.
7.
Why
then
should
any
other
families
of
the
Jews
injoy
such
a
Priviledge
that
all
their
infants
shuold
bee
circumcised
with
the
Seale
of
the
Covenant
?
Doth
any
word
of
Scripture
make
all
the
Infants
of
all
the
Jews
,
yea
of
all
Israel
,
figures
of
the
Messiah
?
And
if
no
word
of
Scripture
so
doe
,
shall
any
man
forge
such
an
imagination
of
his
owne
braine
,
and
be
guiltlesse
?
what
though
a
fruitfull
wombe
was
counted
a
great
blessing
among
the
Jews
?
So
it
was
also
among
the
other
Tribes
,
who
yet
could
not
expect
the
Messiah
to
spring
from
them
.
It
was
a
cause
just
enough
to
account
a
fruitfull
wombe
a
great
blessing
,
not
onely
because
it
was
a
blessing
to
the
family
,
but
also
because
it
was
an
inlargement
of
the
Church
.
In
which
respect
the
Elders
and
Peoples
of
Bethlehem
blessed
Ruth
(
Chap.
4.11
.
)
and
Boaz
with
her
,
The
Lord
make
this
young
Woman
,
which
commeth
into
thine
house
,
like
Raechel
and
like
Leah
,
which
two
did
build
the
house
Israel
.
How
will
you
make
it
appeare
,
That
God
honoured
the
Nationall
birth
among
the
Jews
,
with
such
outward
blessings
and
Priviledges
that
belongs
not
to
the
Gentiles
at
all
?
You
should
have
done
well
to
have
told
us
,
what
those
outward
blessings
and
Priviledges
were
:
and
to
have
cleared
it
,
that
they
belonged
to
the
Jews
and
not
to
the
Gentiles
at
all
.
Otherwise
it
will
not
bee
safe
for
you
to
take
up
doctrines
of
Religion
upon
trust
of
mans
word
.
The
Gentiles
(
say
you
)
are
now
to
looke
for
our
bringing
forth
of
Christ
according
to
the
Spirit
,
as
the
Jews
did
then
according
to
the
flesh
;
and
likewise
their
birth
and
seed
,
and
all
things
suitable
to
the
same
,
as
John
3.3.5.6
.
Iohn
1.12
,
13.
And
therefore
wee
are
said
to
know
no
man
now
,
no
not
Christ
himselfe
after
the
flesh
,
2
Cor.
5.16
.
And
Circumcision
was
one
Priviledge
of
the
flesh
,
Phil.
3.4
,
5.
Answer
.
It
is
not
true
,
that
all
the
Jewes
did
looke
to
bring
forth
Christ
according
to
the
flesh
.
For
in
Davids
time
,
they
knew
,
that
Priviledge
was
peculiar
to
his
family
,
neither
is
it
true
,
that
the
Gentiles
are
now
to
look
for
the
bringing
forth
of
Christ
according
to
the
Spirit
,
any
more
then
the
Jews
were
to
looke
then
.
The
Apostle
Peter
maketh
us
equall
with
the
Jews
,
and
them
with
us
in
this
Priviledge
:
Wee
looke
(
saith
hee
)
to
bee
saved
through
the
grace
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
even
as
they
,
Act.
15.11
.
It
behoved
them
as
well
as
us
,
to
attaine
a
spirituall
birth
and
to
bee
borne
of
an
immortall
seed
suitable
to
the
same
,
as
well
as
us
;
for
it
was
not
to
a
Gentile
,
but
to
Nicodemus
a
Jew
,
that
Christ
spake
unto
,
Ioh.
3.3.5
,
6.
Except
a
man
be
borne
againe
of
water
,
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
he
cannot
see
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
That
which
is
borne
of
the
flesh
is
flesh
:
that
which
is
borne
of
the
Spirit
is
Spirit
;
Where
it
doth
not
appeare
that
Christ
spake
to
Nicodemus
of
entring
into
the
visible
Church
,
for
Christ
did
not
seek
to
gather
a
visible
church
separate
from
the
Church
of
the
Jews
till
after
his
ascension
.
But
he
spake
to
him
of
entrance
into
the
Kingdome
of
Glory
,
and
such
a
state
of
salvation
in
the
Kingdome
of
Grace
,
as
onely
regenerate
persons
did
attaine
unto
,
whether
Jews
or
Christians
.
Christ
would
never
have
called
Iudas
to
Office
in
his
Church
(
which
is
the
place
of
an
emiment
member
)
if
none
could
enter
into
the
visible
Church
,
but
regenerate
persons
.
Your
other
place
in
John
1
.
1●
,
13.
doth
not
speake
of
the
estate
of
the
members
of
the
visible
Church
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
,
but
of
the
Adoption
and
Regeneration
of
the
Elect
members
of
the
visible
Church
of
the
Old
Testament
.
For
all
the
words
of
the
Evangelist
Iohn
,
from
v.
1.
to
14
are
a
description
of
Christ
.
1.
What
hee
was
from
eternity
,
v.
1
,
2.
2.
What
hee
was
in
the
Creation
,
v.
3
,
4.
3.
What
hee
did
to
men
after
the
fall
,
v.
5.
&c.
4.
What
hee
did
to
the
world
of
Pagans
by
his
workes
of
Creaation
and
Providence
.
v.
9
,
10.
5.
How
hee
came
to
his
owne
people
of
Israel
in
his
Ordinances
,
v.
11.
And
yet
many
of
them
received
him
not
,
to
wit
,
by
faith
in
sincerity
and
truth
.
v.
11.
But
those
that
did
receive
him
;
that
is
,
beleeve
in
him
;
to
them
hee
gave
power
or
priviledge
,
not
to
bee
called
,
but
to
become
his
sons
,
v.
12.
And
these
were
borne
,
to
wit
,
borne
againe
,
not
by
power
of
Nature
,
but
by
the
grace
of
God
,
v.
13.
Then
it
followeth
,
the
Word
became
flesh
,
v.
14.
So
that
it
may
appeare
plainly
by
the
Context
,
that
Iohn
speaketh
not
of
the
estate
of
the
people
of
the
New
Testament
,
before
they
can
enter
into
the
visible
Church
,
but
of
the
spirituall
estate
of
all
the
beleeving
Saints
of
the
Old
Testament
.
The
other
place
in
2
Cor.
5.16
.
wee
have
opened
it
above
.
Wee
now
know
no
man
after
the
flesh
,
no
not
Christ
himselfe
now
.
In
which
words
it
is
no
part
of
the
Apostles
scope
or
meaning
to
set
forth
what
qualifications
are
to
bee
attended
to
in
addmitting
members
into
the
visible
Church
,
but
to
direct
Church-members
and
all
Christians
,
not
to
esteeme
of
themselves
&
others
according
to
common
gifts
and
carnall
excellencies
,
and
outward
Priviledges
(
wherein
the
false
Apostles
gloryed
,
v.
12.
)
but
to
live
as
those
who
have
fellowship
with
Christ
in
his
death
and
resurrection
,
and
therefore
not
to
live
unto
our selves
,
or
to
this
world
,
but
unto
Christ
,
v.
14
,
15.
And
lest
it
should
bee
objected
,
Why
,
time
hath
beene
when
you
(
Paul
)
your selfe
have
gloryed
in
carnall
excellencies
and
Jewish
Priviledges
,
yea
and
have
esteemed
meanly
of
Christ
himselfe
for
his
poverty
sake
,
and
because
hee
was
rejected
of
the
high
Priests
and
Elders
:
Paul
answereth
,
though
we
have
known
Christ
after
the
flesh
,
that
is
,
though
wee
have
esteemed
meanly
of
him
,
according
to
his
meane
outside
;
yet
now
henceforth
wee
neither
know
or
acknowledge
him
,
or
any
man
else
according
to
the
flesh
.
Where
by
knowing
no
man
after
the
flesh
,
he
doth
not
meane
that
bee
now
knoweth
no
seed
of
the
faithfull
to
have
any
Priviledge
or
right
unto
Church-estate
by
their
naturall
birth
through
the
the
Covenant
of
their
Parents
:
but
that
whatsoever
priviledge
themselves
or
their
Parents
,
or
any
others
have
by
their
Church-estate
,
or
Covenant
,
or
seales
of
the
Covenant
,
or
gifts
of
knowledge
and
utterance
,
or
the
like
,
they
should
not
acknowledge
them
,
as
things
to
bee
rested
till
they
come
to
bee
new
creatures
in
Christ
Jesus
.
And
to
the
same
purpose
tendeth
the
other
place
which
you
quote
,
Phil.
3.4
,
5.
where
Paul
calleth
all
these
outward
Priviledges
,
flesh
:
and
professeth
though
hee
might
as
well
trust
in
them
,
and
boast
of
them
as
any
other
man
:
yet
hee
counted
them
all
(
if
they
bee
trusted
in
without
Christ
)
as
losse
,
and
drosse
,
and
dung
,
in
comparrison
of
Christ
.
But
if
by
this
argument
,
you
would
exclude
the
Infa●●s
of
beleeving
Parents
from
Church-fellowship
,
and
the
seale
thereof
,
you
might
as
well
reject
Church-fellowship
,
and
Church-Covenant
,
and
the
seales
of
the
Covenant
and
all
confessions
of
Faith
,
and
subjection
to
the
Ordinances
,
and
fruitfulnesse
in
good
workes
:
for
all
these
trusted
in
,
are
losse
,
and
drosse
,
and
dung
in
comparison
of
Christ
,
nor
doth
our
righteousnesse
before
God
stand
in
them
.
And
thus
it
was
also
in
the
Old
Testament
,
as
well
as
now
.
So
that
all
this
which
you
have
alledged
,
proveth
no
difference
at
all
between
the
Infants
of
the
Jews
and
the
Infants
of
the
Gentiles
in
respect
of
spirituall
Priviledges
;
For
all
these
places
doe
as
well
concerne
men
of
yeares
,
as
Infants
,
and
Iews
as
well
as
Gentiles
.
And
though
you
call
us
a
personall
people
,
and
the
Jews
a
Nationall
people
:
yet
neither
were
they
at
first
Nationall
,
but
Domesticall
,
as
hath
been
said
:
And
for
us
,
if
you
meane
that
every
beleever
receiveth
the
Covenant
of
grace
to
his
owne
Person
,
but
not
to
his
seede
;
It
is
utterly
untrue
,
for
the
contrary
hath
been
proved
at
large
above
,
and
your
exceptions
answered
;
that
one
promise
of
grace
might
stand
for
many
,
which
Paul
gave
to
the
Jailor
,
Beleeve
in
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
thou
shalt
bee
saved
and
thy
house
,
Act.
16.31
.
As
also
that
other
testimony
of
his
to
the
Corinthians
,
that
the
children
of
beleeving
Parents
(
yea
of
either
Parent
beleeving
)
are
holy
1
Cor.
7.14
.
The
holinesse
which
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
in
that
place
to
the
Corinthians
,
is
not
the
holinesse
,
which
proceedeth
from
Gods
holy
Covenant
of
grace
,
but
from
Gods
holy
Ordinance
of
Marriage
.
For
under
the
Gospell
there
is
no
holinesse
,
that
can
inright
to
any
Priviledge
of
grace
but
,
either
the
holinesse
of
Christ
;
in
whom
God
looketh
upon
his
children
as
holy
in
him
,
and
through
him
giveth
them
right
to
all
things
both
in
grace
and
glory
.
Ephes.
1.4
,
5
,
6.
Or
that
holy
frame
of
Gods
workmanship
by
the
holy
spirit
of
regeneration
,
appearing
in
the
holy
effects
and
fruits
thereof
,
by
which
the
persons
appeare
before
men
to
have
right
to
the
aforesaid
Priviledges
.
There
is
great
difference
in
point
of
Holinesse
betweene
the
holy
Covenant
of
grace
;
and
the
holy
Ordinance
of
Marriage
:
Yes
,
in
scripture
language
,
the
flesh
,
so
there
is
opposite
to
the
same
an
holinesse
of
the
flesh
,
which
is
produced
by
lawfull
Marriage
.
Compare
these
Scriptures
together
Ezra
,
10.2
,
3.
1
Sam.
21.4
,
5.
1
Cor.
6.18
.
and
7.1
,
2.
1
Thes.
4.3
,
4.
There
is
indeed
an
holinesse
of
the
flesh
,
that
is
opposite
to
the
uncleannesse
of
the
flesh
:
but
there
is
no
holinesse
of
the
flesh
,
The
next
place
you
referre
mee
to
is
in
1
Sam.
21.4
,
5.
where
it
is
said
that
Davids
young
men
having
beene
kept
from
women
three
dayes
,
their
vessels
were
holy
.
But
what
would
you
inferre
from
hence
?
that
there
is
an
holinesse
of
the
flesh
oposite
to
the
uncleannesse
of
the
flesh
?
who
doubteth
of
that
?
but
whence
did
this
holines
flow
?
or
wherein
did
it
consist
?
did
it
flow
from
the
lawfull
marriage
of
themselves
,
or
their
Parents
?
Or
did
it
consist
in
their
Legitimation
?
No
verily
;
it
rather
sprung
from
their
want
of
use
of
lawfull
marriage
:
in
that
they
had
not
kept
company
with
their
wives
of
three
dayes
.
For
it
is
not
to
be
thought
that
David
would
keepe
his
men
to
keepe
company
with
Harlots
.
The
holinesse
therefore
which
David
here
speak●●h
of
is
a
Ceremoniall
holinesse
,
whereby
hee
and
his
men
being
kept
from
women
,
and
likewise
from
effusion
of
seed
(
which
did
Ceremonially
pollute
)
they
were
therefore
holy
in
their
vessells
,
and
so
meete
to
partake
of
holy
bread
;
No
holinesse
therefore
here
,
but
such
as
maketh
capable
of
holy
things
.
The
next
place
which
you
referre
mee
to
in
1
Cor.
6.18
.
doth
hold
forth
,
that
fornication
is
a
sinne
against
the
body
:
which
is
out
of
question
;
if
your
meaning
be●
that
that
sinne
brings
uncleannesse
upon
the
flesh
:
which
if
it
bee
compared
with
1
Thes.
4.3
,
4.
will
argue
that
there
is
a
contrary
holinesse
of
the
flesh
,
when
a
man
possesseth
his
Vessell
in
Sanctification
and
Honour
,
both
these
are
truths
,
but
nothing
to
your
purpose
.
