A
CONFUTATION
OF
INFANTS
BAPTISME
,
FOrasmuch
as
by
the
providence
of
our
good
and
gracious
God
,
there
hath
come
a
writing
unto
my
hands
,
which
containeth
some
Arguments
for
the
defence
of
Infants
Baptisme
,
written
by
one
George
Phillips
,
bearing
the
name
of
Pastor
,
of
the
Church
of
Watertowne
in
New
England
,
as
the
same
writing
doth
expresse
.
I
shall
endeavour
therefore
briefly
and
plainely
,
as
God
shall
enable
me
to
make
answer
thereunto
,
and
first
this
Author
Master
Phillips
before
he
comes
to
the
Arguments
,
doth
set
downe
certaine
propositions
to
make
way
,
as
he
saith
,
for
the
better
understanding
of
his
reasons
,
and
the
first
is
this
,
1.
That
the
Scriptures
containing
the
old
and
new
Testament
,
are
full
of
satisfaction
,
and
are
a
most
perfect
rule
of
all
things
concerning
faith
and
Order
:
so
that
in
these
respects
nothing
is
to
be
urged
as
necessarie
,
or
allowed
as
lawfull
but
what
is
justly
contained
therein
;
Answer
.
This
Proposition
is
holy
just
and
good
,
the
second
followes
.
Whatsoever
can
by
just
consequence
be
drawne
from
any
part
of
Scripture
,
expounded
in
their
largest
extent
,
is
truly
contained
in
them
,
aswell
as
that
which
is
set
downe
in
expresse
tearmes
,
and
so
it
is
of
the
same
force
with
that
expressed
in
any
case
:
so
whatsoever
can
be
collected
by
true
deduction
from
a
commandement
is
commanded
,
as
well
as
that
which
is
expressed
,
else
how
could
all
our
duties
to
God
and
man
be
contained
in
the
ten
words
,
or
how
could
any
duty
bind
but
that
which
is
expressed
?
so
our
Saviour
,
Mat
.
4.10
.
urgeth
the
Divell
with
this
word
only
,
which
is
not
in
the
text
expressed
in
Deut.
but
yet
truly
drawne
from
thence
.
Answer
.
I
see
no
inconvenience
in
this
proposition
neither
,
in
the
third
which
followes
.
That
the
tender
of
immortality
and
happines
by
God
unto
mankind
,
hath
,
beene
dispensed
two
wayes
,
first
unto
Adam
and
all
mankind
in
his
loynes
by
the
Law
upon
condition
of
perf●ct
obedience
thereto
in
mans
owne
personall
righteousnesse
:
2.
After
Adam
was
falne
by
an
Evangelicall
Covenant
made
with
the
second
Adam
,
the
Lord
from
Heaven
and
all
the
Elect
predestinated
unto
adoption
of
Sonship
,
in
him
,
as
the
common
root
of
them
all
:
which
(
meaning
the
Covenant
though
it
be
one
and
the
same
for
ever
in
substance
,
from
the
time
of
the
first
promulgation
untill
this
day
,
and
so
to
the
end
,
yet
it
hath
admitted
of
variation
in
the
circumstance
thereof
,
as
is
cleare
from
foure
severall
and
remarkable
periods
:
the
first
from
Adam
faln
to
Abraham
,
under
a
promise
of
the
seed
of
the
Woman
,
Gen.
3.15
.
The
second
from
Abrahams
time
to
Moses
in
the
wildernesse
,
in
substance
the
same
with
the
former
,
the
seed
of
the
woman
,
to
proceed
from
Abrahams
loynes
in
the
flesh
successively
,
but
differing
from
the
former
,
in
passing
the
promise
into
a
solemne
spirituall
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
as
the
Father
of
all
the
blessed
,
and
all
blessing
seed
,
and
of
all
believers
of
all
Nations
,
and
confirmed
by
the
signe
of
Circumcistion
,
the
seale
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
which
he
had
being
yet
uncircumcised
.
The
third
from
Moses
till
the
time
of
Christs
comming
in
the
flesh
,
and
this
is
the
same
in
substance
with
the
former
,
but
differing
the
manner
of
dispencing
in
drawing
a
vaile
of
shadows
over
it
,
consisting
of
all
those
Lawes
written
in
stone
,
and
all
those
Ordinances
divulged
from
Mount
Sinai
,
unto
Abrahams
posterity
in
the
flesh
,
whereunto
was
added
besides
the
former
seale
of
circumcision
,
the
Ordinance
of
the
Passeover
,
and
this
(
and
not
the
former
period
)
was
called
the
Old
Testament
,
or
Law
ratified
by
the
death
and
bloud
of
Bulls
and
Goates
,
&c.
and
shaddowes
of
better
things
without
the
application
whereof
,
they
purified
only
the
flesh
,
and
not
the
conscience
.
The
fourth
begins
,
when
the
Sonne
of
God
was
manifested
in
the
flesh
and
still
continues
,
called
the
new
Testament
and
ratified
by
the
bloud
and
death
of
the
Lord
Iesus
the
Testator
,
who
being
come
,
the
vaile
of
shaddowes
is
utterly
removed
,
and
the
Mosaicall
administration
quite
abolished
:
the
Old
being
done
away
that
the
New
might
bee
established
that
cannot
bee
removed
,
and
this
is
well
to
be
heeded
,
that
all
the
Scriptures
in
the
Old
Testament
,
that
foretell
a
removall
,
and
disanulling
of
the
Covenant
,
and
the
Scriptures
in
the
new
that
tell
of
the
abolishing
that
was
foretold
,
as
also
the
making
of
a
new
Covenant
is
to
bee
understood
of
that
period
from
Moses
to
Christ
,
and
not
of
that
of
Abraham
to
Moses
,
and
the
opposition
that
is
made
in
the
Scripture
,
is
betweene
that
of
Moses
,
and
this
under
Christ
.
Answ
.
To
this
proposition
I
have
many
exceptions
against
the
same
,
and
though
you
professe
your selfe
to
be
a
Pastor
,
yet
you
must
give
me
leave
to
tell
you
,
that
such
Doctrine
as
this
doth
declare
that
such
a
name
doth
not
(
or
very
ill
)
agree
unto
you
in
that
it
is
not
wholsome
food
,
for
Christs
sheep
but
a
barren
wildernesse
or
rather
hurtfull
,
and
effecting
noysome
diseases
tending
to
death
.
First
therefore
if
you
limit
the
Reprobates
from
the
tender
of
immortality
and
happines
from
God
by
means
of
the
second
Adam
,
I
conceive
you
erre
,
because
then
how
can
they
be
said
to
refuse
the
call
of
God
,
Prov.
r
.
24
,
and
put
away
the
word
of
God
from
them
,
thereby
judging
themselves
unworthy
of
evelasting
life
,
Acts
13.46
?
or
make
God
a
lyar
.
1.
Iohn
5.11
.
or
how
should
unbeliefe
be
a
sinne
,
Iohn
16.9
.
?
but
this
by
the
way
.
Secondly
to
your
third
period
,
I
say
the
ordinances
deliverd
in
Moses
time
,
was
not
a
vayle
simply
considered
but
in
respect
that
Christ
which
was
contained
in
them
was
not
understood
by
the
Jewes
,
which
rested
in
the
deed
done
.
Thirdly
,
to
your
third
period
,
whereas
you
say
,
that
this
(
and
not
that
in
the
former
period
)
was
called
the
Old
Testament
,
I
know
no
reason
why
you
should
so
conclude
especially
the
rather
seeing
you
make
all
your
foure
periods
,
to
proceed
from
the
Evangelicall
Covenant
,
only
varying
in
circumstances
,
which
if
it
be
so
,
I
conceive
you
will
find
no
other
difference
between
Old
Testament
and
New
properly
:
but
the
time
b●fore
the
comming
of
Christ
in
the
flesh
and
the
time
since
:
for
Abell
,
Noah
and
Iacob
,
offered
sacrifice
as
well
as
the
Israelites
did
and
God
did
never
appoint
the
ten
Commandements
,
nor
the
Ordinances
administred
by
the
Leviticall
Priesthood
,
to
the
end
,
that
the
performers
should
be
saved
without
faith
in
Christ
,
and
this
you
say
that
they
were
shadowes
of
better
things
,
without
the
application
whereof
they
purified
only
the
flesh
and
not
the
conscience
:
and
the
sacrifices
of
Abell
,
Noah
,
Abraham
,
and
Iacob
,
(
and
Circumcision
as
well
as
the
Passeover
)
were
shadowes
of
better
things
,
without
the
application
whereof
,
they
purified
only
the
flesh
,
and
not
the
conscience
of
him
that
did
the
service
:
therefore
both
those
two
periods
were
as
well
the
Old
Testament
as
the
other
,
by
your
owne
Argument
.
And
therefore
to
your
fourth
period
,
which
you
say
,
begins
when
the
Son
of
God
was
manifested
in
the
flesh
,
and
still
continues
,
called
the
new
Testament
,
and
ratified
by
the
death
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
Iesus
the
Testator
,
who
being
come
,
the
vaile
of
shaddowes
is
utterly
removed
:
I
would
aske
whether
circumcision
,
and
the
sacrifices
that
were
administred
before
Moses
time
,
be
not
quite
abolished
(
the
Old
being
done
away
that
the
New
might
be
established
(
which
cannot
be
removed
)
as
well
as
those
in
Moses
time
;
thirdly
if
yea
:
then
this
is
well
to
be
heeded
,
that
all
the
Scriptures
in
the
Old
Testament
that
foretell
a
removall
,
and
disanulling
of
the
Covenant
,
and
the
Scriptures
in
the
New
,
that
tell
of
the
abolishing
that
was
foretold
,
as
also
of
the
making
a
new
Covenant
is
to
be
understood
,
as
well
of
the
whole
time
before
the
comming
of
Christ
,
as
of
that
betweene
Moses
and
Christ
,
and
thus
is
your
proposition
answerd
and
refuted
.
Your
fourth
proposition
is
this
,
that
children
are
capable
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
and
of
the
grace
of
the
Covenant
,
and
whatsoever
men
of
years
are
capable
of
,
though
not
wrought
in
the
same
way
and
by
the
same
meanes
,
yet
the
same
things
,
and
by
the
same
spirit
so
farre
as
is
necessary
to
union
with
Christ
,
and
justification
to
life
thereby
.
Answ
.
This
I
grant
,
as
they
are
Subjects
for
God
to
work
upon
,
but
this
is
not
manifested
to
us
,
neither
can
it
be
concluded
by
us
to
belong
to
this
child
more
than
to
that
or
the
children
of
beleevers
,
more
than
to
the
children
of
Infidells
,
or
unbelievers
,
&c.
And
where
it
is
said
,
nor
is
the
Iudgement
we
can
have
of
men
of
yeares
infallible
,
but
that
we
may
be
mistaken
,
as
in
the
case
of
Symon
Magus
&c.
Answ
.
I
answer
,
it
doth
not
follow
from
hence
,
that
we
should
have
no
Judgement
of
them
,
because
we
cannot
have
an
infallible
Judgement
;
now
if
it
be
concluded
that
we
ought
to
judge
probably
,
according
to
the
profession
of
Faith
made
by
them
:
I
aske
then
how
we
shall
come
to
the
same
manifestation
from
Infants
:
which
when
we
can
,
let
them
be
baptised
,
for
if
we
should
doe
it
before
,
we
do
not
only
walke
without
rule
,
but
also
it
may
be
said
to
us
in
this
case
,
as
Christ
said
to
the
woman
of
Samaria
in
another
case
,
Ioh
.
4.22
.
Ye
worship
that
which
ye
know
not
;
and
as
God
said
to
the
J●wes
,
Isa
.
1.12
.
Who
required
this
at
your
hands
?
The
fifth
Proposition
followes
,
That
Baptisme
is
not
the
first
grace
but
a
second
,
nor
doth
it
confer
grace
,
but
is
given
to
confirme
th●
former
,
which
therefore
must
be
presupposed
,
or
else
not
to
be
administred
;
and
it
is
the
seale
of
the
New
Testament
,
or
of
the
righteousnesse
of
.
Faith
now
to
all
,
that
are
partakers
thereof
,
as
of
old
Circumcision
,
was
to
them
Rom.
4.11
.
only
by
baptisme
I
understand
that
outward
part
,
administred
by
a
lawfull
Minister
of
the
Church
which
may
,
and
too
often
is
separated
from
the
inward
(
though
it
ought
not
to
be
)
and
yet
remaines
true
baptisme
so
administred
,
else
Symon
Magus
,
and
those
false
brethren
,
Gal.
2
being
not
baptised
with
the
inward
were
not
baptised
:
and
if
they
had
repented
must
have
beene
baptised
a
new
.
Ans.
To
this
I
answer
,
that
baptisme
(
being
not
the
first
grace
but
a
second
,
as
your selfe
confesse
,
nor
doth
it
conferre
grace
,
but
is
given
to
confirme
the
former
,
which
therefore
must
be
presupposed
or
else
not
to
be
administred
:
is
well
to
be
heeded
of
all
:
but
especially
of
those
which
will
have
Infants
baptised
:
and
yet
have
no
ground
to
conclude
,
that
they
have
a
first
grace
to
be
confirmed
by
that
meanes
;
neither
have
they
ground
for
any
such
presupposition
;
neither
will
,
Rom.
4.11
.
prove
any
such
thing
;
for
that
only
proves
that
circumcision
was
in
the
nature
of
it
,
a
seale
of
the
righteousnesse
which
is
by
faith
and
did
seale
it
up
to
Abraham
that
had
faith
:
but
as
it
did
not
seale
it
to
them
that
had
no
faith
:
so
no
more
was
it
any
ground
why
we
should
presuppose
faith
formerly
in
all
the
subjects
,
upon
whom
it
was
administred
;
neither
was
that
the
ground
why
it
was
administred
;
but
the
command
of
God
,
and
the
reason
why
God
commanded
it
to
Abraham
touching
his
seed
,
was
not
because
Abraham
was
bound
to
believe
and
presuppose
,
that
all
his
Seed
,
and
his
Seeds
Seed
,
throughout
their
Generations
,
were
made
partakers
of
Union
with
Christ
,
and
Justification
to
life
by
the
Spirit
of
God
,
(
as
is
insinuated
in
the
connexion
of
the
fourth
and
fifth
Propositions
)
but
that
God
did
by
this
meanes
take
and
distinguish
the
posterity
of
Abraham
to
be
possessed
by
his
favour
and
goodwill
of
Lawes
and
Ordinances
,
Ministers
Services
,
Sacrifices
,
Tabernacle
and
Temple
,
and
all
other
things
which
were
meanes
to
typifie
,
lead
and
point
out
to
them
Christ
which
was
to
come
:
which
was
a
choyce
favour
beyond
any
that
was
bestowed
upon
any
other
Nation
or
People
:
besides
,
Deut.
7.6.7
,
8
,
9.
Rom.
9.4
,
5.
Psal
.
147.19
,
20.
and
this
was
the
end
why
the
seed
were
required
to
be
circumcised
at
eight
dayes
old
,
that
they
being
distinguished
by
this
meanes
,
and
thereby
interessed
into
the
participation
of
these
Priviledges
,
Rom.
3.1
,
2.
might
be
trained
up
therein
;
and
whosoever
else
of
any
other
Nation
would
circumcise
themselves
and
their
Males
,
might
come
and
be
partakers
of
these
Priviledges
with
the
posterity
of
Abraham
,
Exod
.
12
48.
though
there
were
no
ground
to
presuppose
a
first
grace
to
be
confirmed
in
them
by
Circumcision
.
Secondly
,
I
answ●r
(
to
the
limitation
of
your
conception
to
the
outward
part
of
Baptisme
,
which
may
and
too
oft
is
administred
,
separated
from
the
inward
,
though
i●
ought
not
to
be
)
which
yet
remaines
true
Baptisme
so
administred
or
else
Simon
M●gus
and
those
false
brethren
,
Gal.
2.
being
not
baptised
wi●h
the
inward
,
were
not
baptised
,
and
if
they
had
repented
,
must
have
beene
baptised
anew
;
)
that
there
is
a
great
difference
to
be
put
betweene
false
brethren
and
no
brethren
,
because
those
which
are
false
seeme
to
be
true
but
those
that
are
no
brethren
,
not
so
much
as
in
shew
,
there
is
not
so
much
as
a
shew
for
any
brotherly
action
to
be
exercised
upon
them
;
and
the
reason
why
it
remains
true
Baptisme
u●on
the
one
which
mak●s
shew
,
and
not
upon
the
other
which
makes
no
shew
is
because
Gods
authority
in
his
command
goes
with
the
one
and
not
with
the
other
;
and
this
appeares
,
because
Baptisme
being
an
action
of
Religion
to
be
exercised
by
the
ministery
of
men
,
it
is
required
that
they
administer
the
same
upon
beleevers
,
which
if
they
appeare
,
so
they
are
to
judge
,
and
who
can
judge
no
otherwise
but
by
appearance
,
it
being
Gods
Prerogative
to
search
the
heart
;
but
when
there
is
no
externall
manifestation
appearing
from
the
subject
.
then
if
Baptisme
be
administred
,
it
is
meer
humane
invention
because
there
is
no
authority
of
God
for
such
an
Administration
:
now
,
it
is
the
Authority
or
command
or
God
,
which
gives
a
being
to
every
administration
in
Religion
;
and
whatsoever
hath
not
a
being
from
God
cannot
be
called
his
Ordinance
;
hereupon
it
followeth
that
whensoever
Baptisme
is
administred
upon
such
a
subject
as
maketh
no
externall
manifestation
of
Faith
,
this
Baptisme
hath
no
being
from
God
,
but
is
an
humane
device
.
Your
6.
Proposition
is
this
,
that
as
of
old
more
was
required
of
Abraham
and
men
of
yeares
when
they
were
circumcised
,
then
of
Ishmael
or
Isaac
,
or
other
Infants
continually
circumcised
afterwards
;
so
now
in
administring
Baptisme
to
persons
,
more
is
required
of
men
of
yeares
then
of
infants
;
as
of
Abraham
God
required
Faith
,
in
the
blessed
seed
;
but
not
the
same
of
Isaac
;
for
of
men
of
yeares
Faith
is
to
be
required
,
and
must
be
,
that
a
man
may
be
baptised
;
but
not
the
same
of
Infants
,
&c.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
more
was
in
Abraham
then
in
Isaac
,
when
they
were
circumcised
;
I
grant
,
but
that
more
was
required
in
the
one
then
in
the
other
,
without
which
he
might
not
be
circumcised
,
is
easilier
said
then
proved
,
in
the
17.
of
Genesis
,
10.
and
13.
verse
,
it
is
said
,
that
Abraham
must
circumcise
all
the
males
which
were
borne
in
his
house
,
or
bought
with
his
money
,
and
verse
23.
it
is
said
,
that
Abraham
tooke
Ishmael
his
sonne
which
was
then
13.
yeares
old
,
verse
25.
and
all
the
Males
in
his
house
,
and
circumcised
them
the
same
day
as
God
had
said
;
some
were
men
of
yeares
,
as
verse
27.
yet
God
did
not
require
of
Abraham
concerning
his
males
,
nor
did
Abraham
require
of
them
in
relation
to
any
rule
preceding
any
prerequisite
conditions
,
without
which
they
were
not
to
be
circumcised
;
the
contrary
is
more
probable
by
farre
:
namely
,
that
they
were
to
be
circumcised
,
is
absolutely
commanded
,
and
they
were
in
no
wise
to
neglect
the
same
,
and
so
to
doe
were
sinfull
,
but
that
prerequisite
conditions
in
them
,
without
which
they
were
not
to
be
circumcised
is
not
so
much
as
intimated
to
be
appointed
.
In
Exod
.
12.48
.
it
is
said
,
if
any
will
observe
the
Passeover
,
Circumcision
of
all
his
males
is
required
to
proceed
as
a
generall
Law
to
the
home-borne
and
to
the
stranger
,
but
to
the
participation
of
Circumcision
of
himselfe
,
and
all
his
males
also
,
nothing
is
required
to
precede
.
Now
in
the
new
Testament
there
is
a
Ministery
ordained
of
God
for
the
ministration
of
Baptisme
;
but
in
the
time
of
the
law
there
was
no
ministery
appointed
for
Circumcision
,
but
the
head
of
every
Family
only
stood
charg●d
with
that
worke
to
see
the
accomplishment
thereof
.
And
hereof
came
another
difference
,
that
in
Baptisme
there
is
a
lett
spoken
of
,
as
Act.
8.36.10.47
.
that
if
Faith
did
not
appeare
at
least
externally
to
the
Minister
,
he
might
not
administer
Baptisme
:
but
in
Circumcision
,
any
man
might
circumcise
himselfe
and
his
males
,
and
thereby
become
a
Proselyte
,
without
any
fore-going
condition
;
because
there
was
no
order
or
state
of
men
appointed
by
God
to
require
any
such
thing
of
him
before
;
and
therefore
in
that
respect
,
no
lett
spoken
of
in
Scripture
.
But
the
maine
difference
appeares
in
that
God
n●ver
appointed
a
teaching
Ministery
to
precede
Circumcision
to
the
Parties
required
to
be
circumcised
,
as
now
he
hath
to
all
the
Parties
required
to
be
baptised
,
even
from
that
time
to
the
end
of
the
World
Mat
.
28.18
,
19.
and
hereupon
ariseth
another
difference
,
even
in
the
Constitution
of
the
true
visible
Church
,
which
then
was
constituted
by
naturall
generation
of
●brah●ms
naturall
seed
,
but
now
is
constituted
by
spirituall
regeneration
of
Abrahams
spirituall
seed
,
by
the
means
of
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
ev
n
called
Saints
at
least
so
far
as
men
can
judge
,
as
all
the
Epistles
of
P●ul
to
the
●hurches
do
plainly
prove
;
and
by
all
this
is
your
insinuation
of
the
Baptisme
of
Infants
tak●n
away
.
Further
,
I
cannot
but
take
notice
of
a
contradiction
between
this
Proposition
and
your
fifth
Proposition●
in
which
you
say
Faith
or
a
first
grace
must
be
presupposed
,
or
else
Bap
isme
not
to
be
administred
:
but
here
you
say
that
of
men
of
yeares
saith
is
to
be
required
;
and
must
be
,
that
a
man
may
be
baptised
but
not
the
same
of
Infants
;
how
you
will
reconcile
this
contradiction
,
I
doe
not
yet
conceive
;
if
you
will
say
that
grace
may
be
though
not
knowne
in
Infants
but
in
men
of
yeares
,
that
are
able
to
manifest
what
is
in
them
;
such
manifestation
is
to
be
required
from
them
,
without
which
they
are
not
to
be
baptised
:
I
say
that
this
is
no
reconciliation
of
the
contradiction
;
for
as
grace
may
be
in
Infants
,
and
not
knowne
,
so
it
may
not
be
,
as
it
is
not
knowne
to
be
,
but
you
say
Baptisme
is
given
to
confirme
the
former
grace
,
which
therefore
must
be
presupposed
,
or
else
not
be
administred
;
and
here
you
say
,
that
of
men
of
yeares
Faith
is
to
be
required
and
must
be
,
that
a
man
may
be
baptised
;
but
not
the
same
of
Infants
:
now
whatsoever
is
to
be
presupposed
,
must
be
,
and
must
be
required
to
be
,
or
else
baptisme
not
to
be
administred
,
and
yet
the
same
not
required
to
be
in
Infants
,
and
yet
Infants
to
be
baptised
,
is
an
apparant
contradiction
,
because
whatsoever
is
not
to
be
required
to
be
in
Parties
to
be
baptised
,
is
not
to
be
presupposed
to
be
,
or
else
baptisme
not
to
be
administred
.