For
this
holinesse
of
the
flesh
,
is
also
an
holinesse
of
the
spirit
.
Where
by
a
man
out
of
obedience
to
the
will
of
God
,
v
,
3.
doth
mortifie
the
lust
of
concupisence
v.
5.
and
possesse
his
vessell
in
sanctification
and
honour
,
v.
4.
And
this
holinesse
is
a
part
of
that
latter
holines
;
(
whereof
you
spake
before
)
to
wit
,
that
holy
frame
of
Gods
workmanship
in
the
heart
by
the
holy
spirit
of
regeneration
,
which
giveth
right
to
the
Priviledges
.
And
therefore
you
will
not
allow
this
kinde
holinesse
to
be
meant
in
1
Cor.
7.14
.
for
then
by
the
lawfulnesse
of
the
Parents
marriage
,
children
should
be
freed
from
the
lust
of
Concupiscence
,
and
inabled
to
possesse
their
vessels
in
sanctification
and
honour
.
That
other
place
which
you
put
in
(
1
Cor.
7.1
,
2.
)
I
know
not
to
what
end
you
alledge
it
,
unlesse
it
bee
to
prove
,
that
marriage
in
times
of
persecution
,
is
not
expedient
,
(
which
is
the
meaning
of
the
first
verse
:
)
or
that
fornication
is
to
bee
avoided
by
lawfull
marriage
,
which
is
the
intent
of
the
second
verse
:
But
what
is
either
of
these
to
the
point
in
hand
?
To
returne
therefore
to
the
point
,
from
whence
your
objection
diverted
mee
,
it
still
remaineth
good
,
that
the
holinesse
of
children
spoken
of
1
Cor.
7.14
.
doth
not
proceed
from
the
holy
Ordinance
of
marriage
,
but
from
the
holy
Covenant
of
grace
.
Which
may
further
bee
confirmed
from
the
very
word
of
the
Text.
For
the
Apostle
deriveth
that
holinesse
of
Infants
,
not
from
the
holy
Ordinance
of
marriage
,
but
from
the
faith
of
the
beleeving
Parent
whereby
both
the
unbeleeving
yoak-follow
is
sanctified
to
the
beleever
,
and
the
children
also
of
the
beleever
are
holy
.
I
thinke
both
alike
,
the
children
are
no
otherwise
holy
by
the
saith
of
the
beleeving
Parent
,
I
deny
not
but
this
is
true
in
a
part
,
as
to
one
anothers
use
(
as
the
unbeleever
to
the
beleevers
use
and
no
more
:
)
but
the
holinesse
of
children
resteth
in
themselves
as
the
subjects
thereof
by
nature
,
being
begotten
and
borne
in
that
lawfull
&
honorable
way
of
marriage
by
Gods
appointment
,
and
so
holy
&
cleane
in
opposition
to
such
as
are
begotten
and
brought
forth
in
a
way
of
uncleannesse
,
as
adultery
,
fornication
,
and
the
like
.
This
kinde
of
holinesse
which
you
speake
of
,
It
seemeth
to
mee
otherwise
to
expound
the
Apostle
this
way
,
1.
In
that
all
things
are
said
to
be
sanctified
to
such
as
beleeve
,
as
Tit.
1.15
.
and
so
the
unbeleeving
wife
to
the
beleeving
husband
:
you
may
lawfully
therefore
live
together
,
in
that
comfortable
estate
,
and
society
of
marriage
,
which
God
hath
ordained
for
man
and
wife
to
abide
in
.
2.
If
you
judge
your selves
to
live
in
such
a
way
of
uncleannesse
,
upon
which
you
must
now
part
:
then
your
children
so
begotten
are
uncleane
,
and
to
be
put
away
also
.
But
in
that
you
hold
it
lawfull
to
retaine
your
children
,
and
not
to
put
them
away
,
though
you
beleeve
,
and
they
doe
not
:
then
much
more
the
unbeleeving
parents
(
as
aforesaid
)
who
bare
them
.
For
if
the
effect
bee
holy
,
then
must
the
cause
also
be
holy
which
produceth
the
same
,
which
is
Gods
holy
Ordinance
of
marriage
,
and
not
the
holy
Covenant
of
grace
.
Whether
the
scruple
of
the
Corinthians
about
cohabitation
with
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellowes
,
did
arise
from
the
Apostles
former
letter
,
or
not
,
it
is
not
plainly
expressed
in
the
Text
:
But
of
the
two
,
it
may
be
gathered
from
the
Text
,
rather
not
,
then
yes
:
For
if
their
scruple
had
risen
from
the
Apostles
former
advice
,
not
to
keepe
company
with
Fornicators
(
whether
bodily
or
spirituall
)
hee
had
fully
answered
that
scruple
before
in
the
fifth
Chapter
.
For
there
hee
expoundeth
himselfe
not
to
speake
of
the
fornicators
of
the
world
,
but
of
the
Church
v.
10.11
.
and
for
the
fornicators
of
the
Church
,
hee
doth
forbid
Communion
with
them
,
not
onely
in
the
worship
of
God
(
as
you
would
have
him
understood
)
but
even
in
familiar
civill
converse
,
With
such
a
one
as
is
a
brother
,
and
a
fornicator
or
the
like
,
I
have
written
to
you
,
no
not
to
eat
with
him
,
v.
11.
where
,
not
to
eat
is
not
meant
not
to
eat
the
Lords
Supper
:
for
that
is
the
highest
degree
of
the
highest
,
and
holiest
communion
in
the
Church
:
but
not
to
eat
common
bread
at
one
anothers
table
,
for
hee
speaketh
of
the
least
degree
of
familiar
society
with
such
a
one
,
saying
,
With
such
a
one
,
no
not
to
eat
,
but
that
by
the
way
,
to
cleare
your
mistake
in
that
point
.
But
for
the
point
in
hand
,
the
Apostle
had
sufficiently
cleared
both
his
owne
meaning
and
the
Corinthians
scruple
touching
their
civill
society
with
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellowes
,
in
expounding
himselfe
,
not
to
forbid
them
Communion
with
the
fornicators
or
Idolaters
of
this
world
,
but
of
the
Church
;
whence
it
clearly
appeard
that
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellowes
being
not
of
the
Church
,
but
of
the
world
,
it
was
no
part
of
the
Apostles
meaning
in
his
former
,
or
latter
letter
,
to
forbid
them
communion
with
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellowes
:
So
that
if
the
scruple
of
the
Corinthiane
had
sprung
from
the
mistake
of
the
Apostles
former
letter
,
the
Apostle
had
there
fully
cleared
his
owne
meaning
,
and
withall
removed
their
scruple
:
there
needed
no
more
words
of
it
againe
here
.
It
seemeth
therefore
much
more
probable
,
that
their
scruple
arose
from
that
other
place
which
you
mention
Ezra
10.
where
the
people
of
God
are
charged
to
separate
themselves
from
the
people
of
the
land
,
and
from
their
strange
wives
:
which
charge
they
obeyed
also
and
fulfilled
.
But
if
their
scruple
sprung
from
that
place
,
then
the
Corinthians
had
as
just
occasion
to
scruple
the
keeping
of
their
children
(
which
they
had
by
these
wives
)
as
the
keeping
of
their
wives
.
For
the
people
of
God
in
that
Chapter
of
Ezra
,
made
an
holy
Covenant
with
God
,
to
put
away
not
onely
their
strange
wives
,
but
their
children
also
which
were
borne
of
them
v.
3.
Now
then
let
us
come
to
consider
of
the
Apostles
answer
to
these
scruples
as
you
expound
him
.
The
Apostle
(
say
you
)
answereth
from
a
double
ground
.
1.
In
that
all
things
are
sanctified
to
such
as
beleeve
Tit.
1.15
.
therefore
beleevers
may
have
a
lawfull
use
of
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellowes
.
This
conclusion
is
true
and
intended
by
the
Apostle
:
but
this
ground
of
it
the
Apostle
doth
not
here
give
,
but
you
fetch
it
from
another
Epistle
.
It
is
true
,
the
marriage
of
the
Corinthians
with
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellows
,
when
they
were
both
infidels
,
being
lawfull
by
Gods
institution
before
,
now
when
one
of
them
came
to
be
converted
to
the
faith
,
the
faith
of
the
beleever
did
not
make
his
former
marriage
which
was
lawfull
before
,
now
unlawfull
,
but
rather
gave
him
a
pure
and
sanctified
use
,
both
of
his
marriage
,
and
of
his
yoak-fellow
.
But
the
Apostle
doth
not
here
give
for
a
ground
thereof
,
the
purity
of
all
things
to
a
beleever
,
though
hee
might
have
given
it
for
a
just
ground
thereof
:
)
but
the
onely
ground
which
in
this
Text
hee
giveth
of
it
,
is
taken
from
the
holinesse
of
their
children
.
Else
(
saith
hee
)
were
your
children
unclean
:
but
now
they
are
holy
,
which
argueth
,
that
there
is
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
,
such
an
holinesse
acknowledged
by
God
to
belong
to
the
children
from
either
parent
beleeving
,
as
is
sufficient
alone
,
(
though
there
were
no
other
ground
of
it
)
to
ratify
to
the
beleeving
parent
a
sanctified
use
of
his
unbeleeving
yoak-fellow
)
which
holinesse
can
bee
no
other
,
but
the
holinesse
which
springeth
from
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
wherein
God
promiseth
to
bee
a
God
to
the
beleever
and
his
seed
.
Whereas
on
the
contrary
if
this
holines
of
the
children
,
did
onely
arise
from
the
lawfulnesse
of
the
marriage
of
their
Parents
,
by
the
same
ground
upon
which
the
Corinthians
scrupled
the
lawfulnesse
of
their
marriage
with
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellowes
,
by
the
same
they
might
justly
scruple
the
lawfulnesse
of
their
children
,
which
they
had
by
them
,
for
in
that
place
of
Ezra
(
whence
you
conceive
their
scruple
,
either
sprung
or
grew
)
as
the
marriage
of
the
Iews
with
strangers
was
uncleane
;
and
therefore
strange
wives
to
bee
put
away
:
so
their
children
also
were
uncleane
,
and
to
bee
put
away
also
according
to
the
counsell
of
God
and
the
example
of
the
people
in
that
place
.
Let
us
then
proceed
to
examine
your
second
ground
,
which
you
say
,
the
Apostle
giveth
to
satisfie
the
scruple
of
the
Corinthians
,
about
the
retaining
of
their
unbeleeving
yoak-fellowes
.
2.
If
you
(
Corinthians
)
judge
your selves
to
live
in
such
a
way
of
uncleannesse
,
upon
which
you
must
now
part
,
then
your
children
so
begotten
are
uncleane
also
,
and
to
be
put
away
.
But
in
that
you
hold
it
lawfull
to
retaine
your
children
,
and
not
to
put
them
away
,
though
you
beleeve
,
and
they
beleeve
not
,
then
much
more
the
unbeleeving
Parents
that
beare
them
.
For
if
the
effect
bee
holy
,
then
must
the
cause
be
also
holy
that
produceth
the
same
:
which
is
Gods
holy
Ordinance
of
marriage
,
and
not
the
holy
Covenant
of
grace
.
This
ground
hath
no
ground
at
all
,
neither
in
the
Apostles
words
,
nor
meaning
:
not
in
his
words
;
for
the
Apostle
doth
not
say
,
your
children
are
holy
in
your
judgement
,
or
as
you
hold
:
but
the
Apostle
delivereth
his
owne
Iudgement
,
your
children
are
holy
.
Neither
will
it
stand
with
the
Apostles
meaning
,
nor
with
the
divine
wisedom
&
power
of
an
Apostolick
spirit
,
to
prove
an
holy
use
of
the
parents
mariage
,
from
the
conceited
holines
,
which
the
Parents
imagine
to
bee
in
their
children
.
For
though
in
Disputation
against
an
adversary
,
it
may
bee
of
use
to
convince
him
out
of
his
owne
conceits
:
yet
in
dealing
with
a
scrupulous
conscience
,
it
giveth
no
satisfaction
,
to
give
him
for
grounds
of
lawfull
Practise
,
his
owne
conceits
.
Neither
hath
it
any
ground
at
all
from
the
Apostles
words
,
or
meaning
,
to
gather
(
as
you
doe
)
from
the
holinesse
of
children
an
argument
from
the
lesse
to
the
greater
,
That
if
the
children
bee
holy
,
and
so
,
lawfull
to
bee
retained
,
then
much
more
the
unbeleeving
Parents
that
bare
them
(
because
if
the
effect
bee
holy
,
then
must
the
cause
also
bee
holy
:
)
for
the
unbeleeving
Parents
are
no
cause
at
all
of
the
holinesse
of
their
children
:
neither
are
they
holy
themselves
by
the
holy
Ordinance
of
marriage
.
For
though
marriage
it selfe
bee
holy
in
respect
of
the
holy
institution
of
it
:
yet
not
in
respect
of
the
holy
efficacy
in
it
,
to
make
all
them
holy
,
that
enter
into
marriage
estate
;
yea
as
to
beleevers
all
things
are
pure
,
so
to
the
unbeleever
nothing
is
pure
,
no
not
his
marriage
,
nor
his
yoak-fellow
,
nor
his
children
.
Though
the
unbeleeving
yoak-fellow
(
Paul
saith
)
bee
sanctified
to
the
beleever
:
yet
Paul
never
said
,
that
the
beleever
is
sanctified
to
the
unbeleeving
yoak-fellow
.
Unbeleevers
are
neither
holy
themselves
,
nor
is
any
thing
else
sanctified
to
them
,
much
lesse
can
they
bee
the
cause
of
producing
sanctification
and
holinesse
in
others
.
And
therefore
Paul
doth
inferre
the
holinesse
of
children
,
not
from
the
holy
Ordinance
of
marriage
,
but
from
the
holy
Covenant
of
grace
.
It
had
bin
in
vaine
for
the
Apostle
to
have
gon
about
to
prove
the
lawfull
retaining
of
the
unbeleeving
yoak-fellow
from
the
holinesse
of
their
children
being
in
the
Covenant
.
But
to
come
to
your
argument
,
many
things
are
unsound
in
it
.
1.
When
you
say
,
that
nothing
is
more
cleare
then
this
,
That
children
begotten
in
such
uncleannesse
,
are
not
in
Gods
holy
Covenant
,
nor
any
way
holy
,
either
by
Law
or
Gospel
.
It
is
too
vast
an
Hyperbole
,
there
be
many
cleare
truths
generally
received
of
all
that
feare
God
:
as
the
Trinity
of
Persons
,
the
unity
of
the
Godhead
,
Christ
his
two
Natures
and
three
Offices
,
and
an
hundred
such
like
,
which
are
indeed
cleare
to
all
that
fear
God
.
But
this
(
which
you
say
is
most
cleare
to
all
)
that
children
begotten
in
uncleannesse
are
debarred
the
Covenant
,
is
denyed
by
Tremelius
and
Junius
,
and
others
moe
,
and
doubted
by
many
.
There
be
many
that
conceive
Pharez
and
Zerah
were
in
the
holy
Covenant
,
though
begotten
in
Incest
;
and
Davids
child
though
begotten
in
adultery
.
And
what
would
you
say
of
all
the
children
,
which
the
Patriarchs
had
by
Concubines
?
They
were
not
borne
in
lawfull
marriage
.
If
therefore
they
were
begotten
in
uncleannesse
,
were
they
excluded
from
the
Covenant
,
and
no
way
holy
?
What
say
you
of
Jepthah
begotten
of
a
strange
woman
,
and
therefore
in
uncleannesse
?
Doe
you
thinke
God
did
not
approve
him
to
be
in
his
Covenant
,
seeing
he
called
him
forth
to
be
a
Ruler
of
his
people
?
If
you
say
Iepthah
was
then
faithfull
when
God
called
him
forth
to
office
:
What
then
?
yet
he
was
begotten
in
uncleannesse
.
And
then
your
assertion
was
too
large
,
without
any
limitation
to
say
,
That
children
begotten
in
uncleannesse
are
not
in
Gods
holy
Covenant
,
nor
any
way
holy
,
either
by
law
or
Gospel
,
and
that
nothing
is
more
clear
then
this
.
As
for
the
place
upon
which
you
ground
(
as
I
conceive
)
your
assertion
,
taken
out
of
Deut.
23.2
.
some
understood
it
of
comming
in
and
out
before
the
Congregation
,
to
wit
,
in
bearing
publick
Office
.
Others
understand
it
to
speake
of
a
Bastard
begotten
of
a
common
Harlot
;
which
I
note
to
you
,
not
to
shew
you
my
owne
interpretation
of
the
place
,
but
to
wish
you
to
forbeare
such
excessive
prodigall
expressions
;
That
nothing
is
more
cleare
,
then
that
which
is
darke
and
doubtfull
to
many
men
,
men
of
as
cleare
,
and
it
may
be
clearer
discernings
then
your selves
.
But
for
my
part
,
I
will
not
stick
with
you
in
this
point
altogether
;
let
it
be
granted
that
children
begotten
in
uncleannesse
(
that
is
,
as
you
expound
your selfe
)
begotten
in
adultery
and
fornication
,
are
not
in
Gods
holy
Covenant
,
nor
any
way
holy
(
for
ought
we
can
discerne
,
leaving
Gods
election
of
them
unto
holinesse
,
to
himselfe
)
either
by
Law
or
Gospel
;
what
then
?
Why
then
say
you
,
how
could
this
tend
to
remove
the
Corinthians
scruple
,
to
tell
them
they
might
lawfully
continue
together
as
man
and
wife
,
because
their
children
were
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
and
life
,
and
so
were
holy
;
when
as
the
scruple
lay
in
matter
of
uncleannesse
upon
which
they
were
to
part
;
which
scruple
must
first
be
cleared
in
respect
of
themselves
,
before
ever
they
could
believe
the
holinesse
of
their
children
in
Covenant
;
seeing
the
children
of
adultery
and
fornication
are
debarred
the
holy
Covenant
both
in
the
Law
and
the
Gospel
?
But
this
is
more
unsound
then
the
former
,
to
conceive
that
the
matter
of
uncleannesse
upon
which
they
were
to
part
,
was
the
uncleannesse
of
adultery
and
fornication
.
For
if
that
were
the
uncleannesse
in
which
those
Corinthian
yoke-fellows
lived
before
either
of
them
were
converted
to
the
faith
,
surely
the
Apostle
would
never
have
given
them
advice
,
not
to
depart
one
from
another
,
v.
r.
12
,
13.
Such
as
live
in
the
uncleannesse
of
adultery
and
fornication
ought
not
to
abide
together
,
but
speedily
to
depart
one
from
another
.
Yea
,
methinkes
in
case
of
adultery
,
the
Corinthians
would
of
themselves
discerne
what
was
meet
,
to
wit
,
speedily
and
utterly
to
abandon
such
wickednesse
,
or
at
least
have
lurked
in
it
secretly
,
and
never
have
consulted
with
the
Apostle
about
it
in
a
publick
Church-letter
.
It
is
true
,
it
was
matter
of
uncleannesse
upon
which
they
doubted
they
must
part
,
and
thereupon
scrupled
cohabitation
.
But
the
uncleannesse
which
they
suspected
,
was
not
adultery
or
fornication
,
but
disparity
of
Religion
,
in
regard
of
the
Infidell
yoke-fellow
,
who
still
lived
in
Idolatry
.
But
this
uncleannesse
of
Idolatry
lying
not
upon
both
yoke-fellows
,
but
upon
one
onely
;
it
could
not
debarre
the
free
passage
of
the
holy
Covenant
from
the
believing
parent
to
the
children
.
For
the
Covenant
runneth
not
unto
you
and
to
your
seed
,
as
speaking
of
both
the
Parents
,
but
to
thee
and
to
thy
seed
,
as
speaking
of
one
of
them
,
of
either
of
them
.
If
you
ask
,
why
then
did
the
Jews
put
away
their
strange
wives
and
children
,
seeing
the
Covenant
might
passe
to
the
children
from
either
party
?
I
answer
two
things
,
1.
The
Israelites
were
expresly
forbidden
to
marry
with
those
Nations
,
and
their
seed
was
excluded
from
entring
into
the
congregation
to
the
tenth
generation
,
Deut.
23.3
.
Neh.
13.1
.
But
Christians
in
the
dayes
of
the
Gospel
,
lye
not
under
any
such
prohibition
.
There
is
no
such
partition
wall
now
between
Nation
and
Nation
;
nor
any
such
severe
rejection
of
the
children
of
any
Nation
,
in
case
either
of
the
Parents
be
received
into
the
Church
.
2.
The
case
of
the
Jewes
who
married
strange
wives
in
Ezra
,
was
not
the
like
case
with
that
of
the
Corinthians
,
though
the
Corinthians
might
conceive
the
case
to
be
the
same
.
For
the
Corinthians
had
married
their
Idolatrous
yoke-fellows
,
when
both
of
them
were
Pagans
.
But
the
Jews
married
their
strange
wives
,
when
themselves
were
an
holy
people
.
Now
though
the
Jewes
were
therefore
bound
to
put
away
their
strange
wives
,
when
they
had
thus
polluted
the
holy
Covenant
,
and
the
holy
seed
:
Yet
even
in
the
times
of
the
Law
,
if
a
Gentile
Proselyte
(
especially
of
a
remote
Countrey
)
were
converted
to
the
Jewish
Religion
,
hee
was
not
bound
to
put
away
his
children
which
he
had
by
his
Pagan
wife
(
whom
hee
had
married
in
the
dayes
of
his
ignorance
)
but
he
was
bound
to
circumcise
them
as
well
as
himselfe
,
Exod.
12.48
.
And
therefore
hee
was
not
bound
to
put
them
away
,
but
to
account
them
holy
,
and
within
the
Covenant
,
and
so
capable
of
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
.
And
since
this
believing
Proselyte
was
holy
,
and
his
seed
also
holy
,
hee
might
therefore
have
a
sanctified
use
of
his
wife
,
though
she
still
continued
unbelieving
.
And
therefore
if
shee
consented
to
dwell
with
him
,
hee
ought
not
(
no
not
then
)
to
have
put
her
away
,
but
to
abide
with
her
,
which
is
the
very
case
of
the
Corinthians
here
;
and
the
one
of
them
doth
fitly
and
fully
illustrate
the
other
.
And
therefore
further
,
it
is
not
a
sound
speech
,
which
you
say
,
touching
these
Corinthian
yoke-fellows
(
whereof
one
was
a
believer
,
the
other
an
unbeliever
)
that
this
must
first
bee
cleared
whether
they
were
uncleane
or
not
,
in
respect
of
themselves
,
before
ever
they
could
believe
the
holinesse
of
their
children
,
or
any
such
to
bee
in
Gods
gracious
Covenant
.
For
as
it
was
with
those
Proselytes
of
old
,
so
it
was
with
the
Corinthians
then
.
The
believing
Corinthian
had
just
ground
(
though
hee
knew
not
so
much
)
to
believe
himselfe
to
bee
in
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
as
well
as
the
believing
Proselyte
:
and
his
seed
to
be
holy
,
and
in
the
Covenant
,
and
to
have
right
to
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
as
well
as
the
seed
of
the
believing
Proselyte
.
And
from
both
to
conclude
,
to
wit
,
both
from
his
owne
faith
,
and
from
the
holinesse
of
his
children
,
that
hee
therefore
hath
a
sanctified
use
of
his
yoke-fellow
,
though
yet
uncleane
in
her selfe
through
her
unbeliefe
.
And
therefore
take
notice
further
,
that
it
is
another
unsound
speech
of
yours
to
say
,
That
it
had
been
in
vaine
for
the
Apostle
,
To
goe
about
to
prove
the
lawfull
retaining
of
the
unbelieving
yoke-fellow
,
from
the
holinesse
of
the
children
being
in
Covenant
.
For
the
Apostle
doth
goe
about
to
prove
that
very
point
from
that
very
ground
,
and
from
none
other
,
in
that
14
ver.
Neither
was
it
vaine
so
to
doe
,
unlesse
wee
charge
vanity
upon
the
holy
Spirit
of
wisdome
,
and
truth
and
power
that
guided
him
.
And
indeed
the
Argument
is
of
eternall
force
both
in
the
Church
of
Israel
,
and
in
Christian
Churches
,
as
hath
beene
shewn
above
.
But
this
seemeth
a
very
unsound
point
to
mee
,
First
,
if
this
be
a
truth
,
then
one
may
bee
saved
by
another
mans
faith
.
For
here
by
vertue
of
a
believers
state
in
grace
all
his
fruit
(
that
is
,
his
children
)
partake
of
the
same
with
him
,
and
so
farre
as
hee
doth
,
onely
by
vertue
of
his
grace
,
or
state
in
grace
,
which
is
the
same
:
And
so
by
the
Fathers
faith
the
Children
share
together
with
him
in
that
Grace
,
which
his
faith
instates
him
in
,
which
is
salvation
it self
.
Secondly
,
This
Doctrine
taketh
away
the
being
of
Originall
sinne
;
for
here
they
are
all
holy
,
and
partakers
of
Grace
,
untill
they
commit
some
actuall
sin
,
which
denyeth
any
Originall
sin
:
for
that
would
make
them
unholy
,
though
they
never
committed
actuall
sin
in
their
own
persons
.
Thirdly
,
it
layeth
a
ground
of
falling
out
of
an
estate
of
grace
.
For
by
this
Doctrine
Esau
and
Ishmael
,
and
all
the
Children
of
Beleevers
are
holy
,
and
partakers
of
the
same
grace
,
before
they
committed
actuall
sin
,
as
Gen.
25.23
.
with
Rom.
9.11
,
12
,
13.
And
so
Gen.
17.20
,
21.
and
21.9
,
10.12
.
But
as
it
tends
to
Popery
,
and
Arminianisme
,
so
I
shall
leave
it
,
as
an
old
Creed
,
bare
Error
,
not
worth
any
further
medling
with
.
But
to
come
to
your
mistake
of
our
Doctrine
,
which
lyeth
not
in
this
:
That
by
vertue
of
a
beleevers
estate
,
wee
hold
all
his
fruite
to
bee
holy
.
For
wee
acknowledge
,
that
(
rightly
understood
,
as
you
know
wee
expresse
our selves
)
that
by
vertue
of
a
beleevers
estate
,
together
with
the
vertue
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
to
him
and
his
seed
,
all
his
fruite
is
holy
.
But
when
you
adde
(
and
partake
in
the
same
estate
of
grace
with
him
)
there
you
quite
mistake
us
.
For
though
all
the
fruite
of
a
beleever
bee
holy
:
yet
all
of
them
doe
not
partake
with
him
in
the
same
estate
of
all
kindes
of
holinesse
,
which
their
beleeving
Father
injoyeth
:
much
lesse
so
farre
as
he
doth
.
For
whereas
there
be
three
sorts
of
holinesse
(
as
hath
been
touched
above
)
1.
One
by
imputation
from
Christ
.
2.
Another
by
regeneration
from
the
Spirit
.
3.
A
third
by
separation
to
God
and
to
his
Worship
,
and
to
participation
of
the
Ordinances
through
the
Covenant
:
The
believing
Parent
enjoyeth
all
these
;
but
not
so
all
his
seed
.
All
of
them
indeed
partake
of
the
last
:
Of
the
first
,
onely
the
elect
;
but
not
of
the
second
,
till
they
be
regenerate
.
And
against
our
Doctrine
thus
declared
,
your
arguments
fall
like
Dagon
before
the
Arke
of
the
Covenant
.
For
to
the
first
,
we
readily
answer
;
It
followeth
not
that
if
our
Doctrine
be
a
truth
,
then
one
may
be
saved
by
anothers
faith
.
For
we
doe
not
teach
that
all
within
the
Covenant
,
or
all
that
are
holy
by
the
Covenant
are
saved
,
or
are
in
a
state
of
salvation
:
But
that
by
the
Covenant
they
are
either
in
a
state
of
salvation
,
or
under
the
meanes
of
salvation
.
Neither
doe
we
teach
that
all
under
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
are
in
a
state
of
grace
,
unlesse
a
state
of
grace
be
taken
in
a
large
sense
for
such
a
state
,
in
which
they
receive
the
offer
and
meanes
of
grace
,
which
to
the
elect
seed
doe
become
effectual
;
much
lesse
do
we
teach
,
that
by
vertue
of
a
believers
being
in
a
state
of
grace
,
all
his
children
doe
partake
of
the
same
grace
with
him
,
and
that
so
farre
as
he
doth
.