And
thus
have
I
made
Answer
to
your
sixth
Proposition
;
and
now
I
come
to
your
Arguments
,
the
first
whereof
is
this
.
If
the
Covenant
now
vnder
Christ
be
the
same
that
wa●
with
Abraham
and
his
Posterity
in
the
Flesh
;
then
as
Infants
were
then
partakers
of
the
Covenant
,
and
received
the
Seale
thereof
,
Circumcision
;
so
are
Infants
partakers
of
the
Covenant
,
and
ought
to
receive
the
Seale
thereof
,
Baptisme
.
But
the
Covenant
now
under
Christ
is
the
same
that
was
before
Christ
,
with
Abraham
and
his
posterity
in
the
flesh
;
Ergo
,
To
which
I
answere
,
denying
your
Antecedent
;
namely
that
the
Covenant
now
under
Christ
is
the
same
that
was
before
Christ
with
Abraham
and
his
posterity
in
the
Flesh
,
and
for
the
clearing
up
of
my
grounds
of
this
Answer
,
I
desire
to
shew
concerning
this
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
in
Gen.
17.7
.
first
,
what
it
was
not
;
secondly
,
what
it
was
;
thirdly
,
that
we
have
no
such
Covenant
now
in
the
time
since
Christs
comming
in
the
flesh
concerning
our
seed
.
First
therfore
God
did
never
promise
to
save
any
of
Abrahams
children
for
Abrahams
sake
:
secondly
,
nor
yet
for
his
faiths
sake
;
thirdly
,
nor
to
make
all
his
Posterity
in
the
flesh
to
be
Believer
.
First
therefore
Abraham
was
an
heire
of
sinne
and
death
,
as
all
other
men
are
,
and
was
saved
through
the
Mediator
,
Joh
.
8.56
.
Heb
.
11.13
.
Rom.
4.1.2
.
Gal.
3.6
.
therefore
Abrahams
person
did
not
move
God
to
save
his
children
who
was
saved
by
the
undeserved
grace
and
mercy
of
God
through
the
Mediator
himselfe
.
Secondly
,
not
for
his
faiths
sake
:
first
,
because
faith
is
not
a
meriting
thing
,
it
being
that
by
which
a
man
believes
the
favour
of
God
in
Christ
;
secondly
,
because
if
it
were
,
then
Christs
Doctrine
would
prove
false
Joh
.
3.3
.
verily
,
verily
saith
Christ
,
Except
a
man
be
borne
againe
,
he
cannot
see
the
Kingdome
of
God
;
thirdly
,
if
it
were
so
,
then
God
should
save
some
,
the
salvation
of
whom
would
bring
no
glory
to
God
at
all
:
and
the
reason
is
,
if
any
should
be
saved
that
have
no
faith
in
their
owne
hearts
,
only
because
their
Parents
have
believed
for
them
:
then
it
will
follow
that
some
should
be
saved
which
neither
know
their
own
misery
,
nor
Gods
mercy
,
nor
wisedome
,
nor
power
,
nor
justice
,
nor
goodnesse
;
and
so
consequently
know
not
how
to
be
thankfull
for
any
benefit
,
seeing
they
know
none
,
which
is
contrary
to
the
end
for
which
he
saveth
men
,
which
is
the
praise
of
his
owne
name
:
besides
,
this
is
further
proved
by
these
Texts
of
Scripture
,
Hab
.
2.4
.
The
just
shall
live
by
his
Faith
,
Gal.
6.5
.
Every
man
shall
beare
his
own
burthen
,
Ezek
.
18.20
.
besides
in
Jsa
.
10.22
.
Rom.
9.22
.
it
is
said
,
though
Israel
be
as
the
sand
of
the
Sea
;
yet
but
a
Remnant
of
them
shall
be
saved
;
all
which
proveth
that
the
Israelites
were
not
saved
for
Abrahams
faiths
sake
.
Thirdly
,
neither
did
God
ever
promise
to
give
faith
to
all
Abrahams
Posterity
in
the
flesh
:
First
,
because
it
is
impossible
that
God
should
lie
;
but
if
he
promised
to
give
faith
to
them
all
,
and
did
not
,
then
he
did
lie
;
but
that
is
false
,
therfore
he
never
promised
so
to
doe
.
Secondly
,
God
blames
the
unprofitablenesse
of
the
Iewes
,
in
respect
of
the
meanes
vouchsafed
,
which
if
in
this
respect
he
had
bound
himselfe
to
worke
in
them
,
what
hee
required
of
them
were
a
contradiction
;
therefore
he
did
not
promise
so
to
doe
;
and
so
much
of
the
first
particular
,
what
it
is
not
.
Secondly
,
I
am
now
to
shew
what
it
is
,
and
I
say
,
God
did
command
Circumcision
upon
Abrahams
Posterity
in
the
flesh
,
and
did
thereby
take
,
consecrate
,
separate
,
set
apart
and
distinguish
them
to
be
by
his
favour
,
and
good
will
,
and
great
love
possessed
with
divers
Lawes
and
Ordinances
,
Ministers
,
Services
,
Sacrifices
,
Tabernacle
and
Temple
,
and
all
other
things
which
they
did
possesse
by
the
appointment
of
God
afterwards
,
which
were
meanes
to
typifie
and
point
out
to
them
,
and
lead
them
unto
Christ
,
which
was
to
come
,
Gal.
3.23
,
24
,
25.
and
unto
this
people
and
Posterity
of
Abraham
did
give
a
holy
Land
,
separate
from
all
other
,
for
a
place
for
them
to
dwell
in
,
and
did
appoint
a
Citie
in
that
Land
separate
from
all
others
to
be
worshipped
in
Ioh
.
4.20
.
Deut
.
12.5.6
,
12
,
13
,
18
,
26.
and
in
that
City
did
appoint
a
Temple
for
to
offer
sacrifices
in
by
the
Ministery
of
the
Priests
,
which
they
might
not
offer
elsewhere
,
which
was
a
Priviledge
that
no
other
Nation
enjoyed
,
Deu
.
7.6
7
8
,
9.
Ro
9.4
,
5.
Psal
.
147.19
,
20.
and
whosoever
would
be
circumcised
might
come
to
Ierusalem
,
and
be
possessed
with
the
same
Priviledges
,
both
they
and
all
that
belonged
unto
them
,
both
children
and
servants
,
Exo
.
12.48.49
.
but
the
uncircumcised
Man-child
in
whose
flesh
the
fore-skin
is
not
circumcised
,
even
that
person
shall
be
cut
off
from
among
his
people
,
Gen.
17.14
.
and
thus
I
have
declared
the
second
particular
what
it
is
.
Now
followeth
the
third
that
we
since
Christ
have
no
such
Coevnant
concerning
our
fleshly
seed
,
because
there
is
no
Christ
now
to
come
to
be
manifested
by
such
meanes
as
was
then
,
and
the
necessary
absence
of
the
truth
,
or
thing
typified
did
necessarily
require
the
type
,
and
the
necessary
presence
of
the
truth
or
thing
typified
doth
necessarily
require
the
absence
of
the
type
.
Now
that
the
fleshly
seed
of
Abraham
was
a
type
of
Christ
the
true
promised
seed
,
is
manifest
in
Gal.
3.
ver
.
16.
compared
with
19.
where
Paul
saith
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
were
the
Promises
made
;
he
saith
not
and
to
thy
seeds
,
as
of
many
,
but
and
unto
thy
seed
as
of
one
,
which
is
Christ
;
and
vers
.
19.
he
saith
,
the
Law
was
added
till
the
seed
came
,
unto
which
the
promises
were
made
,
(
which
was
Christ
)
here
Paul
by
the
power
of
the
Spirit
doth
interpret
the
promise
of
God
to
Abraham
,
Gen.
17.7
.
(
where
God
saith
,
I
will
establish
my
Covenant
betweene
me
and
thee
,
and
thy
seed
after
thee
in
their
Generations
for
an
everlasting
Covenant
to
be
God
unto
thee
and
to
thy
seed
after
thee
)
in
respect
of
the
seed
to
be
meant
in
the
singular
number
(
namely
of
one
)
which
is
Christ
:
now
if
any
shall
say
this
lets
not
but
all
the
faithfull
may
be
understood
,
which
make
up
one
mysticall
body
being
one
with
him
by
faith
▪
he
the
head
,
and
they
the
members
;
I
shall
freely
grant
it
to
be
so
according
to
1
Cor
.
12.12
.
But
now
it
remaines
how
we
may
conceive
the
naturall
seed
to
be
interpreted
to
be
Christ
,
who
did
not
believe
surely
,
no
way
but
ceremonially
and
typically
,
even
as
the
male
which
was
to
be
circumcised
did
;
and
the
Lambe
to
be
eaten
at
the
Passeover
was
to
be
a
Male
,
and
all
the
first
borne
males
both
man
and
beast
were
called
holy
,
to
be
offered
to
the
Lord
in
typicall
relation
to
Christ
the
true
propitiatory
Sacrifice
.
So
then
when
Christ
the
true
promised
seed
was
come
,
the
seed
in
the
flesh
that
led
to
Christ
,
ceased
.
And
so
it
did
indeed
,
for
the
naturall
relation
ceased
at
the
death
of
Christ
,
and
not
before
,
at
which
time
the
distinction
or
different
holinesse
betweene
Iew
and
Gentile
ceased
,
Acts
10.28
.
Eph.
2.14
,
15.
in
Rom
11.20
.
it
is
said
,
through
unbeliefe
they
are
broken
off
;
now
,
it
is
manifest
they
were
the
true
Church
till
the
death
of
Christ
,
and
then
broken
off
through
unbeliefe
:
why
were
not
the
Jewes
in
the
sin
of
unbeliefe
before
?
Yes
,
no
doubt
;
why
?
then
were
they
not
broken
off
before
,
and
why
then
?
The
reason
is
because
the
time
of
faith
was
come
,
and
therefore
now
they
were
broken
off
through
unbeliefe
;
the
Seed
was
come
,
therefore
the
naturall
Seed
ceased
;
Christ
was
come
,
therefore
the
Law
ceased
;
as
long
as
the
Law
lasted
they
did
remaine
in
the
Church
by
being
circumcised
,
and
observing
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
the
Law
,
though
they
did
remaine
in
unbeliefe
;
but
when
the
time
of
faith
was
come
,
Gal.
3.25
.
Then
they
were
no
longer
in
the
Covenant
and
Church
,
by
observing
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
the
Law
,
which
they
entred
into
by
Circumcision
;
but
now
they
were
broken
off
through
unbeliefe
,
which
notes
out
unto
us
that
the
standing
in
that
Church
before
Christ
in
the
time
of
the
law
and
the
standing
in
this
Church
since
Christ
in
the
time
of
the
Gospell
,
is
upon
different
grounds
,
for
the
standing
in
that
Church
was
by
being
circumcised
,
and
observing
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
the
Law
:
but
the
standing
in
this
Church
is
by
faith
,
and
being
baptised
into
the
same
faith
,
Act.
2.38
,
41.
Ioh
.
4.1
.
Gal.
3.26
,
27.
Rom.