These
things
wee
neither
believe
nor
professe
;
neither
can
they
be
gathered
from
our
doctrine
by
any
just
consequence
.
Secondly
,
to
your
second
,
the
answer
is
as
easie
.
For
,
1.
We
doe
not
say
,
that
the
children
of
believers
are
holy
with
that
holinesse
which
accompanyeth
regeneration
,
and
mortifieth
originall
corruption
,
but
onely
with
that
holinesse
whereby
they
are
admitted
to
the
meanes
of
grace
,
with
promise
of
efficacy
to
the
elect
seed
,
and
offers
thereof
to
the
rest
,
so
farre
as
to
leave
them
without
excuse
.
2.
Suppose
we
did
hold
(
that
which
is
farre
from
us
to
conceive
)
that
all
infants
in
the
Covenant
were
regenerate
,
and
so
holy
as
well
as
their
beleeving
.
Parents
,
and
as
farre
as
they
;
Yet
that
would
not
take
away
the
being
or
remaining
of
Originall
sinne
in
them
,
but
onely
the
reigning
of
it
.
For
doe
you
thinke
that
the
being
of
Originall
sin
is
taken
away
from
regenerate
believers
?
We
for
our
part
believe
what
we
have
cause
to
grone
under
,
that
Originall
sin
remaineth
in
a
believer
;
and
though
it
be
pardoned
and
in
some
measure
mortified
,
yet
it
is
not
utterly
destroyed
till
death
.
To
your
third
,
wee
deny
that
our
doctrine
is
any
ground
of
falling
away
out
of
an
estate
of
grace
;
if
you
speake
of
an
estate
of
saving
grace
.
For
wee
doe
not
say
,
that
all
within
the
Covenant
,
or
under
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
are
in
an
estate
of
saving
grace
.
Though
in
a
large
sense
all
the
members
of
the
Church
,
whether
Infants
or
Professors
of
the
faith
,
are
in
such
a
state
of
grace
,
as
that
they
do
partake
of
the
common
gifts
of
grace
,
and
of
the
Ordinances
of
grace
.
Neverthelesse
they
may
fall
away
from
such
grace
;
which
the
Apostle
feared
in
some
of
the
Galatians
,
Gal.
5.4
.
To
your
fourth
and
last
we
answer
,
it
were
a
false
slander
,
if
you
should
report
that
our
Doctrine
doth
hold
forth
,
that
ever
Esau
or
Ishmael
were
subjects
of
a
saving
estate
of
saving
grace
:
For
though
we
say
,
they
were
borne
under
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
were
made
partakers
of
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
yet
wee
doe
not
say
they
were
ever
subjects
of
Gods
saving
grace
.
It
is
a
grace
to
partake
in
the
meanes
of
grace
,
and
in
the
enjoyment
of
many
gifts
of
common
grace
,
and
in
the
offers
of
saving
grace
;
and
yet
many
have
enjoyed
all
these
,
who
neverthelesse
were
never
subjects
of
saving
grace
,
neither
of
election
,
whereof
your
two
former
texts
speake
,
nor
of
perseverance
in
the
Covenant
,
whereof
your
two
latter
speake
.
And
to
fall
from
such
an
estate
of
grace
,
I
leave
it
to
you
upon
second
thoughts
to
judge
,
whether
it
tend
to
Popery
and
Arminianisme
,
or
no.
To
gather
up
then
the
summe
of
all
this
discourse
about
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
to
an
head
:
You
have
seen
it
now
proved
and
maintained
against
all
exceptions
,
1.
That
God
made
a
Covenant
of
grace
with
Abraham
and
his
seed
.
2.
That
God
gave
circumcision
to
be
a
seale
of
the
same
Covenant
to
Abraham
and
to
all
his
infant-seed
.
3.
That
by
the
redemption
of
Christ
,
the
Covenant
and
blessing
of
Abraham
is
come
upon
the
beleeving
Gentiles
and
our
seed
.
4.
These
things
being
already
cleared
,
the
fourth
thing
that
remaineth
to
be
cleared
,
is
,
that
circumcision
being
now
abolished
,
Baptisme
succeedeth
in
the
roome
thereof
,
as
a
seale
of
the
same
Covenant
to
believers
and
our
seed
.
Which
,
if
it
may
appeare
,
then
it
will
appeare
also
,
that
the
same
Covenant
of
grace
,
which
gave
a
Commandement
,
or
word
of
institution
for
the
Circumcision
of
faithfull
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
doth
also
hold
forth
the
same
commandement
,
and
word
of
institution
,
for
the
Baptism
of
faithfull
Gentiles
and
our
seed
.
Now
that
Baptisme
doth
succeed
Circumcision
it
is
evident
from
the
testimony
of
Paul
,
Col.
2.11
,
12.
where
the
Apostle
having
proved
that
we
are
compleat
in
Christ
,
by
the
fulnesse
of
the
Godhead
dwelling
in
him
,
v.
9
,
●0
.
Lest
it
might
bee
objected
that
wee
want
circumcision
,
and
consequently
we
want
the
spirituall
benefit
signified
and
sealed
by
it
,
which
is
the
cutting
off
of
the
body
of
the
sinnes
of
the
flesh
,
the
Apostle
answereth
,
wee
are
circumcised
with
the
circumcision
made
without
hands
,
in
putting
off
the
body
of
the
sinnes
of
the
flesh
,
by
the
circumcision
of
Christ
,
v.
11.
And
lest
it
should
have
been
objected
againe
,
that
wee
want
an
outward
signe
and
seale
of
this
spirituall
benefit
,
the
putting
off
of
the
body
of
the
sinnes
of
the
flesh
.
The
Apostle
answereth
again
;
no
neither
doe
we
want
the
outward
sign
and
seale
thereof
,
we
being
buried
with
him
in
Baptisme
,
v.
12.
The
Argument
seemeth
to
me
somewhat
weake
;
It
is
well
that
you
acknowledge
the
weaknesse
of
your
answer
;
But
let
us
consider
your
answer
,
such
as
it
is
.
What
though
(
say
you
)
Baptisme
succeedeth
Circumcision
?
must
it
needs
follow
,
that
as
infants
were
circumcised
,
they
must
of
necessity
be
baptized
?
Yes
verily
;
or
else
Baptisme
doth
not
succeed
Circumcision
,
for
what
is
succession
,
but
the
substitution
of
latter
things
for
former
things
in
the
same
subject
?
If
the
subject
bee
changed
,
so
farre
as
there
is
a
change
of
the
subject
,
there
is
no
succession
.
If
Belshazzar
dye
,
and
Cyrus
,
or
Darius
reigne
in
Persia
,
here
is
no
succession
.
But
if
Belshazzar
King
of
the
Chaldeans
die
,
and
Darius
King
of
Persia
succeed
in
the
Kingdome
of
the
Chaldees
,
then
there
is
a
true
succession
;
else
not
,
especially
in
the
case
in
hand
,
it
was
requisite
for
the
clearing
of
the
Apostles
doctrine
,
that
Baptism
should
succeed
upon
all
those
persons
on
whom
Circumcision
proceeded
:
or
else
the
weaknesse
of
your
Argument
will
weaken
the
strength
of
the
Apostles
Argument
For
the
Apostle
is
to
prove
,
that
we
are
compleat
in
Christ
,
not
only
in
the
inward
Circumcision
of
the
heart
,
which
taketh
away
the
sinfull
body
of
the
flesh
,
but
also
in
the
signe
and
seale
of
it
,
even
our
Baptism
,
which
doth
confirme
the
same
things
unto
us
,
and
giveth
us
as
effectuall
fellowship
in
Christs
death
and
buriall
,
to
the
putting
away
of
sinne
,
as
they
had
in
circumcision
.
But
take
away
the
Baptisme
of
Infants
,
and
the
Apostles
argument
will
faile
.
For
it
might
be
objected
,
that
the
Jewes
in
their
circumcision
of
themselves
and
their
Infants
,
had
a
signe
and
seale
,
that
God
would
circumcise
not
onely
their
owne
hearts
,
but
the
hearts
of
their
Infant-seed
also
;
but
wee
in
our
Baptisme
,
though
we
have
a
signe
and
seale
that
God
will
wash
and
purifie
our
hearts
,
yet
not
so
the
hearts
of
our
Infants
also
.
And
therefore
we
are
lesse
compleat
in
Christ
in
our
Baptisme
,
then
the
Jewes
were
in
their
circumcision
,
which
if
it
were
admitted
,
would
utterly
evacuate
the
Apostles
argument
;
who
pleadeth
our
compleatnesse
in
Christ
,
notwithstanding
our
want
of
circumcision
,
in
that
we
enjoy
the
like
fulnesse
of
benefit
in
our
Baptism
,
as
the
Jews
did
in
their
circumcision
.
But
admit
the
Baptisme
of
our
Infants
,
as
well
as
of
our selves
,
to
succeed
in
the
place
of
circumcision
to
the
Jews
and
their
infants
;
and
then
the
Apostles
argument
proceedeth
fully
,
and
concludeth
invincibly
;
That
we
are
as
compleat
in
Christ
in
our
Baptism
,
as
the
Iews
were
in
their
circumcision
.
Put
us
not
off
therefore
with
a
difference
of
Order
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
in
the
Old
;
The
New
Testament
(
say
you
)
succeedeth
the
Old
;
must
it
needs
therefore
follow
,
that
the
same
order
be
observed
now
,
as
then
?
For
though
the
order
may
bee
changed
in
succession
,
yet
the
extent
and
amplitude
of
the
subjects
is
not
changed
,
especially
not
straitned
or
diminished
,
but
inlarged
in
a
growing
state
.
The
order
of
Solomons
house
(
who
succeeded
David
)
was
changed
not
a
little
in
point
of
magnificence
from
the
order
of
Davids
house
:
but
yet
the
subjects
were
the
same
,
or
rather
more
abundant
and
numerous
,
none
of
Davids
subjects
being
excluded
.
It
is
true
,
in
a
declining
and
decaying
state
,
the
extent
and
amplitude
of
Rehoboams
subjects
were
not
so
large
,
as
those
of
Solomons
whom
he
succeeded
.
But
I
hope
you
will
not
make
Rehoboam
a
type
of
Christ
,
in
his
folly
and
decay
of
his
Dominion
,
but
rather
looke
at
Solomon
as
an
intended
type
of
Christ
,
even
in
the
latitude
of
his
Dominion
,
that
above
Davids
;
from
Sea
to
Sea
,
from
the
River
unto
the
ends
of
the
earth
.
The
Lords
Supper
succeedeth
the
Passeover
;
But
how
doe
you
make
it
appeare
I
pray
you
,
When
your
children
(
saith
Moses
)
shall
say
unto
you
,
What
meane
you
by
this
service
?
ye
shall
say
,
It
is
the
sacrifice
of
the
Lords
Passeover
,
who
passed
over
our
houses
in
Egypt
,
when
hee
smote
the
Egyptians
.
It
is
true
(
that
you
say
)
children
are
not
capable
subjects
of
the
Lords
Supper
:
For
receiving
whereof
,
the
Apostle
requireth
wee
should
examine
and
judge
our selves
.
But
Infants
are
as
capable
subjects
of
Baptisme
now
in
the
dayes
of
the
New
Testament
,
as
the
Infants
of
the
Jews
were
of
Circumcision
.
For
circumcision
and
baptisme
being
both
of
them
alike
signes
and
seales
of
our
new
birth
(
either
wrought
,
or
to
be
wrought
;
)
and
in
our
new
birth
,
we
being
meerely
passive
,
children
are
as
capable
subjects
passively
to
bee
wrought
upon
to
a
new
birth
,
as
men
of
riper
yeares
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
being
a
signe
and
seale
of
our
spirituall
growth
in
Christ
,
and
dispensed
not
in
milke
,
but
in
strong
meat
,
bread
and
wine
,
whereunto
holy
preparation
was
requisite
,
Infants
are
not
capable
subjects
of
this
,
though
they
bee
of
the
other
.
But
this
seemeth
a
double
mystery
to
mee
,
how
persons
are
fit
and
capable
of
union
in
a
state
,
that
are
not
fit
and
capable
of
Communion
in
the
Ordinances
of
the
same
state
.
And
yet
more
mysticall
,
how
one
should
bee
a
capable
subject
of
Baptisme
,
and
not
of
the
Supper
.
I
can
see
no
rule
for
such
a
practise
in
all
the
Book
of
God
.
And
it
is
against
the
rule
of
Nature
,
that
when
a
Childe
is
born
,
it
should
bee
kept
from
food
.
It
troubleth
mee
to
hear
you
call
such
plain
points
both
in
Religion
,
and
Nature
,
Mysteries
,
When
you
make
it
a
mystery
,
how
persons
can
bee
fit
and
capable
of
union
in
a
state
,
and
yet
not
bee
fit
and
capable
of
Communion
in
the
Ordinances
of
the
same
state
:
You
know
wee
esteeme
infants
fit
and
capable
Persons
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
seale
of
it
,
Baptisme
.
If
you
thinke
otherwise
,
then
you
doe
expresly
make
Infants
unfit
and
uncapable
of
Union
with
Christ
,
or
with
his
Church
,
and
so
uncapable
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
:
Which
sometime
you
disclaime
.
But
if
you
speak
of
(
all
)
Ordinances
,
you
speak
against
common
sense
,
and
experience
.
Infants
are
members
of
the
Common-wealth
,
and
so
are
they
also
of
the
family
:
and
accordingly
fit
and
capable
of
Union
with
both
estates
.
And
yet
they
are
neither
capable
of
the
Ordinance
of
Goverment
,
nor
of
the
Ordinance
of
obedience
to
the
Laws
and
orders
in
either
state
.
And
why
should
it
seem
more
mysticall
to
you
,
that
Infants
should
bee
capable
of
Baptism
,
and
yet
not
bee
capable
of
the
Lords
Supper
?
You
have
seen
even
now
a
reason
of
both
,
both
in
Religion
and
Nature
.
And
therefore
doe
not
say
,
you
can
see
no
rule
for
it
in
all
the
Book
of
God
:
and
it
is
against
a
rule
in
Nature
,
to
keep
a
Childe
born
from
his
food
.
For
Baptisme
holding
forth
the
death
and
buriall
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
if
there
bee
food
in
these
(
as
there
bee
food
indeed
)
then
children
born
,
that
want
not
these
(
as
in
Baptisme
they
are
administred
to
them
)
they
want
not
food
.
Yea
,
children
in
the
wombe
,
before
they
bee
born
to
see
the
light
,
yet
they
want
not
food
,
but
are
fed
by
the
Navell
from
the
blood
that
is
gathered
in
the
mothers
wombe
,
before
they
come
forth
to
suck
the
brests
.
And
so
is
it
with
the
Infants
in
the
Church
,
they
are
fed
by
the
blood
and
Spirit
of
Christ
in
Baptism
,
before
they
can
suck
the
sincere
milk
of
the
Word
.
no
rejected
Ishmaelite
and
Esau
,
are
to
bee
admitted
either
unto
Union
or
Communion
in
the
Church
,
under
the
New
Testament
,
by
Christs
appointment
,
therefore
though
Baptisme
succeed
Circumcision
,
yet
the
same
subjects
doe
not
so
.
Simon
Magus
,
Ananias
and
Sapphira
allowed
any
longer
Union
and
Communion
with
the
Church
of
the
New
Testament
,
after
they
once
shewed
themselves
like
Esau
or
Ishmael
,
to
bee
rejected
of
God
.
But
before
that
time
Simon
Magus
,
Ananias
and
Sapphira
,
were
as
well
admitted
into
Union
and
Communion
with
the
Church
of
the
New
Testament
,
as
young
Ishmael
and
Esau
in
the
Old
.
The
two
Testaments
are
as
Wills
containing
certain
Legacies
,
given
and
bequeathed
onely
to
such
,
whose
names
are
expressely
set
down
in
the
same
,
as
Rev.
21.27
.
In
the
Old
Testament
,
as
the
first
will
,
a
male
of
eight
dayes
old
,
or
a
Proselyte
,
Exod.
12.48
,
49.
Gen.
17.10.14.23.25
.
Joh.
8
Phil.
3.4
,
5.
In
the
New
Testament
,
as
the
last
will
of
Christ
,
the
Legacies
therein
contained
,
as
the
Priviledges
and
blessings
of
Abraham
,
they
are
given
only
to
such
as
beleeve
,
and
to
none
else
,
Gal.
3.14.22.29
.
Rom.
8.17
.
and
4.11
,
12.
and
9.7
,
8.
Gal.
3.6
,
7.
These
are
such
as
are
begotten
again
,
by
the
immortall
seed
of
the
Word
,
born
of
the
Spirit
,
and
so
children
of
God
,
the
onely
true
heires
of
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
with
the
prviledges
thereof
,
as
Jam.
1.18
.
1
Pet.
2.23
.
Joh.
1.12
,
13.
Joh.
3.5
,
6.
1
Joh.
3.9
,
10.
Rom.
8.17
.
These
are
the
holy
seed
,
which
God
so
approves
of
in
the
Scriptures
,
as
Subjects
of
Grace
,
and
Heires
of
Life
:
and
being
in
Covenant
,
they
only
have
right
to
the
priviledges
thereof
.
And
their
children
and
off-spring
are
such
as
succeed
them
in
the
same
Faith
,
and
Truth
,
and
so
are
called
the
Generation
of
the
Righteous
,
succeeding
each
other
in
the
way
of
Righteousnesse
,
and
not
their
Infants
or
personall
seed
,
proceeding
from
their
loynes
by
carnall
generation
,
as
Isa.
43.5
.
and
44.3
.
and
54.3
.
and
59.21
.
and
66.22
.
and
61.9
.
and
65.23
.
Compare
Rev.
12.17
.
Gal.
4.26
.
to
31.
I
willingly
acknowledge
that
the
two
Testaments
,
are
two
Wills
,
containing
such
Legacies
,
as
are
bequeathed
and
given
onely
to
such
,
whose
names
are
either
expressely
set
down
,
or
whose
condition
is
plainly
described
in
them
;
Otherwise
,
if
you
stand
upon
expresse
names
,
are
there
any
such
names
expressely
set
down
,
as
William
and
Rowland
,
Richard
and
Robert
,
Godfrey
and
Geoffrey
,
or
the
like
?
And
would
you
exclude
all
such
whose
names
are
not
expressely
set
down
,
from
any
Legacies
in
either
Testament
?
But
I
take
your
meaning
to
bee
,
by
names
,
to
understand
Natures
,
or
Conditions
:
and
by
expressely
set
down
,
to
understand
plainly
described
.
The
place
which
you
alledge
out
of
Revel.
21.27
.
is
a
part
of
the
description
of
the
pure
Church
of
the
Jewes
,
after
their
last
Conversion
(
the
New
Hierusalem
)
by
the
condition
of
such
Proselytes
,
as
from
among
the
Nations
shall
enter
into
fellowship
with
them
.
They
shall
not
bee
prophane
persons
,
defilers
and
corrupters
of
others
,
nor
makers
of
images
which
are
abominations
and
lies
.
And
thus
far
the
description
agreeth
to
Infants
,
as
well
as
to
men
of
riper
yeers
.
As
for
the
other
part
of
the
description
,
that
none
shall
enter
but
such
as
are
writen
in
the
Lambes
book
of
life
;
this
I
would
say
to
it
:
1.
You
cannot
justly
deny
,
but
that
Gods
Testimony
of
the
Infants
of
Beleevers
,
that
they
are
holy
(
1
Cor.
7.14
.
)
and
that
of
such
is
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
Mark
.
10.14
.
is
as
good
an
Evidence
of
their
Election
,
as
the
Profession
of
Faith
and
Repentance
,
which
men
of
yeers
are
wont
to
make
,
is
an
evidence
of
their
election
before
the
Church
.
Again
,
2.
It
is
one
thing
,
to
speak
of
such
as
enter
into
the
Church
(
for
that
agreeth
to
such
as
were
sometime
without
:
)
another
thing
,
to
speake
of
the
Infants
of
believers
,
who
were
never
out
of
the
Church
,
and
so
cannot
be
said
to
enter
into
it
.
Besides
,
3.
It
is
one
thing
to
enter
into
the
Church
as
an
abiding
member
;
another
thing
so
to
enter
,
as
for
some
notorious
scandall
to
be
cast
out
of
it
.
Such
shall
be
the
purity
of
the
Government
of
that
new
Hierusalem
,
as
that
no
prophane
person
shall
enter
into
it
,
nor
any
hypocrite
:
or
if
any
hypocrite
should
creepe
in
(
as
there
did
in
the
most
pure
and
discerning
times
,
even
in
the
Apostles
dayes
)
yet
they
will
in
time
be
discerned
,
and
then
cast
out
:
Otherwise
there
would
be
no
use
of
excommunication
in
those
pure
Iewish
Churches
;
which
is
not
probable
.
Yea
,
infants
themselves
,
though
borne
in
the
Church
;
yet
if
when
they
grow
up
to
yeares
they
shall
degenerate
into
a
prophane
or
scandalous
course
,
they
shall
not
be
tolerated
to
abide
in
the
Church
:
yea
,
if
they
shall
not
take
hold
of
the
Covenant
of
their
Fathers
,
but
content
themselves
in
an
ignorant
,
or
civill
,
or
worldly
course
of
life
,
they
shall
not
bee
allowed
to
enter
into
holy
communion
with
the
sincere
members
of
the
Church
at
the
Lords
Table
.
4.
It
is
one
thing
to
prophecy
of
the
transcendent
glorious
happinesse
of
an
exact
pure
Church
in
some
age
of
it
:
another
thing
to
command
and
foretell
the
perpetuall
continuance
of
it
in
the
same
degree
of
purity
.
Sure
I
am
,
that
when
Christ
commeth
to
judgement
,
he
shall
find
in
those
pure
Churches
of
the
Jews
some
foolish
Virgins
,
as
well
as
some
wise
.
And
the
foolish
Virgins
shall
bee
shut
out
from
the
presence
of
Christ
(
Mat.
25.10
,
11
,
12.
)
And
they
that
are
shut
out
,
were
never
written
in
the
Lambs
book
of
life
.
5.
It
is
one
thing
to
speake
of
the
members
of
the
Church
universally
;
another
thing
to
speake
of
them
all
indefinitely
;
all
of
them
,
(
that
is
,
the
body
of
them
,
or
the
greater
part
of
them
)
may
be
said
to
be
written
in
the
Lambs
booke
of
life
,
to
bee
all
righteous
,
(
Isa.
60.21
.
)
to
have
their
sinnes
forgiven
,
and
not
to
complaine
of
any
sicknesse
,
Isa.
33.21
.
But
how
can
this
bee
understood
universally
of
all
the
members
of
the
Church
at
all
times
?
6.
It
is
one
thing
to
speake
of
the
condition
,
in
which
God
approveth
Church-members
;
another
thing
to
speak
of
the
condition
,
in
which
God
approveth
the
receiving
of
Church-members
.
God
never
approved
the
condition
of
Judas
in
his
Apostleship
,
or
in
his
Church-membership
;
and
yet
hee
approved
the
receiving
of
him
into
both
.
But
to
proceed
to
the
difference
which
you
make
of
the
subjects
of
the
two
Testaments
,
though
that
bee
a
point
scanned
before
,
and
needlesly
repeated
here
:
When
you
make
the
Old
Testament
to
bequeath
Legacies
to
a
male
of
eight
dayes
old
,
or
to
a
Proselyte
,
and
for
that
end
quote
Gen.
17.10
,
14
,
23
,
25.
with
other
Scriptures
;
and
the
New
Testament
to
bestow
Legacies
(
as
the
Priviledges
and
blessing
of
Abraham
)
onely
to
such
as
believe
,
and
none
else
.
You
speake
not
herein
according
to
the
language
of
the
Scriptures
.
For
the
Scripture
never
calleth
the
Testament
or
Covenant
which
God
made
with
Abraham
,
Gen.
17.
the
Old
Testament
:
your
mistake
herein
hath
been
a
principall
occasion
of
corrupting
your
judgement
,
both
in
this
point
in
hand
,
and
sundry
other
that
have
reference
to
it
.
I
have
shewed
you
above
,
that
the
Testament
which
the
Scripture
calleth
the
Old
Testament
,
was
that
made
with
the
Israelites
on
Mount
Sinai
,
not
that
made
with
Abraham
,
(
Gen.
17.
)
in
the
land
of
Canaan
.
It
had
been
small
comfort
to
us
,
that
Christ
by
his
death
should
procure
us
this
priviledge
,
that
the
blessing
of
Abraham
might
come
upon
believing
Gentiles
,
if
the
blessing
of
Abraham
were
not
better
then
the
Old
Testament
,
or
Covenant
:
of
which
the
Apostle
said
long
agoe
(
even
in
his
time
)
it
was
ready
to
vanish
away
,
Heb.
8.13
.
and
was
indeed
soon
after
(
with
the
Temple
)
wholly
abolished
.
It
is
true
,
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
bequeathed
this
Legacy
to
a
male
of
eight
dayes
old
,
to
bee
circumcised
;
but
circumcision
was
onely
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
.
The
chiefe
Legacy
bequeathed
in
that
Covenant
,
was
the
promise
that
God
would
bee
a
Father
to
Abraham
and
to
his
seed
.
And
a
God
hee
was
to
them
,
whilst
they
were
yet
in
the
wombe
,
or
being
borne
,
were
not
yet
come
to
be
eight
dayes
of
old
.
Else
all
the
Infants
of
Gods
people
that
dyed
in
their
first
weeke
,
lived
and
dyed
out
of
Covenant
.
And
so
the
Covenant
shall
depend
upon
the
seale
,
not
the
seale
upon
the
Covenant
:
and
the
grace
of
the
Covenant
shall
not
know
,
nor
acknowledge
,
nor
owne
infants
the
first
seven
dayes
,
untill
the
eight
;
and
so
the
eternall
Jehovah
(
to
whom
a
thousand
yeers
is
but
as
one
day
)
shall
limit
the
grace
of
his
eternall
Covenant
,
not
to
shine
forth
upon
the
Infants
of
believers
,
til
the
eighth
day
shine
forth
upon
them
.
It
remaineth
therefore
that
the
Infants
of
Abraham
and
of
his
seed
were
under
the
Covenant
assoone
as
they
were
his
seed
,
to
wit
,
even
from
their
conception
,
though
none
of
them
were
circumcised
,
but
the
males
only
,
nor
the
males
neither
,
till
the
eighth
day
.
The
males
onely
,
partly
because
the
Females
had
not
such
a
foreskin
of
their
flesh
,
as
was
to
be
circumcised
;
partly
because
God
would
have
them
trained
up
(
both
males
and
females
)
to
expect
all
the
blessing
of
their
circumcision
,
from
the
circumcision
of
Christ
Jesus
,
mentioned
,
Coloss.
2.11
.
Neither
were
the
males
circumcised
till
the
eigthth
day
,
not
because
they
were
not
subjects
of
Abrahams
Covenant
till
the
eighth
day
,
but
for
some
ceremoniall
respect
,
or
for
some
other
reason
peculiar
to
that
Rite
.
Circumcision
being
a
cutting
of
the
flesh
,
it
was
a
worke
of
mercy
not
to
put
infants
the
first
weeke
to
the
paine
,
till
they
were
better
able
to
beare
it
.
Some
have
anciently
thought
the
circumcision
of
the
eighth
day
did
prefigure
the
sanctification
of
the
eighth
day
for
a
Sabbath
in
the
dayes
of
the
Messiah
.
Others
have
thought
God
would
have
Circumcision
deferred
till
the
eighth
day
,
that
a
Sabbath
might
passe
over
the
Parents
,
that
he
might
solemnly
renew
his
Covenant
with
God
,
before
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
should
bee
applyed
to
his
Infant
.
Others
have
conceived
,
that
as
God
would
not
have
a
Kid
or
Lamb
sacrificed
to
him
till
it
had
sucked
of
the
Dam
seven
dayes
;
so
neither
would
hee
call
forth
the
infant
to
be
solemnly
presented
and
offered
to
him
in
that
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
till
the
seven
dayes
were
fulfilled
.