11.20
.
and
it
is
to
be
noted
that
the
Iewes
,
the
same
people
that
were
circumcised
,
and
in
Covenant
with
Abraham
according
to
the
flesh
,
and
thereby
members
of
the
Iewish
Church
,
could
not
be
the
visible
Church
according
to
the
Gospell
,
unlesse
they
did
manifest
faith
,
and
so
bee
in
Covenant
with
Abraham
according
to
the
Spirit
,
and
baptised
into
the
same
faith
:
whereas
if
the
Covenant
now
under
Christ
were
the
same
that
was
before
Christ
with
Abraham
and
his
posterity
in
the
flesh
,
then
by
the
same
right
they
possessed
Circumcision
,
and
the
Iewish
Church-state
,
they
must
possesse
this
since
Christ
,
which
they
could
not
doe
,
therefore
it
is
not
the
same
.
It
is
true
therefore
that
the
Covenant
of
God
,
makes
the
Church
both
in
the
time
of
the
Law
and
Gospell
too
,
for
the
Church
is
nothing
else
then
a
people
in
Covenant
with
God
;
now
looke
how
the
Covenant
differs
,
so
the
Church
and
people
differs
,
which
is
made
by
it
,
and
which
enter
into
it
.
Now
the
Covenant
whereby
God
tooke
a
people
outwardly
to
be
his
people
then
was
that
whereby
they
did
(
being
circumcised
)
participate
of
all
those
outward
meanes
which
led
to
Christ
which
was
to
come
,
Psal
147.19
,
20.
But
that
Covenant
whereby
he
takes
a
peopl●
outwardly
to
be
his
people
now
,
whereby
they
are
admitted
to
be
baptised
,
is
that
profession
they
make
of
faith
in
Christ
,
Acts
8.12
,
37.
Mat
.
3
6.
whereby
th●y
have
true
and
spirituall
conjunction
with
God
,
and
are
his
people
,
Heb
.
3.6
.
Indeed
it
is
true
,
that
Christ
is
and
ever
was
the
Mediator
and
means
of
Salvation
,
and
also
that
all
those
that
were
saved
,
were
saved
through
faith
in
him
both
before
and
since
Christs
comming
;
but
yet
because
the
outward
meanes
of
making
Christ
known
doth
differently
depend
upon
his
being
yet
to
come
,
and
upon
his
being
come
in
the
flesh
;
the
one
being
more
darke
,
the
other
more
plaine
;
the
one
more
carnall
,
the
other
more
spirituall
;
therefore
the
participation
of
these
meanes
doe
make
the
state
of
the
participants
to
differ
.
Concerning
which
,
note
these
differences
,
first
it
's
called
the
Old
Testament
,
and
the
time
since
Christ
,
the
New
Testament
,
Heb
.
9.18
.
Secondly
,
it
is
called
the
carnall
Commandement
:
this
since
Christ
is
called
the
power
of
the
endlesse
life
Heb
.
7.16
.
Thirdly
,
it
is
called
a
blameable
Testament
in
opposition
to
a
better
Testament
,
established
upon
better
promises
,
Heb
.
8.6
.
Fourthly
it
is
called
impotent
,
and
beggerly
rudiments
in
respect
of
Christ
,
which
is
the
end
of
them
,
Gal.
4
9.
Col.
2
8.
Fiftly
,
it
's
called
a
yoke
of
bondage
,
in
opposition
to
the
liberty
and
freedome
which
comes
by
the
Gospell
,
Gal.
5.1
.
Act.
15.10
.
Sixtly
it
's
called
Ierusalem
below
,
or
earthly
in
opposition
to
Ierusalem
above
Celestiall
,
and
Heavenly
,
which
is
the
priviledge
of
the
visible
Church
in
the
New
Testament
,
Gal.
4.25
,
26.
Heb
12.22
.
Seventhly
it
's
called
a
Law
,
and
a
Schoolmaster
:
the
rudiments
of
the
world
:
the
time
since
Christ
,
the
time
of
faith
,
Gal
,
3.19.23
,
24
and
4.3
,
4.
Eightly
,
it
's
called
the
stop
of
the
partition
wall
,
the
Law
of
Commandements
standing
in
Ordinances
:
yea
hatred
,
or
the
cause
of
hatered
in
opposition
to
the
unity
,
and
peace
that
comes
by
the
Gospell
,
Ephes
.
2.14.15
.
Col.
2.14
.
and
hereupon
it
followeth
,
that
only
such
persons
are
to
be
admitted
unto
these
Gospell-priviledges
as
are
suitable
thereunto
.
|
This
State
then
being
|
1.
The
New
Testament
.
|
such
only
as
are
|
1.
In
the
new
Covenant
.
|
are
suitable
therunto
.
|
|
2.
Established
upon
better
promises
.
|
2.
In
possession
of
the
promises
.
|
|
3.
After
the
power
of
the
endles
life
.
|
3.
Partakers
of
the
Powers
of
endles
life
.
|
|
4.
In
Christ
.
|
4.
In
Christ
|
|
5.
In
liberty
of
the
Spirit
.
|
5.
In
Freedome
of
the
spirit
.
|
|
6.
Coelestiall
Jerusalem
.
|
6.
Borne
from
above
.
|
|
7.
A
state
of
Faith
.
|
7.
In
the
Faith
.
|
|
8.
A
state
of
Vnity
and
Peace
.
|
8.
In
Vnity
,
Peace
and
love
.
|
Therefore
only
such
are
to
be
admitted
unto
the
Gospell-priviledges
.
In
the
time
therefore
before
Christ
,
such
as
would
circumcise
themselves
,
and
their
males
and
observe
the
Law
in
the
Rights
and
Ceremonies
thereof
,
together
with
their
children
by
generation
were
the
seed
,
and
in
Covenant
with
that
Church
.
But
now
since
Christ
,
only
such
as
believe
in
Christ
and
are
thereby
children
by
regeneration
are
the
seed
,
and
in
covenant
with
this
Church
.
The
proofe
of
this
is
cleere
,
first
,
because
none
of
the
naturall
seed
of
Abraham
,
are
in
the
covenant
by
vertue
of
any
naturall
relation
,
though
they
did
remaine
in
the
Jewish
Church
till
the
death
of
Christ
:
and
as
that
Church
then
ceased
,
so
their
being
in
the
Church
by
a
naturall
relation
ceased
also
,
Act.
10.28
.
Rom.
9.8
.
Gal.
4.28.31
.
C.
3.7.9.14.16.19.22.26.28
,
29.
Secondly
the
Gentiles
have
no
naturall
relation
to
become
Abrahams
seed
by
:
and
therefore
a
believers
child
cannot
become
the
seed
of
Abraham
by
being
the
seed
of
a
believer
,
unlesse
such
children
doe
believe
themselves
,
and
cannot
otherwise
in
no
respect
be
participants
in
the
covenant
made
with
Abraham
.
Thirdly
,
neither
did
the
three
thousand
converts
baptise
their
children
,
when
they
themselves
were
baptised
,
as
Abraham
did
according
to
Gods
command
,
Gen.
17.23
.
circumcise
his
Males
the
selfe
same
day
;
which
plainly
proves
,
that
the
Covenant
now
under
Christ
is
not
the
same
that
was
with
Abraham
and
his
posterity
in
the
flesh
:
now
that
the
3000.
converts
did
not
baptise
their
children
,
when
they
were
baptised
themselvees
is
plaine
,
Act.
2.41
.
the
words
are
,
then
they
that
gladly
received
the
word
were
basttised
,
1●
The
meaning
is
onely
they
,
and
none
other
,
or
else
it
were
an
imperfect
relation
,
if
others
that
did
not
gladly
receive
the
word
were
baptised
also
:
therefore
none
but
those
,
and
therefore
not
their
Infants
;
for
such
a
testimony
(
viz.
that
they
gladly
received
the
word
)
is
no
where
recorded
in
Scripture
,
neither
can
be
of
Infants
;
also
Acts
8.12
.
It
is
said
,
when
they
believed
the
things
that
concerned
the
kingdome
of
God
,
and
the
name
of
Jesus
,
they
were
baptised
both
men
and
women
,
and
not
before
,
therefore
not
their
Infants
.
Fourthly
Paul
and
others
writing
to
the
visible
Churches
,
since
Christ
doe
usually
expresse
themselves
of
all
the
members
,
as
of
Saints
,
faithfull
brethren
,
called
,
reborne
,
the
Sons
of
God
by
adoption
,
Rom.
1.6.8
.
Chap.
8.15
.
1
Cor
.
1
,
2.4
,
5
,
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
Chap.
4.15
,
16.
2
Cor
.
1.1.7
Chap.
3.2
.
Gal.
3.26
.
Ephes
.
1.3.15
.
Phil
.
1.1.3
,
4
,
5
,
6
,
7.
Colo
.
1.2
,
3
,
4.
1
Thes
.
1.1.2.4
.
2
Thes
.
1.1.3
.
1
Pet
1.1.2
3.10.21
,
22
,
23.
which
the
Prophets
(
notwithstanding
they
were
led
by
the
same
spirit
)
were
wont
to
speake
otherwise
of
the
visible
Church
of
the
Jewes
,
as
Isay
1.1.16
Ier
.
chap.
1
and
2.
Ezek
.
3
,
4
12.
chap.
16.48.51
.
which
difference
could
not
be
if
the
naturall
children
had
been
in
the
Covenant
,
and
of
the
Church
as
the
Jewes
were
.
Fiftly
,
the
Argument
and
purpose
of
Paul
is
to
exclude
all
things
,
besides
faith
to
be
any
wayes
availeable
to
the
participation
of
the
Covenant
,
in
relation
to
Abraham
in
the
time
since
Christ
,
Rom.
4.16
.
Gal.
3.7.9.14.16.19.22.26.28
,
29.
therefore
the
posterity
in
the
flesh
are
not
now
in
the
Covenant
by
any
naturall
relation
,
as
they
were
before
Christs
comming
in
the
flesh
.
Sixtly
,
the
Author
to
the
Heb
.
8.8
.
saith
from
Ier
.
31.31
.
Behold
I
make
a
new
Covenant
with
the
house
of
Iudah
,
not
like
the
Covenant
I
made
with
their
Fathers
but
this
is
the
Covenant
,
I
will
put
my
Law
in
their
mind
,
and
all
shall
know
mee
from
the
least
of
them
to
the
greatest
of
them
,
where
we
are
to
note
,
that
the
principall
difference
is
in
the
subjects
of
the
covenants
:
in
the
former
,
God
did
not
put
his
Law
in
their
mind
nor
write
it
their
hearts
,
that
is
so
as
without
which
,
they
might
not
be
of
the
house
of
Israell
,
but
did
write
it
in
Tables
of
stone
,
requiring
them
to
keepe
it
;
but
now
is
Christ
the
mediatour
of
the
New
Covenant
,
and
Testament
,
that
through
death
which
was
for
the
redemption
of
the
transgressions
that
were
in
the
former
Testament
:
they
which
were
called
might
receive
the
promise
of
eternall
inheritance
,
which
promise
being
received
,
the
persons
so
believing
,
and
only
they
are
the
house
of
Iudah
,
the
true
Israel
of
God
,
Gal
6.16
.
Rom.
2.28
,
29.
the
subjects
of
this
covenant
,
which
have
the
Law
written
in
their
hearts
:
in
the
former
Covenant
many
of
the
subjects
of
it
were
destitute
of
the
knowledge
of
God
,
being
the
Posterity
of
Abraham
according
to
the
flesh
:
at
the
first
Infants
circumcised
at
8.
dayes
old
,
according
to
the
Law
,
and
therefore
were
to
learne
God
in
Christ
,
when
they
came
of
yeares
.
But
now
the
Subjects
of
this
covenant
are
such
,
as
all
of
them
do
know
God
,
from
the
least
to
the
greatest
,
having
the
Law
written
in
their
hearts
being
all
possessed
of
the
benefit
of
remission
of
sinnes
,
through
Faith
by
spirituall
regeneration
,
vers
.