However
it
was
,
certaine
it
is
that
the
limitation
of
the
eighth
day
,
was
not
a
morall
appendant
to
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
And
therefore
the
Infants
of
believers
,
both
in
those
former
times
,
and
in
these
now
,
partaked
in
the
Legacies
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
as
well
before
eight
days
,
as
after
.
Nay
(
say
you
)
in
the
New
Testament
,
as
the
last
Will
of
Christ
,
the
Legacies
therein
contained
(
as
the
Priviledges
and
blessing
of
Abraham
)
are
given
onely
to
such
as
believe
,
and
to
none
else
.
Two
things
let
me
here
answer
you
.
1.
It
implyeth
a
contradiction
to
say
,
the
blessing
of
Abraham
is
given
to
believers
,
and
onely
to
believers
,
and
to
none
else
,
intending
thereby
to
exclude
the
infants
of
believers
.
For
what
is
the
blessing
of
Abraham
?
Is
it
not
this
promise
of
grace
,
that
God
will
bee
a
God
to
him
and
his
seed
?
If
this
blessing
then
come
upon
believers
,
then
this
promise
commeth
upon
them
;
That
God
will
be
a
God
to
them
and
their
seed
.
You
must
therefore
either
deny
the
blessing
of
Abraham
to
come
upon
believers
;
or
else
you
must
grant
the
promise
of
grace
to
come
upon
them
and
upon
their
seed
also
.
Yea
,
(
say
you
)
upon
their
believing
seed
,
such
as
succeed
them
in
the
same
faith
and
truth
,
not
upon
others
.
If
that
were
the
meaning
of
the
promise
,
it
could
not
bee
said
with
any
congruity
of
speech
,
that
the
promise
commeth
upon
the
seed
of
believers
at
all
.
For
when
the
children
of
believers
come
to
be
believers
,
the
promise
commeth
not
to
them
at
all
as
the
seed
of
believers
,
but
as
believers
themselves
.
The
children
of
Pagans
when
they
come
to
beleeve
,
may
as
well
claim
the
promise
to
belong
unto
them
,
as
may
the
children
of
believers
,
when
themselves
doe
believe
.
The
second
thing
that
I
would
answer
you
,
is
,
that
all
the
places
which
you
alledge
to
prove
,
that
the
priviledges
of
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
doe
belong
only
unto
believers
,
they
onely
speake
of
saving
priviledges
flowing
from
faith
:
All
which
wee
readily
grant
you
,
(
as
a
point
out
of
controversie
)
doe
all
of
them
belong
to
believers
,
and
not
immediately
to
the
children
of
believers
,
till
they
come
on
themselves
to
believe
likewise
.
But
this
wee
further
claime
in
the
behalfe
of
the
children
of
believers
(
which
wee
have
proved
before
,
though
you
are
willing
to
take
no
notice
of
it
)
that
the
children
of
believers
doe
come
on
themselves
to
believe
,
by
reason
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
which
God
hath
made
with
believers
and
their
seed
,
for
by
that
Covenant
hee
hath
promised
to
write
the
law
of
faith
(
as
of
all
other
saving
graces
)
in
their
hearts
,
that
they
also
may
come
in
Gods
time
and
way
to
enjoy
all
the
other
saving
priviledges
of
the
Covenant
,
as
did
their
Fathers
before
them
.
To
take
a
short
survey
of
the
places
,
which
you
quote
,
that
Text
in
Gal.
3.22
.
holdeth
forth
that
the
promise
(
to
wit
,
the
promise
of
eternall
life
,
of
which
he
spake
in
the
next
verse
before
)
is
given
by
faith
to
them
that
believe
.
So
is
also
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
given
to
them
that
believe
,
as
the
other
places
you
quote
,
shew
,
Rom.
4.11
,
12.
Gal.
3.6
,
7.
So
likewise
the
inheritance
of
glory
is
given
to
sonnes
,
even
the
regenerate
sonnes
of
God
,
who
have
received
the
spirit
of
adoption
,
as
your
other
place
sheweth
,
Rom.
8.17
.
But
what
doth
all
this
prove
?
That
no
Legacies
of
the
New
Testament
,
no
priviledges
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
no
blessing
of
Abraham
belongeth
to
the
children
of
believers
.
It
proveth
indeed
that
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
and
eternall
life
and
glory
,
doe
belong
to
believers
,
and
to
such
as
are
regenerate
by
the
spirit
of
adoption
.
But
what
thinke
you
of
faith
it selfe
,
and
the
spirit
of
adoption
?
Are
they
not
also
Legacies
of
the
New
Testament
?
Are
they
not
the
Priviledges
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
blessing
of
Abraham
?
And
these
when
they
are
first
given
,
they
are
not
given
to
believers
,
who
have
them
already
;
but
to
such
as
have
them
not
:
And
therefore
the
children
of
believers
are
capable
of
these
Legacies
and
priviledges
,
by
the
blessing
of
Abraham
in
the
new
Covenant
.
For
this
is
a
promise
of
the
new
Covenant
,
they
shall
all
know
mee
from
the
least
of
them
to
the
greatest
of
them
,
Jer.
31.34
.
And
that
knowledge
is
faith
upon
which
sinnes
are
forgiven
,
Isa.
53.11
.
And
this
is
another
promise
of
the
same
Covenant
,
I
will
poure
my
Spirit
upon
thy
seed
,
and
my
blessing
upon
thine
off-spring
,
Isa.
44.3
.
If
then
the
Spirit
and
Faith
be
given
by
the
New
Testament
,
(
or
which
is
all
one
,
the
new
Covenant
)
then
all
the
Legacies
,
and
priviledges
,
and
blessings
of
the
Covenant
,
are
not
given
onely
believers
,
but
some
also
to
the
children
of
believers
,
that
they
may
receive
the
spirit
and
faith
also
.
It
is
therefore
a
slender
evasion
to
alledge
(
as
you
doe
)
that
the
children
and
off-spring
of
believers
are
such
onely
,
as
succeed
them
in
the
same
faith
and
truth
,
and
so
are
called
the
generation
of
the
righteous
.
For
they
did
not
succeed
them
in
the
same
faith
,
and
truth
,
and
righteousnesse
,
till
it
was
given
them
;
and
given
them
it
was
by
a
legacy
of
the
New
Testament
,
when
they
were
onely
the
children
of
the
faithfull
,
and
had
neither
faith
,
nor
truth
,
nor
righteousnesse
in
them
.
The
other
places
which
you
quote
,
do
shew
,
that
men
of
yeares
,
(
as
well
as
children
)
are
sometimes
called
the
seed
of
the
Church
.
And
that
the
godly
ones
amongst
them
are
begotten
of
the
immortall
seed
of
the
word
,
and
are
regenerate
by
the
spirit
of
grace
,
have
a
seed
of
God
dwelling
in
them
,
are
maligned
by
the
carnall
seed
,
are
approved
of
God
,
and
acknowledged
as
heires
of
the
Kingdome
of
glory
.
All
which
are
truths
out
of
question
.
But
none
of
all
the
places
doe
exclude
the
Infants
of
believers
,
nor
their
growne
naturall
children
from
being
subjects
of
this
grace
of
the
Covenant
,
to
have
the
Spirit
of
grace
and
faith
poured
upon
them
by
vertue
of
the
Covenant
.
One
onely
place
of
all
the
rest
,
might
seem
to
look
that
way
,
which
you
quote
out
of
John
3.5
,
6
,
where
it
is
said
that
the
carnall
seed
,
as
being
flesh
,
and
destitute
of
the
spirit
,
cannot
enter
into
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
And
indeed
if
by
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
were
meant
the
Church
(
as
oftentimes
it
is
)
the
objection
would
bee
more
difficult
to
resolve
.
But
the
truth
is
,
in
that
place
,
by
the
Kingdome
of
God
,
is
plainly
meant
,
the
Kingdome
of
Glory
,
not
the
Church
.
For
Nicodemus
did
not
scruple
his
Church
estate
,
nor
enquire
how
hee
might
enter
into
the
visible
Church
,
but
how
hee
might
bee
saved
,
and
inherit
the
Kingdome
of
Glory
.
And
therefore
Christ
directeth
him
to
Regeneration
,
and
to
beleeve
in
his
Name
,
that
hee
might
attain
unto
everlasting
life
.
Joh.
3.5.14
,
15
,
16.
And
though
hee
speak
of
water
,
as
co-working
with
the
Spirit
in
Regeneration
,
(
ver.
5.
)
yet
by
water
may
either
bee
understood
the
Spirit
it self
(
as
washing
the
soule
like
water
,
in
Regeneration
:
)
or
,
if
Baptisme
bee
understood
,
yet
it
is
not
there
considered
,
as
a
necessary
ingredient
to
Church-fellowship
,
but
as
a
necessary
instrument
of
the
Spirit
,
unto
the
sealing
up
of
Regeneration
,
the
carelesse
neglect
and
contempt
whereof
,
would
exclude
from
salvation
,
Luk.
7.30
.
It
would
therefore
seem
a
more
reasonable
matter
,
It
is
no
unwonted
thing
with
God
,
Although
Baptisme
succeedeth
Circumcision
,
yet
the
difference
is
great
,
both
in
matter
and
manner
,
in
persons
and
things
.
Circumcision
sealeth
to
things
temporall
and
carnall
,
as
well
as
spirituall
:
and
so
were
the
subjects
and
things
to
come
,
as
under
types
and
shadowes
,
and
so
in
a
cloud
and
darknesse
:
wheras
Baptisme
hath
for
its
subjects
,
children
of
the
light
,
in
the
clear
evidence
of
the
Spirit
,
with
the
face
open
,
and
confirmes
faith
in
things
come
and
already
done
.
For
Baptisme
sealeth
onely
to
faith
in
Christ
,
and
grace
in
the
new
Birth
,
which
cannot
bee
where
there
is
not
first
a
begetting
by
the
immortall
seed
of
the
Word
of
Life
;
for
which
end
God
hath
ordained
in
the
Gospel
,
faith
and
beleeving
to
goe
before
Baptizing
,
as
Mat.
28.19
.
with
Mark
.
16.15
,
16.
And
that
way
and
order
,
which
hath
not
God
for
its
Authour
,
and
found
in
the
Records
of
Christ
,
with
his
Image
and
superscription
upon
it
,
let
us
say
,
as
sometimes
hee
did
,
Give
to
Caesar
,
that
which
is
Caesars
,
and
to
God
,
that
which
is
Gods
.
So
say
I
,
give
to
Antichrist
,
his
baptizing
of
Infants
:
and
to
Christ
,
his
baptizing
of
Beleevers
.
What
advantage
will
it
bee
to
Infants
,
to
come
before
they
bee
called
?
to
have
a
name
to
live
,
and
yet
dead
for
ought
any
one
knows
?
and
to
come
to
the
Marriage
Supper
without
a
wedding
garment
?
Shall
the
holy
things
of
God
bee
forced
upon
such
,
as
neither
beleeve
,
know
,
or
once
desire
them
?
Will
men
set
a
seale
to
a
blanck
?
Are
Children
capable
to
receive
meat
before
they
bee
born
?
Except
wee
make
Baptisme
the
wombe
of
Regeneration
,
as
many
doe
,
who
teach
that
Infants
are
regenerated
and
born
againe
of
the
Spirit
of
Grace
in
Baptisme
:
Whose
Doctrine
is
of
the
same
stampe
and
authority
,
as
hee
that
sent
them
so
to
Preach
;
What
can
be
more
naturall
then
the
begetting
or
bringing
forth
of
the
Infant
,
before
feeding
of
it
at
the
Mothers
brests
?
Is
it
not
sacriledge
to
presse
such
upon
the
Wife
of
Christ
,
the
Church
,
for
her
Paps
,
with
whom
shee
never
travelled
,
nor
bare
of
her
body
?
Christ
will
deny
himself
to
bee
food
and
nourishment
to
any
,
where
hee
hath
not
beene
first
seed
to
beget
?
Let
men
take
heed
how
they
impute
such
folly
to
the
wisdome
of
God
,
as
to
give
the
milk
of
his
brests
unto
any
that
are
still-born
;
or
to
set
dead
twigges
in
his
heavenly
and
divine
stock
,
or
naturall
branches
into
his
holy
and
spirituall
Vine
.
Let
such
beware
,
how
they
fight
against
the
God
of
Order
,
lest
instead
of
finding
the
brests
to
feed
,
before
the
womb
to
beare
,
they
meet
with
a
curse
upon
the
single
emptinesse
of
Christ
,
with
a
double
barrennesse
,
that
will
admit
of
no
conception
,
or
spirituall
birth
,
to
succeed
the
naturall
.
Not
that
I
intend
in
the
least
,
to
deny
salvation
unto
Infants
;
no
,
I
am
so
far
from
this
,
that
I
testify
against
all
such
Doctrine
:
nor
yet
affirm
all
Infants
to
bee
saved
:
neither
doe
I
know
among
Infants
which
shall
be
saved
,
and
which
not
;
Therefore
I
leave
it
as
a
secret
thing
to
God
,
untill
hee
make
the
same
appeare
by
some
visible
act
of
Faith
,
which
onely
giveth
a
visible
right
,
unto
any
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
.
And
therefore
I
cannot
see
by
the
Gospel
how
Infants
voyd
of
visible
Faith
,
should
have
visible
right
to
the
Priviledges
of
Grace
;
neither
ought
they
to
bee
admitted
thereunto
.
You
have
seen
by
the
Gospel
,
that
the
blessing
of
Abraham
,
Doe
not
say
,
that
you
are
farre
from
denying
in
the
least
measure
,
salvation
unto
Infants
.
For
if
Infants
dye
in
their
Infancy
,
you
have
apparently
declared
it
above
,
that
you
doe
not
acknowledge
them
to
bee
subjects
capable
either
of
election
to
grace
and
glory
,
or
of
Union
with
Christ
,
or
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
And
then
,
how
wee
should
beleeve
you
(
when
you
say
you
doe
not
in
the
least
measure
deny
salvation
to
Infants
,
and
yet
deny
all
such
meanes
of
salvation
,
without
which
it
is
impossible
,
they
should
bee
saved
)
judge
you
.
But
to
come
to
the
ground
you
work
upon
in
denying
to
them
Baptism
,
whereas
Circumcision
was
granted
to
them
of
old
,
and
in
both
a
promise
of
salvation
sealed
up
to
them
,
untill
they
came
to
reject
it
.
Though
Baptisme
(
you
conceive
)
succeed
Circumcision
,
yet
you
put
a
great
difference
between
them
,
both
in
matter
and
manner
,
"
in
persons
and
things
.
And
what
might
that
great
difference
bee
in
so
many
particulars
?
Circumcision
(
say
you
)
sealed
to
things
temporall
and
carnall
,
as
well
as
to
spirituall
,
and
so
were
the
subjects
(
carnall
,
as
well
as
spirituall
:
)
Baptisme
onely
sealeth
to
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
to
Grace
in
the
New
Birth
.
I
pray
you
doth
not
Baptisme
seale
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
as
well
as
Circumcision
,
in
whose
room
it
succeedeth
?
And
doth
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
contain
promises
of
temporall
,
and
carnall
(
or
outward
)
blessings
,
as
well
as
spirituall
?
Hose
.
2.18.21
,
22
,
23.
Hath
not
godlinesse
in
the
New
Testament
(
as
well
as
in
the
Old
)
the
Promises
of
this
life
,
as
well
as
that
which
is
to
come
?
1
Tim.
4.8
.
Doth
not
Baptisme
expressely
seale
up
unto
us
,
our
deliverance
out
of
Affliction
,
as
well
as
out
of
corruption
?
yea
,
to
the
raising
up
of
our
bodies
out
of
death
in
the
grave
,
as
well
as
of
our
soules
out
of
the
death
in
sin
?
1
Cor.
15.29
.
It
is
therefore
utterly
untrue
,
that
Baptisme
sealeth
onely
to
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
to
grace
in
the
New
Birth
;
For
it
sealeth
to
all
the
blessings
of
the
Covenant
,
as
well
those
of
this
life
,
as
of
that
which
is
to
come
.
That
which
sealeth
to
this
grand
blessing
of
the
Covenant
,
that
God
will
bee
a
God
to
such
or
such
,
sealeth
unto
all
other
gifts
of
God
also
.
God
never
giveth
himself
alone
,
but
hee
giveth
his
Son
and
his
Spirit
also
.
And
hee
that
giveth
us
his
own
Sonne
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
shall
hee
not
with
him
give
us
all
things
else
also
?
Rom.
8.32
.
Yea
,
where
Christ
is
given
hee
giveth
Repentance
unto
Israel
and
conversion
(
or
turning
)
of
the
hearts
of
the
Fathers
to
the
Children
,
and
of
the
Children
to
the
Fathers
,
and
both
of
them
to
the
Lord
.
Act.
5.31
.
and
Luk.
1.16
,
17.
And
Baptisme
is
a
seale
of
these
promises
,
as
of
the
whole
Covenant
.
And
therefore
Baptisme
is
not
onely
(
as
you
say
)
a
seale
to
Faith
,
and
to
the
Grace
of
the
New
Birth
,
as
if
it
onely
confirmed
our
own
Faith
touching
our
own
estates
,
and
our
own
New
Birth
:
But
it
confirmeth
also
our
Faith
,
that
God
will
give
Faith
and
Repentance
to
our
Children
,
and
turn
their
hearts
both
to
the
Lord
and
to
us
.
And
therefore
hee
powreth
the
water
of
Baptisme
upon
our
Children
,
that
hee
may
confirme
this
promise
of
Grace
,
the
powring
out
of
clean
water
,
of
his
Spirit
,
and
of
his
blessing
,
as
well
upon
our
seed
and
off-spring
,
as
upon
our selves
,
Isai
.
44.3
.
Another
difference
which
you
put
,
is
,
that
Circumcision
sealeth
to
things
to
come
,
as
under
Types
and
shadowes
,
and
so
to
subjects
in
a
cloud
,
and
darknesse
:
whereas
Baptisme
confirmeth
Faith
in
things
come
,
and
already
done
:
and
hath
for
its
subjects
Children
of
the
light
,
in
the
clear
evidence
of
the
Spirit
,
with
face
open
:
Suppose
this
difference
were
true
:
That
Circumcision
sealed
to
things
to
come
:
and
Baptisme
to
things
come
:
Circumcision
to
things
vailed
,
Baptisme
to
things
open
:
Yet
this
is
but
a
circumstantiall
difference
,
in
the
manner
of
revealing
the
blessings
promised
:
but
this
argueth
no
materiall
difference
at
all
in
the
persons
,
the
subjects
of
the
seale
.
It
will
onely
argue
thus
much
,
that
whereas
the
same
Christ
,
and
the
things
of
Christ
were
sealed
up
to
them
,
and
to
their
seed
more
darkly
,
they
are
sealed
up
to
us
and
our
seed
,
more
clearly
and
plainly
.
Besides
,
it
is
not
altogether
true
,
that
Circumcision
sealed
up
to
them
things
to
come
.
For
both
Baptisme
and
Circumcision
doe
seale
to
both
things
come
,
and
things
to
come
.
Circumcision
sealed
to
Abraham
,
God
to
bee
his
God
,
and
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
:
both
which
were
already
come
to
Abraham
before
hee
was
circumcised
.
It
sealed
up
also
sundry
things
to
come
,
to
him
,
and
his
seed
,
as
their
deliverance
out
of
Egypt
,
their
inheritance
of
Canaan
,
and
the
comming
of
the
Messiah
.
But
when
the
Israelites
came
to
enjoy
Canaan
,
Circumcision
did
not
then
seal
to
their
deliverance
out
of
Egypt
,
or
to
their
inheritance
of
Canaan
,
as
things
to
come
,
but
as
to
things
come
,
and
already
done
.
Circumcision
sealed
to
the
children
of
Israel
,
that
God
would
circumcise
their
hearts
,
and
the
hearts
of
their
seed
,
Deut.
30.6
.
which
was
a
thing
to
come
,
to
such
of
them
as
were
unregenerate
.
But
after
they
were
Regenerate
,
the
same
Circumcision
was
a
seale
of
that
blessing
,
which
God
had
already
done
for
them
.
So
is
it
with
Baptisme
:
Now
that
Christ
is
come
in
the
flesh
,
Baptisme
sealeth
that
to
us
,
as
a
thing
already
done
,
which
to
them
was
a
thing
to
come
.
And
yet
the
comming
of
Christ
into
our
hearts
,
is
a
thing
partly
done
in
the
Regenerate
,
and
yet
more
fully
to
bee
done
,
even
to
us
:
and
to
many
of
our
children
,
it
is
a
thing
to
come
.
To
the
children
of
God
that
walk
in
darknesse
,
and
see
no
light
,
(
which
is
the
case
of
many
,
and
at
some
time
or
other
,
of
all
)
the
return
of
the
Comforter
,
is
a
thing
to
come
,
and
Baptisme
is
a
seale
thereof
:
and
yet
it
is
a
seale
also
of
the
first
fruites
of
the
Spirit
,
which
are
already
come
.
Baptism
is
a
seale
of
the
Redemption
of
Christ
,
which
is
already
wrought
for
us
.
And
it
is
a
seale
of
our
deliverance
from
all
afflictions
,
and
from
all
temptations
and
from
all
corruptions
,
and
from
all
enemies
,
even
from
death
it self
,
and
many
of
these
are
yet
to
come
.
So
that
I
can
but
wonder
why
such
a
difference
as
this
should
bee
alleged
to
prove
a
personall
difference
of
the
subjects
of
Baptism
,
and
the
subjects
of
Circumcision
.
If
it
bee
said
(
as
you
partly
expresse
,
and
partly
imply
)
that
wee
who
live
under
Baptisme
are
the
children
of
light
,
but
they
that
lived
under
Circumcision
,
were
the
children
of
darknesse
,
and
therefore
though
their
children
being
in
darknesse
,
in
such
a
dark
time
,
might
bee
capable
of
Circumcision
,
yet
in
the
light
of
the
Gospel
our
children
are
not
capable
of
Baptisme
,
till
they
become
children
of
light
;
This
is
a
carnall
reasoning
,
not
savouring
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
or
speaking
the
language
of
the
Scripture
.
For
though
the
Spirit
of
God
in
Scripture
do
call
the
children
of
God
the
children
of
light
,
in
opposition
to
their
former
carnall
estate
,
whether
in
their
Pagancy
,
or
in
their
unregeneracy
(
1
Thess.
5.5
.
Ephes.
5
8.
)
yet
God
never
called
the
children
of
God
in
the
Old
Testament
,
nor
the
children
of
his
children
,
children
of
darknesse
:
Neither
doth
hee
use
such
a
phrase
,
as
to
call
the
children
of
the
New
Testament
,
children
of
the
light
,
in
opposition
to
the
children
of
the
Old
Testament
,
as
children
of
darknesse
.
Neither
is
it
altogether
a
true
speech
,
that
faith
in
Christ
,
and
grace
in
the
new
birth
,
cannot
bee
where
there
is
not
first
a
begetting
by
the
immortall
seed
of
the
word
of
life
.
For
it
hath
been
shewed
above
,
that
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
,
and
so
faith
,
were
not
wanting
in
John
Baptist
,
Jeremy
,
and
others
,
in
their
mothers
wombe
,
who
yet
had
never
heard
the
Word
of
life
.
Though
the
hearing
of
the
Word
of
life
bee
the
ordinary
instrument
,
which
the
Spirit
of
God
is
wont
to
use
in
begetting
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
in
men
of
understanding
:
yet
the
Spirit
himselfe
being
a
principall
part
of
the
immortall
seed
of
the
Word
,
hee
can
beget
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
without
the
Word
,
when
yet
the
Word
cannot
doe
it
without
him
.
And
yet
I
will
not
deny
that
in
some
sense
(
though
not
in
yours
)
it
may
be
granted
,
that
the
Spirit
ordinarily
never
worketh
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
in
the
children
of
the
faithfull
,
but
by
the
immortall
seed
of
the
Word
of
life
.
For
when
the
Spirit
begetteth
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
,
it
is
by
the
Ministery
of
the
Word
of
life
to
their
Parents
,
one
of
them
at
least
.
For
they
hearing
the
Word
of
life
promising
grace
and
life
to
themselves
,
and
to
their
seed
,
the
Spirit
co-working
with
that
Word
,
begetteth
faith
in
them
to
believe
for
themselves
,
and
for
their
seed
.
And
according
to
their
faith
,
it
is
done
.
The
Spirit
begetteth
the
grace
of
life
,
as
well
in
their
seed
,
as
in
themselves
.
The
greater
is
the
danger
of
those
infants
whose
Parents
(
like
you
)
doe
not
beleeve
the
grace
of
Christ
can
reach
unto
your
infants
;
and
so
it
is
no
wonder
,
if
your
children
be
deprived
of
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
,
for
your
unbeliefs
sake
.
Be
it
therefore
granted
which
you
take
for
granted
in
your
next
words
;
That
for
this
end
(
to
wit
,
for
begetting
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
)
God
hath
ordained
in
the
Gospel
preaching
and
believing
to
goe
before
baptizing
,
Mat.
28.9
.
with
Mar.
16.15
,
16.
yet
this
only
proveth
that
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
and
the
begetting
of
faith
by
the
Gospel
is
requisite
to
enstate
the
hearer
in
the
grace
and
blessing
,
or
(
which
is
all
one
)
in
the
Covenant
of
the
Gospel
.
But
if
the
hearer
be
a
Parent
of
children
,
and
so
doe
believe
the
Gospel
and
Covenant
of
grace
to
belong
to
him
and
to
his
seed
;
both
hee
and
they
according
to
the
order
of
the
Gospel
,
and
Covenant
of
grace
,
are
rightly
baptized
into
the
name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Sonne
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
All
which
persons
do
joyne
together
in
making
this
Covenant
,
and
sealing
to
it
,
to
be
a
God
to
the
believer
and
his
seed
.
And
if
it
were
not
so
,
the
place
which
you
quote
out
of
Mark
(
Chap.
16.
v.
15
,
16.
)
would
utterly
cut
off
the
children
of
believers
dying
in
their
infancy
,
from
all
hope
of
salvation
:
which
you
said
even
now
,
you
were
far
from
.
For
if
infants
for
want
of
hearing
the
Word
in
their
owne
persons
want
faith
,
and
for
want
of
faitsh
may
not
bee
baptized
,
then
for
want
of
faith
they
cannot
be
saved
.
For
so
run
the
words
in
Marke
,
He
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
,
hee
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
.
If
for
unbeliefe
they
must
not
be
baptized
,
for
unbeliefe
they
must
then
bee
damned
.
But
if
by
the
Gospel
we
understand
(
as
the
Scriptures
meane
)
the
glad
tydings
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
so
of
redemption
and
salvation
by
Christ
preached
and
proclaimed
to
believers
and
their
seed
,
then
al
such
as
doe
believe
these
glad
tydings
,
to
themselves
and
to
their
seed
,
they
are
commanded
by
the
Order
of
the
Gospel
to
be
baptized
themselves
,
and
their
children
with
them
;
for
their
children
are
by
the
faith
of
their
Parents
wrapped
up
in
the
Covenant
,
and
so
are
become
capable
subjects
both
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
seale
thereof
.
For
though
the
infants
themselves
be
not
(
it
may
be
)
then
actually
believers
,
when
their
Parents
are
baptized
,
and
themselves
with
them
;
yet
God
who
calleth
things
that
are
not
,
as
though
they
were
Rom
4.17
.
He
accepteth
them
into
his
Covenant
by
the
faith
of
their
Parents
,
and
so
they
are
no
longer
Pagans
and
infidells
,
but
the
children
of
the
faithfull
and
holy
,
in
whom
God
hath
covenanted
to
worke
faith
,
and
the
grace
of
the
new
birth
in
the
elect
seed
,
and
to
offer
it
,
and
the
meanes
thereof
unto
all
the
seed
,
till
they
utterly
reject
it
:
And
requireth
therefore
of
the
Parents
by
his
Covenant
,
to
neglect
no
meanes
of
grace
for
the
holy
institution
of
their
children
.
And
for
this
end
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
is
administred
to
the
Infants
to
confirme
the
same
to
their
children
on
both
parts
.