12.
chap
10
17
,
18
Insomuch
,
as
it
is
a
great
shame
for
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
that
any
should
bee
amongst
them
destitute
of
the
knowledge
of
God
,
1
Cor
15.34
(
which
could
not
be
if
Infants
,
were
the
Subjects
of
this
covenant
and
Church
:
)
therefore
the
covenant
since
Christ
is
not
the
same
that
was
before
Christ
,
with
Abraham
and
his
posterity
in
the
flesh
,
and
this
shall
suffice
for
answer
to
this
your
Argument
.
Now
I
shall
examine
your
proofes
,
and
the
first
thing
you
wou'd
〈◇〉
is
,
that
the
covenant
made
with
Abram
and
his
posterity
in
the
fle●●
,
●●fore
Christ
,
and
that
now
under
Christ
is
the
same
:
your
first
〈◇〉
that
the
Gospell
is
the
Doctrine
of
the
Covenant
.
But
this
was
preached
to
Abraham
,
and
to
the
Iewes
in
the
〈◇〉
and
in
Davids
time
,
therefore
the
covenant
is
the
s●me
in
all
.
Answ
.
And
is
this
a
good
profe
,
to
prove
the
coven●●●
〈◇〉
with
Abrams
posterity
in
the
flesh
,
before
Christ
a●●
〈…〉
be
the
same
,
surely
no
such
matter
,
and
if
it
be
,
then
〈…〉
ever
the
Gospell
which
is
the
Doctrine
of
the
〈…〉
preached
,
they
with
their
posterity
are
in
the
cove●●●●
〈…〉
though
they
be
the
scoffing
Athens
,
Act.
17
,
18
,
19
,
20
〈…〉
is
no
more
in
your
profe
,
but
let
us
see
your
second
proofe
you
say
.
If
Abraham
be
the
father
of
the
Iewes
and
Gentiles
,
and
equally
as
he
beleeves
the
righteousnes
of
faith
,
&
his
children
equally
,
as
so
beleiving
and
no
otherwise
,
then
the
Covenant
is
the
same
.
But
Abraham
is
the
Father
of
the
Iewes
and
Gentiles
,
and
equally
as
he
beleives
,
Rom.
4.11
,
12.16
,
17.23
,
24.
Gal
3.7.9.26.29
.
therefore
the
Covenant
is
the
same
.
Answ
.
What
consequence
hath
this
Argument
,
to
prove
that
the
covenant
made
with
Abram
and
his
posterity
in
the
flesh
before
Christ
,
and
that
now
under
Christ
is
the
same
,
surely
none
at
all
.
For
first
if
none
be
Abrahams
children
,
no
otherwise
than
as
they
beleive
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
then
when
any
doe
so
beleive
,
let
them
be
baptised
.
But
it
is
true
as
it
is
said
and
proved
in
the
Scriptures
,
alleadged
that
none
are
Abraham
children
,
neither
of
Jewes
,
nor
Gentells
but
as
they
doe
beleive
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
viz.
according
to
the
promise
)
Rom.
9.8
Gal.
3.29
.
chap
24.28
.
Therefore
none
other
are
Evangellically
in
the
covenant
,
nor
ought
to
be
baptised
.
Secondly
,
the
body
of
the
Jewish
Nation
were
the
posterity
of
Abraham
,
according
to
the
flesh
,
were
commanded
to
be
circumcised
,
Gen.
17.10
.
and
so
in
covenant
according
to
the
Law
,
or
otherwise
they
could
not
have
bin
of
the
Iewish
Church
while
the
Law
lasted
,
Rom.
9.4
.
&
they
could
not
have
been
broken
off
through
unbeliefe
,
Rom.
11.20
.
and
then
in
the
time
of
the
Law
they
might
not
eat
the
Passeover
,
Exod
.
12.48
.
neither
might
they
come
to
the
Temple
to
bring
their
Sacrifices
,
Acts
21.2
.
therefore
they
were
legally
in
the
Covenant
,
though
they
were
but
the
posterity
of
Abraham
according
to
the
flesh
,
yet
none
of
the
uncircumcision
might
in
the
time
before
Christ
partake
of
these
Priviledges
,
nay
,
though
they
did
believe
,
therefore
the
difference
was
very
great
.
Thirdly
,
now
since
Christ
no
Gentile
is
Abrahams
seed
at
all
,
but
by
believing
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
although
he
be
the
Child
of
believing
Parents
.
Gal.
3.29
.
Fourthly
,
none
of
the
Jewes
themselves
(
which
were
the
naturall
seed
of
Abraham
and
partakers
of
all
the
Ordinances
of
the
Old
Testament
,
as
well
Circumcision
as
any
other
,
and
that
by
vertue
of
the
same
naturall
relation
)
could
be
admitted
to
be
baptised
,
Acts
2.39
.
nor
yet
to
partake
of
any
of
the
succeeding
Ordinances
of
the
Gospell
,
but
upon
the
manifestation
of
faith
;
therfore
the
Covenant
before
,
and
that
since
is
not
the
same
.
Your
third
Reason
i●
of
as
little
force
as
the
former
if
it
be
well
weighed
;
which
is
this
,
That
the
standing
of
the
Jewes
in
the
gr●ce
of
God
,
was
the
same
with
Abrahams
.
I
answere
,
here
we
must
distinguish
of
the
word
grace
,
which
may
equally
be
taken
either
particularly
for
the
Covenant
of
everlasting
life
,
by
which
the
Saints
are
fre●ly
justified
,
as
Rom.
3.24
.
or
else
more
generally
for
any
effect
of
Gods
goodnesse
whereby
he
doth
freely
communicate
any
kind
of
benefit
unto
men
which
must
needs
be
by
grace
and
favour
,
seeing
no
man
deserveth
any
thing
at
his
hands
.
This
being
premised
,
I
now
make
answer
,
That
if
you
take
grace
in
the
first
sence
for
the
Covenant
of
everlasting
life
by
which
the
Saints
are
freely
justified
:
then
I
deny
that
the
Jewes
were
ever
required
to
manifest
their
interest
therein
before
they
could
be
admitted
to
stand
members
of
the
visible
Church-state
before
Christs
comming
;
as
all
both
Jewes
and
Gentiles
must
now
since
the
dea●h
of
Christ
,
Acts
8.37
.
and
yet
neverthelesse
all
that
were
saved
,
it
was
by
grace
in
this
first
sence
;
but
if
grace
be
taken
in
the
second
sence
(
namely
more
generally
)
then
I
must
needs
acknowledge
that
it
was
Gods
great
grace
and
mercie
that
the
Jewes
had
a
Law
of
Circumcision
and
other
ordinances
which
was
to
them
as
a
Schoole-master
to
lead
them
to
Christ
which
was
to
come
,
Gal.
3.24
.
and
also
promises
that
Christ
must
be
borne
of
their
seed
according
to
the
flesh
Ro
.
9.5
.
(
and
in
these
respects
)
the
standing
of
the
Jewes
was
the
same
with
Abrahams
(
and
these
are
the
respects
)
spoken
of
by
Mary
,
Luke
1.54
,
55.
of
the
mercy
spoken
to
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
and
the
Covenant
and
Oath
spoken
of
by
Zachary
,
ver
.
72.73
.
namely
,
that
Christ
should
come
,
and
was
expected
by
them
to
be
borne
of
the
Virgin
Mary
and
Iohn
the
Baptist
to
be
his
fore-runner
,
as
appeareth
v.
47
compared
with
v.
76.
according
to
the
promises
and
Oath
of
God
made
to
Abraham
,
Gen.
12.3
.
chap.
22.16
,
17
,
18.
But
all
this
is
too
short
to
prove
that
the
Covenant
now
under
Christ
,
is
the
same
that
was
before
Christ
,
with
Abraham
and
his
posterity
in
the
flesh
;
and
therefore
here
you
may
see
all
your
proofes
for
your
assumption
taken
away
,
wherupon
I
suppose
your
double
consequence
will
faile
also
;
but
yet
because
your
consequences
stand
distinct
,
and
your
proofes
annexed
to
them
,
I
will
therefore
confider
of
them
in
order
as
they
stand
.
The
first
Consequent
that
you
would
prove
,
is
,
That
Infants
are
now
in
the
Covenant
,
as
they
were
then
before
Christ
,
you
are
resolved
upon
foure
reasons
.
The
first
is
,
else
the
Covenant
were
not
the
same
with
that
which
(
as
you
say
)
you
have
proved
it
to
be
.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
I
have
disproved
your
proofes
of
that
particular
,
and
therefore
this
reason
is
nothing
.
2.
You
say
Else
the
state
of
the
grace
of
God
should
be
straitned
,
and
be
made
of
lesse
extent
by
Christs
comming
,
then
it
was
before
,
whereas
it
is
more
enlarged
and
of
greater
extent
;
there
being
nothing
more
then
in
the
state
of
the
person
to
interesse
Infants
in
the
Covenant
then
now
.
First
,
I
answere
denying
the
consequence
,
and
the
reason
is
because
the
preaching
of
the
Gospell
is
as
full
as
large
and
as
ample
a
testimony
of
Gods
grace
,
as
any
of
the
fleshly
posterity
of
Abraham
had
by
the
Covenant
,
and
larger
;
inasmuch
as
the
Gospell
preached
now
is
a
more
full
declaration
of
the
grace
of
God
and
the
benefits
that
come
by
Christ
then
ever
Circumcision
or
the
Ordinances
of
the
Old
Testament
did
declare
to
them
,
and
the
fleshly
seed
of
Abraham
had
but
the
declaration
of
the
grace
of
God
in
Christ
by
the
Covenant
,
then
though
the
believing
seed
of
Abram
had
the
grace
of
God
in
Christ
declared
them
.
And
now
the
Seed
of
the
Gentiles
believers
and
unbelievers
are
made
partakers
of
the
preaching
of
the
Gospell
though
th●y
be
not
in
the
Covenant
;
which
is
a
larger
declaration
of
the
grace
of
God
and
of
the
benefits
that
come
by
Christ
,
then
ever
the
fleshly
seed
of
Abraham
had
by
being
in
the
Covenant
.
Therfore
the
exclusion
of
the
fleshly
seed
doth
not
streighten
the
grace
of
God
at
all
.
Secondly
,
as
it
was
of
larger
extent
in
respect
of
the
cleare
Revelation
of
the
grace
of
God
beyond
what
it
was
before
Christs
comming
;
so
likewise
it
is
of
larger
extent
in
respect
of
the
revelation
to
more
people
,
then
it
did
hen
,
for
then
it
was
confined
to
the
Land
of
Israel
,
and
the
people
of
the
Jewes
;
but
now
this
more
cleare
Revelation
of
the
grace
of
God
(
abounding
beyond
whatever
Circumcision
and
all
the
Ordinances
of
the
Law
did
or
could
reveale
unto
the
fleshly
seed
then
in
Covenant
)
is
by
Christ
commanded
to
be
preached
to
all
Nations
;
yea
,
to
every
man
and
woman
Mark
16.15
.
Mat
.
28.18
19.
Lu
.
24
47
,
and
yet
the
people
neverthelesse
more
in
Covenant
nor
to
bee
bap●ised
unlesse
they
believe
therfore
the
increase
of
the
extent
of
Gods
grace
doth
not
necessarily
imply
a
bringing
of
the
fleshly
seed
of
believers
within
the
Covenant
.
Thirdly
,
if
you
by
extention
of
grace
doe
conceive
that
ever
God
did
accept
of
the
posterity
of
Abraham
into
the
Covenant
of
everlasting
life
,
by
Christ
,
without
faith
in
their
owne
persons
,
onely
in
relation
to
Abraham
,
and
therupon
conclude
that
the
seed
of
believers
are
now
much
more
taken
into
the
covenant
of
everlasting
life
by
the
faith
of
their
Parents
:
therein
you
erre
,
and
such
an
extension
of
grace
I
doe
absolutely
deny
both
now
and
in
the
time
before
Christ
too
:
this
error
was
condemned
in
the
Jewes
by
Iohn
Baptist
,
Mat
.
3.9
and
by
Christ
,
John
8.34
39
40
,
41.
But
of
this
I
have
spoken
sufficiently
before
.
Fourthly
and
where
it
is
said
That
there
was
nothing
more
in
the
state
of
the
persons
,
then
to
in●●rest
Infants
in
the
covenant
then
now
.
I
answer
,
That
though
there
was
nothing
in
the
state
of
the
Persons
;
yet
there
was
something
in
things
,
and
in
the
order
of
times
,
Christ
being
yet
to
come
.
In
which
respect
the
necessary
absence
of
the
truth
,
and
true
promised
seed
did
necessarily
require
the
type
,
namely
the
fleshly
seed
to
be
selected
,
separated
and
ceremonially
holy
,
of
whom
the
promised
seed
was
to
come
:
but
now
the
necessary
presence
of
the
truth
,
and
true
promised
seed
Jesus
Christ
being
come
,
doth
necessarily
require
the
absence
of
the
type
,
and
the
consummation
,
termination
,
abrogation
and
utter
abolution
of
this
selected
,
separated
and
ceremoniall
holines
of
this
naturall
and
fl●shly
seed
;
and
therefore
now
there
is
nothing
but
Evangelicall
holines
selection
or
s●paration
remaining
,
which
is
not
without
personall
faith
and
therfore
no
visible
,
being
but
upon
ex●ernall
manifestation
,
and
consequently
no
admittance
to
any
Ordinance
of
the
Covenant
by
any
exercising
lawfull
authority
in
such
causes
but
only
by
vertue
of
such
externall
manifesta
-
and
thus
have
I
answered
your
second
Reason
.
Your
third
Reason
,
whereby
you
would
prove
that
infants
are
now
in
the
Covenant
as
they
were
,
then
is
this
,
Abraham
,
being
the
root
,
and
the
Iewes
and
Gentiles
the
branches
,
as
when
the
Iewes
were
broken
off
and
as
well
Infants
as
men
of
yeares
;
and
so
when
Iewes
be
againe
implanted
,
as
well
Infants
as
men
of
yeares
shall
be
so
.
To
which
I
answer
,
first
I
conceive
(
under
favour
)
that
by
the
root
is
meant
Christ
,
according
to
that
of
Iohn
15.5
.
where
Christ
saith
,
I
am
the
Vine
,
ye
are
the
branches
,
because
the
Apostle
saith
,
Rom.
11.20
thou
standest
by
faith
:
now
Christ
is
the
proper
object
of
faith
,
and
not
Abraham
.
But
admit
that
Abraham
be
the
root
;
yet
the
Gentiles
are
not
the
branches
in
a
naturall
relation
nor
the
Jewes
branches
in
a
spirituall
relation
,
without
●ersonall
faith
,
or
else
the
Jewes
could
not
be
broken
off
through
unbeliefe
,
because
unbeliefe
doth
not
make
the
Jewes
cease
●o
have
naturall
relation
to
Abraham
;
and
therefore
if
you
make
Jewes
and
Gentiles
to
be
the
branches
equall
in
relation
to
●he
●oo●Abram
,
you
must
make
the
relation
such
as
is
possible
to
them
both
such
onely
is
a
spirituall
relation
,
Galat
.
3.29
.
for
in
a
naturall
relation
it
is
not
possible
for
the
Gentiles
to
be
branches
in
relation
to
the
root
Abraham
.
3.
Whereas
you
say
,
when
the
Iewes
were
broken
off
,
it
was
at
well
Infants
as
men
of
yeares
.
I
answer
,
it
is
true
,
because
Christ
which
was
the
true
promised
seed
being
come
,
the
naturall
relation
in
the
Covenant
ceased
and
now
there
was
no
relation
in
the
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
but
by
faith
in
Christ
onely
.
4.
Whereas
you
say
,
That
when
the
Iewes
be
againe
implanted
,
as
well
Infants
as
men
of
yeares
shall
be
so
.
I
answer
that
as
unbeliefe
did
breake
them
off
,
so
faith
onely
must
graft
them
in
,
as
ver
.
23.
But
that
ever
the
Jewes
shall
be
planted
so
as
Infants
to
be
members
of
the
visible
Church
without
the
manifestation
of
faith
lawfully
,
as
once
they
were
before
Christs
comming
,
can
be
no
way
proved
but
it
is
an
absolute
error
.
Fourthly
,
your
fourth
reason
to
prove
Infants
in
the
Covenant
,
as
they
were
then
is
this
,
If
t●e
Jewes
and
Ge●tile
are
incorporated
into
one
Body
in
Christ
,
and
the
Iewish
Infants
are
of
that
Body
,
then
so
must
the
Infants
of
the
Gentiles
be
;
bu
th●
Iewes
and
Gentiles
are
incorporated
into
one
Body
in
Christ
;
(
by
the
gentiles
being
made
neere
and
Citizens
,
which
they
were
not
before
the
Iewes
being
in
Christ
)
Eph.
2.11.20
,
&
3
,
6.
and
the
Iewes
Infants
are
of
the
same
Body
:
therfore
so
are
the
Infants
of
the
Gentiles
.
I
answere
,
that
this
is
recorded
to
belong
to
the
Gentiles
,
as
a
benefit
in
speciall
to
be
the
Body
of
Christ
:
because
the
Jewes
had
meanes
before
,
and
some
of
the
Jewes
had
faith
by
that
means
,
and
were
true
members
of
his
Body
:
Christ
the
head
and
they
the
members
and
so
consequently
the
body
;
why
because
the
members
and
the
head
make
up
the
body
,
and
then
their
were
no
members
knowne
,
but
the
Jewes
therefore
no
body
;
but
the
Jewes
and
the
Gentiles
had
no
meanes
before
;
and
therfore
Christ
by
his
comming
brought
this
to
passe
,
that
meanes
should
be
afforded
as
well
and
as
much
as
to
the
Jewes
,
and
consequently
faith
by
the
meanes
and
so
united
to
Christ
the
head
;
now
being
joyned
to
the
head
,
they
must
necessarily
be
joyned
to
the
Body
,
therefore
joyned
to
those
believing
Jewes
which
before
were
the
body
,
but
as
the
Jewes
were
no
otherwise
the
body
,
but
in
relation
to
the
head
unto
which
they
were
united
onely
by
faith
:
so
the
Gentiles
had
union
with
the
Jewes
no
otherwise
but
through
Christ
the
head
of
them
both
,
being
joyned
to
him
by
faith
,
and
so
to
them
.
Secondly
,
I
say
,
that
the
Gentiles
did
not
by
conversion
enter
into
fellowship
with
the
Jewish
nationall
Church-state
;
for
that
state
the
Jewes
possessed
not
by
Christ
themselves
,
(
but
a
new
Gospell-state
which
onely
some
few
of
the
Nation
,
which
were
converted
to
the
faith
participated
of
)
therfore
much
lesse
could
the
Gentiles
participate
of
any
such
Church
state
with
them
now
:
then
,
if
neither
Jewes
nor
Gentiles
were
the
body
of
Christ
considerably
as
a
Nation
;
but
only
in
respect
of
conversion
by
which
they
were
inheritors
of
the
same
body
,
and
partakers
of
the
same
promise
in
Christ
by
the
Gospell
;
then
were
not
the
Jewes
meerly
as
Jewes
of
the
body
,
and
so
consequently
not
their
Infants
.
But
neither
Jewes
nor
Gentiles
were
the
body
of
Christ
considerably
as
a
Nation
,
but
onely
in
respect
of
conversion
by
the
Gospell
,
Eph.
3.6
.
Therefore
the
Jewes
meerly
as
Jewes
are
not
of
the
body
of
Christ
,
and
consequently
not
their
Infants
till
they
be
converted
;
and
therefore
so
are
not
the
Infants
of
the
Gentiles
neither
;
and
thus
you
may
see
your
reasons
of
proving
Infants
in
the
Covenant
to
faile
you
,
and
therefore
your
next
consequence
will
surely
fall
,
which
is
this
,
that
Infants
ought
now
to
be
baptised
,
as
then
circumcised
.
First
,
Else
the
Covenant
were
not
the
same
,
nor
Infants
in
it
.
I
answere
no
more
,
it
is
not
the
same
in
respect
of
the
naturall
relation
to
Abraham
,
as
I
have
shewed
and
therefore
Infants
not
in
it
Secondly
,
you
say
if
they
have
the
thing
and
substance
,
they
cannot
be
denied
the
seale
and
circumstance
,
if
the
first
grace
,
then
the
second
confirming
.
I
answer
true
,
when
they
manifest
that
they
have
the
thing
and
substance
,
or
any
other
can
manifest
it
for
them
,
then
let
them
have
the
seale
and
circumstance
;
and
surely
none
can
forbid
water
,
why
they
should
not
be
baptised
,
when
they
are
knowne
to
be
in
the
Covenant
.
Thirdly
,
you
say
,
If
by
vertue
of
this
word
of
God
to
Abraham
I
will
be
thy
God
,
a●d
the
God
of
thy
seed
,
Infants
are
included
,
and
therefore
of
old
ci●cumcised
,
and
the
same
promises
be
continued
in
the
same
state
to
●he
G●ntiles
;
then
the
Gentiles
Infants
are
also
in
it
,
but
the
first
is
●rue
Ergo
,
I
answer
,
that
the
same
promises
are
not
continued
in
the
same
state
to
the
Gentiles
who
are
not
Abrahams
children
by
naturall
relation
nor
ye●
is
it
con●inued
to
the
Jewes
,
neither
seeing
their
being
in
the
Covenant
by
a
naturall
relation
ceased
at
the
death
of
Christ
,
at
which
time
the
commandement
of
Circumcision
cease●
also
and
had
the
naturall
relation
held
the
naturall
seed
within
the
Cov●nant
still
;
then
doubtlesse
the
commandement
had
remained
still
touching
●he
circumcising
of
that
naturall
seed
for
there
is
no
more
reason
for
the
ceasing
of
the
one
,
then
for
the
ceasing
of
the
other
;
and
if
Circumcision
had
remained
,
then
I
suppose
none
would
have
pleaded
for
the
baptising
of
Infants
;
but
if
the
Covenant
be
ceased
touching
the
naturall
seed
,
then
there
is
no
Infants
to
be
circumcised
,
nor
baptised
neither
;
but
the
Covenant
ceased
at
the
death
of
Christ
touching
the
naturall
seed
,
Act.
10.28
.
Gal.
3
25.
Eph.
2.14
,
15.
Rom
11.20.21
.
Gal.
4.25
,
26.
therfore
this
is
no
proofe
for
Infants
to
be
circumcised
nor
baptised
neither
.
And
thus
I
have
done
with
your
first
Argument
;
your
second
followes
thus
.
If
in
the
whole
body
of
Israelites
as
well
Infants
as
men
of
yeares
were
baptised
,
and
with
the
same
baptisme
that
ours
is
,
then
Infants
are
now
to
be
baptised
,
as
then
they
were
:
but
in
the
whole
body
of
Israelites
Infants
were
baptised
,
and
that
with
the
same
Baptisme
spiritually
that
ours
is
.
Therefore
Infants
are
now
to
be
baptised
as
then
they
were
.