If
therefore
we
delighted
in
returning
reproaches
for
reproaches
,
as
you
say
to
us
,
give
the
baptizing
of
believers
to
Christ
,
and
the
baptizing
of
infants
unto
Antichrist
,
so
might
we
more
truly
and
justly
returne
it
to
you
:
Give
the
baptizing
of
believers
and
their
seed
unto
Christ
;
(
For
the
Covenant
of
Christ
is
to
believers
and
their
seed
,
and
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
is
due
,
where
the
faith
of
either
Parent
is
fit
to
receive
it
to
their
holy
seed
;
)
but
give
the
denyall
of
baptisme
of
Infants
to
Infidels
onely
,
and
out-laws
from
the
Church
,
where
neither
of
their
Parents
being
believers
,
their
children
also
are
Infidels
and
outlawes
like
their
Parents
,
neither
believers
,
nor
holy
according
to
Covenant
;
You
need
not
"
therefore
ask
what
advantage
will
it
be
to
Infants
to
come
before
they
bee
called
?
For
Christ
called
for
little
children
to
come
unto
him
,
and
was
displeased
with
such
as
did
forbid
them
,
Marke
10.14
.
If
calling
for
Infants
to
come
,
will
suffice
,
they
cannot
bee
said
to
come
before
they
be
called
.
Suffer
(
saith
he
)
little
children
to
come
unto
me
,
and
forbid
them
not
,
for
of
such
is
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
And
they
being
such
,
hee
put
his
hands
upon
them
and
blessed
them
.
If
you
ask
,
why
he
did
not
baptize
them
too
,
for
who
can
forbid
Baptisme
to
such
as
are
blessed
of
Christ
,
and
by
imposition
of
hands
set
apart
to
a
blessing
,
and
to
the
Kingdome
of
God
?
I
would
answer
,
Jesus
himselfe
baptized
none
,
Iohn
4.2
.
If
you
aske
againe
,
but
why
did
not
hee
command
his
Disciples
to
baptiz
:
them
?
I
answer
,
because
it
may
be
both
they
and
their
children
were
baptized
before
:
Or
because
it
doth
not
appeare
,
that
their
Parents
came
to
bee
baptized
of
him
;
or
had
themselves
been
baptized
before
,
though
out
of
a
godly
affection
they
brought
their
children
to
him
that
he
might
blesse
them
.
Now
it
was
not
meet
,
that
the
children
should
bee
baptized
,
when
neither
of
the
Parents
of
any
of
them
were
baptized
,
nor
brought
their
children
to
such
an
end
.
Though
we
baptize
children
,
yet
we
doe
not
give
them
,
(
as
you
say
)
a
name
to
live
when
they
bee
dead
.
For
they
may
be
truly
said
to
live
in
that
sense
,
wherein
the
dead
bodies
of
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Iacob
are
said
to
live
to
him
,
Luke
20.37
,
38.
For
though
they
were
then
dead
in
their
graves
,
yet
God
being
the
God
of
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Iacob
by
Covenant
;
hee
will
therefore
raise
up
their
dead
bodies
to
life
againe
.
And
so
it
is
with
the
Infants
of
believers
,
though
they
were
by
nature
dead
in
sinne
,
yet
God
(
the
God
of
their
Fathers
)
being
a
God
to
them
by
vertue
of
the
Covenant
,
seeing
God
is
not
the
God
of
the
dead
,
but
of
the
living
,
God
will
therefore
according
to
his
Covenant
,
raise
them
up
to
newnesse
of
life
,
that
they
may
live
in
his
sight
;
If
any
of
them
fall
short
of
that
life
,
it
is
because
they
make
themselves
twice
dead
,
by
casting
off
the
Covenant
of
their
fathers
.
I
marvaile
why
you
should
call
the
baptisme
of
Infants
a
com
-
"
ming
to
the
marriage
supper
without
a
wedding
Garment
.
If
you
meane
by
comming
to
the
marriage
Supper
,
partaking
of
the
Lords
Table
;
you
are
not
ignorant
,
there
is
great
difference
in
this
case
,
between
the
Lords
Supper
and
Baptisme
,
such
may
bee
admitted
to
Baptism
,
as
may
not
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
.
We
do
not
force
(
as
you
call
it
)
the
holy
things
of
God
upon
such
as
nei
-
"
ther
believe
,
nor
know
,
nor
once
desire
them
.
For
if
Parents
doe
not
willingly
offer
their
children
to
Baptisme
,
we
doe
not
force
them
.
And
if
they
bring
them
,
and
prefent
them
to
Christ
,
Christ
accepteth
the
Parents
bringing
of
them
,
as
much
as
the
childrens
comming
in
their
own
person
,
Mar.
10.13
,
14.
Why
should
you
call
the
Baptisme
of
infants
the
settting
of
a
"
seal
unto
a
blank
?
Is
the
Covenant
of
God
to
believing
Parents
and
their
seed
become
a
blanke
?
Is
the
promise
of
pouring
out
the
Spirit
of
regeneration
upon
the
seed
and
off-spring
of
believers
a
blank
?
Isa.
44.3
.
But
it
seemeth
by
your
opinion
,
if
our
children
bee
not
full
of
themselves
,
all
the
promises
of
God
are
a
blanke
and
empty
to
them
.
Though
children
be
not
capable
to
receive
meat
before
they
bee
borne
;
yet
their
Parents
who
are
borne
againe
,
had
need
of
some
sign
(
the
sign
appointed
of
God
)
to
feed
and
strengthen
their
faith
in
the
Covenant
,
that
God
will
bee
a
God
to
them
and
their
seed
.
Besides
,
the
Baptisme
which
children
receive
before
their
regeneration
is
a
seale
and
confirmation
of
the
Covenant
,
and
of
all
the
promises
thereof
to
them
,
after
their
regeneration
.
The
Circumcision
which
David
received
in
his
infancy
,
did
confirme
his
faith
and
confidence
of
victory
against
Goliah
(
the
uncircumcised
Philistine
)
after
he
was
grown
up
to
mans
estate
,
1
Sam.
17
26.
Signs
given
of
God
for
future
blessings
are
neither
blanks
,
nor
preposterous
.
We
doe
not
make
baptisme
(
as
you
say
)
the
wombe
of
regeneration
,
nor
teach
,
that
Infants
are
regenerated
and
borne
of
the
Spirit
of
grace
in
Baptisme
.
Nor
doe
I
finde
that
it
was
their
judgement
,
who
compyled
that
book
where
such
words
are
used
;
men
may
thankfully
acknowledge
a
benefit
as
received
,
when
they
have
onely
received
a
promise
of
it
,
and
see
it
confirmed
with
a
signe
;
when
Gedeon
received
a
signe
of
the
accomplishment
of
Gods
promised
victory
over
the
Midianites
,
though
that
signe
was
but
a
dreame
,
and
of
a
blessing
to
come
,
yet
Gedeon
thankfully
worshipped
God
for
it
,
and
accepted
the
Victory
as
already
granted
him
.
For
so
saith
the
Text
,
Judg.
7.15
.
When
Gedeon
heard
the
telling
of
the
dreame
,
and
the
interpretation
of
the
dreame
,
hee
worshipped
and
returned
into
the
Host
of
Israel
,
and
said
,
Arise
,
for
the
Lord
hath
delivered
into
your
hand
the
Host
of
Midian
.
It
is
to
no
purpose
to
ask
us
(
as
you
doe
)
what
can
bee
more
naturall
,
then
begetting
and
bringing
forth
of
the
Infant
,
before
feeding
of
it
at
the
Mothers
brests
?
Is
it
not
sacriledge
to
presse
such
upon
the
Pappes
of
the
Wife
of
Christ
(
his
Church
)
with
whom
shee
never
travelled
,
or
bare
of
her
body
?
For
wee
doe
not
look
at
the
Sacraments
,
neither
doth
the
Scripture
take
them
,
as
the
brests
,
or
Paps
of
the
Church
;
The
wit
of
man
can
make
an
Image
to
it selfe
,
and
then
play
before
it
,
as
the
Israelites
did
before
the
golden
Calfe
.
Twice
doth
the
Scripture
mention
the
brests
of
the
Church
,
and
never
meaneth
them
for
the
Sacraments
,
but
for
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
,
full
of
the
sincere
milk
of
the
Word
,
equall
in
Office
(
as
the
brests
hoin
bignesse
)
and
such
as
doe
themselves
feed
among
Lillyes
,
Cant.
4.5
.
and
7.3
.
and
8.10
.
You
must
strain
your
wit
farre
,
to
make
the
brests
of
the
Church
agree
to
the
Sacraments
,
Baptisme
is
rather
the
Navell
of
the
Church
,
whereby
the
Infant
hath
nourishment
derived
to
it
before
it
bee
born
,
Cant.
7.2
.
And
as
for
the
Lords
Supper
,
if
it
bee
the
other
of
the
two
brests
of
the
Church
,
the
oldest
and
strongest
Christians
had
still
need
to
suck
of
that
brest
;
and
so
must
become
againe
babes
in
Christ
.
Yea
Baptisme
it self
,
though
it
bee
a
seale
of
Regeneration
whether
past
,
or
to
come
,
yet
it
sealeth
up
also
such
deliverance
from
afflictions
,
and
persecutions
,
(
1
Pet.
3
21.
)
and
such
sanctification
,
and
cleansing
from
all
sin
,
to
present
us
to
Christ
without
spot
or
wrinckle
(
Ephes.
5.26
,
27.
)
that
the
strongest
Christian
will
have
need
to
feed
upon
his
Baptisme
(
as
strong
meat
for
strong
men
)
even
when
he
is
to
lay
down
his
body
in
the
dust
,
and
to
expect
from
his
Baptisme
the
resurrection
of
his
body
,
1
Cor.
15.29
.
But
,
say
you
,
Christ
will
deny
himself
to
bee
nourishment
to
any
,
where
hee
hath
not
been
first
seed
to
beget
.
Answer
.
Though
none
can
take
any
nourishment
,
till
they
bee
begotten
.
No
Prince
will
deny
to
give
a
Charter
to
a
Corporation
of
his
Subject
;
(
and
a
Charter
sealed
with
the
Great
Seale
)
of
such
and
such
Lands
,
and
inheritances
,
for
the
maintenance
and
nourishment
of
them
,
and
their
children
,
and
their
childrens
children
for
ever
,
before
any
children
bee
yet
born
to
them
.
Your
exhortations
therefore
,
for
want
of
a
ground-work
of
Truth
,
doe
fall
of
themselves
to
the
ground
,
like
an
house
built
upon
the
Sand.
Let
men
take
heed
(
say
you
)
how
they
impute
such
folly
to
the
wisdome
of
God
,
as
to
give
the
milk
of
his
brests
,
to
any
that
are
still-born
.
For
neither
are
all
the
Infants
of
the
faithfull
Parents
still-born
(
I
mean
,
in
respect
of
spirituall
life
,
)
and
if
they
were
,
yet
Baptisme
is
not
called
in
Scripture
Gods
milk
:
and
if
it
were
resembled
to
milk
,
yet
it
is
not
milk
onely
,
but
it
serveth
for
many
other
uses
.
It
is
a
seale
of
that
Covenant
,
whereby
God
promiseth
both
to
bee
seed
,
and
milk
,
and
strong
meat
,
and
medicine
,
and
all
in
all
,
unto
beleevers
and
their
children
.
Your
next
exhortation
,
to
take
heed
how
wee
set
dead
twigges
in
his
heavenly
and
divine
stock
,
or
naturall
branches
in
his
holy
and
spirituall
Vine
,
it
hath
received
Answer
above
;
you
have
heard
before
,
that
dead
persons
if
in
Covenant
,
are
alive
to
God
,
Luk.
20.37
,
38.
And
though
a
twigge
cannot
receive
life
from
the
stock
unlesse
it
bring
life
with
it
before
it
be
engraffed
:
yet
Christ
can
give
life
to
dead
branches
that
are
put
to
him
,
as
well
as
the
dead
corps
of
Elisha
could
give
life
to
the
dead
man
cast
into
his
grave
,
2
King
.
13.21
.
Your
third
exhortation
hath
as
little
ground
as
either
of
the
former
.
Let
men
beware
(
say
you
)
how
they
fight
against
the
God
of
Order
,
lest
in
stead
of
finding
the
brest
to
feed
,
before
the
womb
to
bear
,
they
meet
with
a
curse
upon
the
single
emptinesse
of
Christ
,
with
a
double
barrennesse
,
that
will
admit
of
no
spirituall
birth
to
succeed
the
Naturall
.
If
you
will
needs
have
Baptisme
to
bee
the
brest
of
the
Church
,
I
will
not
contend
with
you
:
for
there
is
in
it
also
some
milk
for
babes
,
as
well
as
there
is
much
strong
meat
in
it
for
men
of
riper
yeers
.
But
when
wee
doe
bring
Infants
to
Baptisme
,
wee
doe
not
first
finde
the
brest
to
feed
them
,
before
wee
finde
the
wombe
to
bear
them
.
For
the
Apostle
maketh
the
two
Covenants
the
two
Mothers
,
of
which
all
the
children
of
the
Church
are
born
,
whether
in
the
Old
or
New
Testament
,
Gal.
4.22
,
23
,
24.
If
then
wee
have
found
Infants
to
bee
in
the
Covenant
,
wee
have
found
a
Mother
,
and
in
her
,
a
wombe
to
bear
them
.
And
if
wee
bring
none
to
Baptisme
,
but
such
as
are
the
children
of
the
Covenant
,
then
wee
doe
not
finde
a
brest
to
feed
them
,
before
a
womb
to
breed
and
beare
them
.
But
wee
proceed
Orderly
(
even
according
to
the
wisdome
of
God
,
and
the
ancient
Order
,
which
hee
hath
set
in
his
Church
)
wee
first
finde
a
wombe
to
breed
and
bear
them
,
and
then
a
brest
to
nourish
and
feed
them
.
The
curse
therefore
which
you
threaten
,
is
causelesse
,
and
being
causelesse
will
not
come
,
Prov.
26.2
.
Thus
by
the
help
of
Christ
,
our
Arguments
for
the
Baptisme
of
Infants
,
have
been
at
last
cleared
from
your
exceptions
,
from
so
many
of
them
at
least
,
as
you
have
made
against
them
hitherto
.
Now
(
if
you
please
)
let
us
inquire
into
your
Arguments
(
if
you
have
any
)
against
the
Baptisme
of
Infants
.
Yes
,
besides
many
evill
consequences
,
which
I
observe
,
will
follow
unavoydably
upon
the
Baptisme
of
Infants
.