I
answer
this
Argument
is
a
sophisme
and
lies
not
true
in
his
forme
;
for
in
the
first
part
of
your
Argument
it
appeares
as
if
you
intended
that
the
●sraelites
were
baptised
corporally
as
now
since
Christ
the
Disciples
of
Christ
were
:
and
in
the
second
part
of
your
●rg●●ent
you
tell
us
it
is
the
same
Baptisme
spiritually
that
ours
is
,
whereas
if
you
had
said
so
in
the
first
part
then
I
say
your
Antecedent
would
be
too
narrow
to
inferre
the
consequent
;
and
this
I
shall
manifest
by
laying
downe
your
Argument
in
such
a
forme
as
it
may
agree
with
it selfe
;
(
for
as
it
lies
now
it
agrees
not
with
it selfe
.
)
First
,
if
in
the
whole
Body
of
Israelites
as
well
Infants
as
men
of
yeares
were
baptised
,
and
with
the
same
Baptisme
materially
and
formally
,
that
ours
is
;
then
Infants
are
now
to
be
baptised
as
then
they
were
.
But
in
the
whole
Body
of
Israelites
Infants
were
baptised
,
and
that
with
the
same
Baptisme
materially
and
formally
that
ours
is
.
Therfore
Infants
are
now
to
be
baptised
as
then
they
were
.
Who
would
not
see
first
that
your
Minor
were
false
,
the
cloud
and
the
Sea
not
being
the
same
Baptisme
materially
and
formally
that
ours
is
:
and
secondly
neither
would
the
consequence
follow
,
because
Infants
were
then
baptised
;
therefore
Infants
must
now
be
baptised
,
no
more
then
because
Adam
was
not
to
eat
of
the
Tree
in
the
midst
of
the
Garden
;
therfore
the
eating
of
some
kind
of
fruit
by
us
is
evill
;
or
no
more
then
this
,
Infants
were
circumcised
then
,
therefore
Infants
must
be
circumcised
now
.
But
secondly
,
I
will
supply
your
Argument
in
the
first
part
with
that
which
is
expressed
in
the
second
pat
,
and
then
see
the
force
and
power
of
it
thus
:
if
in
the
whole
body
of
Israelites
as
well
Infants
as
men
of
yeares
were
baptised
,
and
with
the
same
Baptisme
spiritually
that
ours
is
;
then
Infants
are
now
to
bee
baptised
as
then
they
were
.
But
in
the
whole
Body
of
the
Israelites
Infants
were
baptised
,
and
with
the
same
Baptisme
spiritually
,
that
ours
is
.
And
now
I
deny
the
consequence
,
and
wil●
shew
you
how
the
Antecedent
is
too
narrow
to
inferre
the
same
thus
.
That
although
God
did
by
the
miraculous
working
of
his
divine
providence
,
grace
and
goodnesse
lead
the
People
of
Israel
through
the
sea
dry
,
and
drowned
the
Aegyptians
which
were
their
enemies
,
and
did
also
affoord
them
a
cloudy
Pillar
,
which
was
a
defence
from
their
enemies
,
and
a
guid
to
them
in
their
way
whither
they
were
going
,
which
must
be
in
the
nature
of
the
things
considered
as
great
a
Sacrament
,
signe
or
token
of
Gods
love
in
Christ
to
that
people
as
Baptisme
was
to
the
Corinthians
,
and
therefore
called
Baptisme
:
and
(
for
no
other
reason
will
it
from
hence
follow
,
that
we
should
administer
such
an
Ordinance
as
Baptisme
is
to
our
Infants
,
without
a
command
from
God
so
to
do
for
this
is
the
force
of
your
Argument
;
God
did
by
the
worke
of
his
providence
baptise
the
Infants
of
Israel
spiritually
,
Ergo
we
may
by
our
worke
without
Gods
command
baptise
our
Infants
materially
,
ceremonially
and
formally
;
and
is
this
good
reasoning
?
who
sees
not
that
God
hath
no
limits
,
but
may
by
his
providence
testifie
his
grace
as
largely
as
he
wil
;
therfore
we
may
devise
means
to
worship
God
as
large
as
we
wil
,
or
may
administer
his
means
to
whom
we
will
,
without
any
direction
from
him
:
who
sees
not
that
there
is
no
force
in
such
manner
of
arguing
;
but
it
is
absurd
and
erronious
so
to
reason
?
Thirdly
,
therefore
the
purpose
of
Paul
is
,
to
declare
to
the
Corinthians
that
Ordinances
would
doe
them
no
more
good
without
faith
and
repentance
,
then
Miracles
(
which
were
as
great
as
Ordinances
)
could
doe
the
Israelites
good
to
prevent
Judgements
when
they
sinned
;
and
that
therefore
it
would
be
a
vaine
thing
for
these
Corinths
to
rest
secure
in
the
possession
of
these
Ordinances
,
as
if
God
respected
them
thereby
without
Faith
in
Christ
,
such
a
faith
as
preserved
them
from
those
sins
which
the
Israelites
committed
;
the
which
faith
if
they
had
not
,
they
were
no
more
exempt
from
Gods
displeasure
,
plagues
and
Judgments
then
the
Israelits
were
:
and
if
Ordinances
would
secure
these
Corinths
,
then
those
miracles
would
secure
them
:
but
these
Miracles
did
not
secure
them
;
therefore
these
Ordinances
cannot
secure
you
;
but
you
must
have
a
better
security
then
this
,
namely
,
faith
in
the
blood
of
Christ
,
whereby
you
are
to
be
carried
on
towards
God
in
all
things
as
a
People
prof●ssing
and
practising
the
truth
:
But
his
purpose
is
not
to
shew
that
Ordinances
,
namely
Baptisme
and
the
Lords
Supper
are
required
to
be
administred
by
these
Corinths
to
themselves
and
to
their
Infants
,
though
they
do
not
believe
in
Christ
:
because
then
God
did
exercise
such
Miracles
to
the
Israelites
which
did
not
believe
,
which
is
the
sequell
of
this
Argument
compared
with
the
proofe
,
as
we
shall
see
by
the
examination
thereof
;
for
your
first
proofe
is
this
.
You
say
,
That
the
other
Ordinances
there
mentioned
,
are
the
same
sp●ritually
with
ours
;
they
eat
the
same
spirituall
meat
,
and
●rank
the
spirituall
drink
with
us
.
I
answer
then
by
consequence
belike
the
Corinths
must
baptise
themselves
and
their
Infants
,
and
both
of
them
eat
the
Lords
Supper
,
though
neither
of
them
doe
believe
,
because
then
God
led
the
Israelites
through
the
Sea
drie
,
and
gave
them
the
Cloud
,
and
Manna
,
and
the
Rock
which
spiritually
is
the
same
with
ours
,
which
notwithstanding
did
not
believe
:
the
which
thing
thus
laid
open
,
I
hope
you
will
not
affirme
.
Secondly
,
I
answer
therefore
that
you
erre
in
calling
them
(
the
oth●r
Ordinances
there
mentioned
)
whereas
they
are
the
ther
Miracles
,
which
had
you
well
weighed
,
you
would
not
have
made
th●m
the
ground
of
your
Argument
for
the
justifying
of
such
a
practice
as
the
baptising
of
Infants
is
.
Fourthly
,
besides
if
after
the
Israelites
were
entred
into
the
Land
of
Canaan
th●y
were
then
neither
baptised
with
the
cloud
nor
sea
nor
any
other
baptisme
;
then
was
not
the
baptisme
which
they
had
before
in
the
cloud
and
in
the
sea
an
example
of
perpetuall
practice
of
Baptisme
:
but
the
first
is
true
,
for
they
entred
through
the
Sea
but
once
,
and
the
cloud
ceased
when
they
entred
into
Canaan
,
neither
can
any
shew
that
they
were
baptised
with
any
other
Baptisme
;
therefore
the
Baptisme
which
they
had
before
,
is
not
an
example
of
perpetuall
p
actice
of
Bap●isme
.
Fifthly
Bap●ismes
of
different
kinds
depends
upon
different
grounds
,
and
are
to
be
administred
upon
different
Subjects
for
different
ends
but
the
Baptisme
of
the
Cloud
and
Sea
,
and
the
Baptisme
we
have
now
are
of
divers
kindes
,
e●go
they
depend
upon
different
grounds
,
and
are
to
be
administred
upon
different
subjects
for
different
ends
.
Your
second
proofe
you
say
,
Otherwise
the
Ap●stles
Argument
w●re
not
of
f●●ce
against
the
Corinthians
if
they
were
n●●
the
same
Sacraments
with
●ur●
,
nor
the
conclusion
containe
that
the
Corinthi●ns
should
be
punished
with
the
like
punishment
,
if
they
commit●ed
the
like
sinnes
.
I
answer
,
denying
the
consequence
,
for
although
the
Cloud
and
Sea
,
Manna
and
the
Rock
were
Sacraments
of
the
same
Christ
that
Baptisme
and
the
Lords
Supper
is
,
yet
they
were
not
the
same
Sacraments
;
and
it
sufficeth
to
the
Apostles
purpose
that
the
Cloud
,
Sea
,
Manna
,
and
Rock
,
were
as
great
and
efectuall
tokens
of
Christ
,
and
so
they
were
in
the
nature
of
the
things
simply
considered
)
as
Baptisme
and
the
Lords
Supper
is
,
though
they
were
different
Sacraments
of
the
same
Christ
and
not
the
same
Sacraments
,
and
except
they
were
dipt
in
water
,
and
did
eat
and
drinke
bread
and
wine
as
we
do
,
yee
cannot
say
they
were
the
same
Sacraments
with
ours
;
and
thus
have
I
refuted
your
second
argument
.
Your
third
argument
followes
,
which
is
this
:
There
is
one
and
the
same
consideration
of
the
first
fruits
and
the
lump
the
root
and
the
branches
:
But
the
first
fruits
and
roote
believing
Parents
are
holy
and
must
be
Baptized
,
therefore
Jnfants
the
lump
and
branches
are
holy
and
must
be
Baptized
.
I
deny
the
asumption
or
second
part
of
your
argument
,
assumed
out
of
the
first
,
viz.
That
believing
Parents
are
the
roote
or
first
fruites
;
neither
doth
,
Rom.
11.16
.
nor
the
1
Cor
.
7.14
.
prove
any
such
thing
;
we
will
consider
of
the
places
distinctly
,
and
first
of
the
first
,
in
Rom.
11.18
.
It
is
said
(
speaking
to
the
believing
Gentiles
)
boast
not
thy selfe
against
the
branches
,
for
if
thou
boast
thy selfe
thou
bearest
not
the
roote
but
the
roote
thee
;
now
if
they
beare
not
the
roote
but
the
roote
beareth
them
,
then
they
cannot
bee
the
roote
,
and
yet
they
stood
by
Faith
verse
the
20
and
were
but
branches
,
verse
21.
this
first
place
is
therefore
abused
to
make
beleiving
parents
the
first
fruits
and
roote
,
and
their
Infants
naturally
descended
from
them
to
be
the
branches
,
whereas
beleivers
are
but
branches
themselves
:
and
secondly
,
1
Cor
.
7.14
.
doth
prove
no
such
thing
neither
,
which
as
it
neither
expresseth
roote
nor
first
fruites
,
so
hath
it
no
such
sence
and
meaning
as
that
the
holinesse
of
Faith
in
the
parents
,
should
cause
the
holinesse
in
the
children
.
But
before
I
expresse
my
reasons
of
the
exposition
,
either
negative
or
affirmative
,
I
conceive
it
necessary
to
observe
what
you
say
(
on
the
contrary
you
say
,
you
suppose
it
is
mistaken
when
expounded
to
be
the
same
holinesse
spoken
before
of
Infidel's
person
sanctified
to
the
beleiver
,
and
further
you
say
,
the
Apostle
speak
ng
therefore
of
a
two-fold
holinesse
,
the
one
(
n
t
)
in
the
thing
it selfe
but
to
anothers
use
,
the
other
of
the
thing
it selfe
it
cannot
but
be
sinfull
to
conf●und
them
.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
I
will
not
contend
nor
gainsay
any
of
this
,
but
further
you
say
.
That
the
Apostle
saith
two
things
,
that
to
the
pure
all
things
are
pure
,
and
sanctified
;
therefore
a
beleiving
husband
or
wife
may
dwell
w●●h
an
Infidell
yoake-fellow
,
the
second
thing
is
,
that
by
vertue
of
a
beleivers
state
in
grace
,
all
his
fruite
is
holy
,
and
partakers
of
the
same
state
of
grace
,
with
him
,
unlesse
they
doe
by
some
act
of
theirs
deprive
themselves
of
it
as
Esau
,
Ishmael
,
&c.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
the
former
of
these
two
things
,
I
grant
,
but
the
latter
I
wholy
deny
,
that
it
is
any
of
the
purpose
of
Paul
so
to
speake
.
For
first
,
it
is
the
purpose
of
Paul
to
conclude
such
a
holinesse
in
the
children
,
as
was
inseparable
to
their
very
being
,
or
else
it
would
not
have
been
a
sufficient
reason
to
have
proved
the
sanctification
of
the
unbelieving
yoke-mate
by
the
believer
,
and
therefore
to
suppose
some
Act
of
theirs
to
deprive
them
of
the
holinesse
there
spoken
of
is
a
coarcted
and
farre
fetch
't
exposition
.
Secondly
,
if
by
a
believers
state
in
grace
be
understood
the
covenant
that
Abraham
and
all
believers
doe
possesse
by
faith
:
then
first
I
say
,
that
Esau
nor
Ishmael
were
never
of
it
,
Rom.
9.8
.
and
therfore
could
not
by
any
Act
of
theirs
deprive
themselves
of
it
.
Secondly
,
if
they
were
and
deprived
by
some
Act
of
theirs
;
then
we
must
fall
upon
Arminius
tenet
of
falling
away
which
understanding
Christians
doe
utterly
abhorre
.
Thirdly
,
then
the
being
in
the
everlasting
covenant
of
grace
,
and
peace
with
God
by
Christ
,
should
be
conveyed
and
derived
by
naturall
descent
,
and
not
by
the
Gospell
,
which
is
absurd
and
contrary
to
many
Scriptures
,
Rom.
1
16
,
17.
chap.
10.17
.
Gallathians
3.2
.
Ioh
.
3.5
.
1
Pet
.
1
,
23.
Iam
.
1.18
.
Ioh
.
1.13
.
The
first
of
these
Scriptures
saith
the
Gospell
is
the
power
of
God
to
salvation
to
every
one
that
believeth
;
whereas
this
position
saith
,
that
some
are
●artakers
of
a
state
of
grace
and
salvation
by
vertue
of
their
parents
,
being
in
the
state
of
grace
,
which
is
directly
contrary
the
one
to
the
other
:
and
all
the
other
Sriptures
,
and
many
more
proves
that
Faith
comes
by
hearing
,
and
hearing
by
the
word
of
God
,
by
which
conversion
and
regeneration
is
wrought
,
by
which
onely
and
alone
we
become
Sons
of
God
by
adoption
and
grace
;
now
therfore
to
say
that
some
are
partakers
of
the
same
by
generation
,
by
vertue
from
their
parents
is
directly
contrary
,
yea
contrary
to
the
whole
Gospell
of
Christ
,
Rom.
4.14
.
where
the
Apostle
saith
,
if
they
which
be
of
the
Law
(
that
is
naturally
descended
and
circumcised
onely
)
be
Heires
:
Faith
is
made
voyde
and
the
promise
(
that
is
,
the
whole
Gospell
or
Covenant
of
grace
)
is
made
of
none
effect
.
But
if
you
meane
by
a
State
of
grace
such
favour
as
it
pleased
God
to
bestow
upon
the
posterity
of
Abrah●m
,
according
to
the
flesh
whereby
(
being
circumcised
)
they
were
segregated
and
distinguished
to
be
possessed
of
Ordinances
leading
them
to
Christ
,
which
was
then
to
come
above
other
neighbour
Nations
:
I
grant
that
this
distinction
agrees
to
them
yet
neverth●lesse
:
to
this
I
say
first
that
this
distinction
was
taken
away
at
the
death
of
Christ
Ephes
.
2.14
15.
Act.
10.28
.
Secondly
,
neither
is
it
Pauls
purpose
to
conclude
these
children
spoken
of
1
Cor
.
7.14
.
within
the
Limits
of
such
a
distinction
,
first
because
the
Lord
in
the
time
of
the
Law
did
accompt
of
children
,
in
the
very
case
and
consideration
that
these
children
were
in
,
to
be
a
polluted
and
unholy
seed
,
and
to
be
put
away
with
their
Mothers
which
were
not
members
of
the
Church
according
to
the
Law
,
Ezra
,
9.2.10
3.
Therefore
that
State
did
not
alow
even
while
it
lasted
children
to
be
of
that
state
,
when
one
of
the
parents
were
forreigners
to
the
Church
,
therefore
much
lesse
hath
it
any
consequence
to
conclude
it
,
so
now
when
the
State
it selfe
is
nullifyed
.
Thirdly
,
in
the
time
of
the
Law
from
which
this
successive
being
in
the
state
of
grace
,
is
concluded
to
come
the
Proselite
Jew
was
required
to
circumcise
all
his
males
,
Exod
.
12.48
.
and
he
should
be
as
one
that
was
borne
in
the
Land
,
and
it
must
bee
conceived
that
the
Females
were
included
in
the
Males
,
and
did
enter
into
the
state
with
them
;
there
being
no
circumcision
,
or
other
Sacrament
of
entrance
appointed
for
them
,
whereupon
it
followeth
that
there
can
be
no
President
or
rule
,
no
not
in
the
time
of
the
Law
it selfe
;
that
ever
any
one
parent
comming
to
be
of
the
Iewish
state
and
leaving
their
maried
yoke-mate
out
did
possesse
their
seed
of
the
same
state
,
and
the
reason
was
because
the
Law
did
injoyne
the
Proselite
to
possesse
all
of
the
state
that
were
under
his
Jurisdiction
by
the
authority
of
that
Law
which
required
him
to
circumcise
all
his
males
.
And
therefore
the
state
now
which
takes
in
upon
Faith
onely
,
and
thereupon
takes
the
husband
which
believeth
and
leaves
out
the
wife
which
beleiveth
not
and
takes
the
wife
which
beleiveth
,
and
leaves
out
the
husband
which
believeth
not
;
can
receive
no
rule
from
that
state
to
take
in
the
children
before
they
doe
believe
no
more
then
the
wife
which
then
was
brought
into
that
state
by
the
law
of
the
husbands
being
a
Proselite
,
and
left
out
of
this
state
untill
such
time
as
they
doe
believe
,
Fourthly
,
the
Apostle
speakes
indefinitly
of
their
Children
young
or
old
,
which
it
may
be
,
some
were
10
,
20
or
30.
yeares
old
;
and
it
must
be
considered
,
that
age
doth
not
make
them
cease
to
be
Children
in
relation
to
those
Parents
,
whose
children
they
are
,
and
againe
it
must
be
considered
,
that
Pauls
purpose
is
not
to
speake
of
Children
in
respect
of
yeares
,
but
in
respect
of
relation
only
for
his
Argument
is
an
Argument
of
rela●ion
.
Now
it
is
an
absurdity
of
such
a
nature
,
as
no
body
I
thinke
will
owne
to
conclude
,
that
Children
of
20
or
30
yeares
old
which
are
apparently
wicked
,
are
holy
in
such
a
sense
as
by
vertue
of
their
Parents
state
in
grace
to
be
partakers
of
the
same
state
of
grace
with
him
,
so
as
to
be
Baptized
by
vertue
of
this
relation
.
Therefore
holynesse
here
cannot
in
the
Apostles
meaning
be
so
understood
,
neither
will
the
exception
take
it
off
,
(
viz.
)
unlesse
they
do
by
some
act
of
theirs
deprive
themselves
of
it
)
as
Esau
and
Ishmael
,
&c.
To
which
I
Answer
,
that
the
Apostle
speakes
positively
of
a
conclusion
drawne
from
the
State
of
the
relation
which
can
admit
of
no
exception
,
which
if
it
could
,
then
will
it
bee
of
no
absolute
validity
to
enforce
the
conclusion
;
and
according
to
this
Argument
if
the
Children
doe
by
some
Act
of
theirs
deprive
themselves
of
their
estate
in
grace
,
then
their
Parents
can
have
no
sanctified
use
of
their
unbelieving
yoak-mate
though
they
have
never
so
much
faith
in
themselves
;
whereas
contrary
to
this
the
Apostle
saith
,
to
the
pure
all
things
are
pure
●it
1.15
.
without
reference
to
the
children
,
therefore
the
childrens
state
in
grace
or
not
in
grace
,
addeth
not
nor
diminisheth
any
thing
to
that
purpose
.
Fiftly
,
therfore
I
say
that
the
holinesse
spoken
of
here
,
is
such
a
holynesse
as
must
prove
the
unbelieving
Parent
sanctified
to
(
or
by
)
their
unbelieving
yoke-mate
,
but
it
the
Parents
be
not
lawfully
married
,
the
grace
of
the
child
(
if
it
have
any
though
never
so
much
)
cannot
prove
the
unbelieving
Parent
sanctified
to
or
by
their
believing
yoke-mate
:
Now
if
any
shall
object
,
that
if
their
Parents
were
not
lawfully
married
,
then
were
they
not
husband
and
wife
each
to
other
:
I
answer
:
that
upon
the
same
ground
that
the
Corinthians
did
question
the
dwelling
with
their
unbelieving
yok-mate
,
upon
the
same
ground
they
did
question
their
being
lawfully
husbands
and
wives
each
to
other
,
which
if
they
were
not
,
all
the
grace
that
can
be
imagined
in
the
Children
,
will
never
prove
the
unbelieving
Parent
sanctified
to
or
by
their
believing
yoke-mate
,
therefore
the
holynesse
here
spoken
of
is
not
a
state
of
grace
,
neither
inward
nor
outward
neither
,
seeing
that
answers
not
the
Corinthians
scruple
,
nor
proves
the
thing
in
question
by
them
.
Sixtly
,
therefore
I
answer
positively
,
that
the
holynesse
here
spoken
of
is
legitimacy
,
and
the
uncleanesse
Basterdy
,
and
the
reason
is
partly
because
such
an
exposition
hath
force
to
prove
the
thing
in
question
,
and
the
other
hath
not
;
and
partly
because
such
a
holynesse
is
derivative
from
all
Parents
lawfully
married
,
and
the
other
is
not
,
Mal
.
2.15
.
and
it
must
be
such
a
holynesse
as
is
derivative
from
all
Parents
lawfully
married
because
one
of
the
Parents
being
come
to
the
Faith
,
and
the
argument
standing
in
the
Children
which
were
begotten
and
borne
before
,
which
therefore
could
not
receive
any
vertue
from
the
faith
of
the
Parents
by
the
course
of
generation
to
have
any
holynesse
thereby
derived
unto
them
;
Therefore
it
must
be
such
a
holynesse
as
is
derivative
from
all
Parents
lawfully
married
,
and
that
is
no
other
then
Legitimacy
,
and
that
such
an
exposition
of
holynesse
so
understood
hath
force
sufficient
to
prove
the
thing
in
question
,
is
cleare
;
because
if
one
of
the
Parents
do
believe
there
can
no
objection
be
made
why
Legitimacy
should
not
prove
the
unbelieving
Parent
to
be
sanctified
to
or
by
the
believing
yoke-mate
whereas
if
there
be
no
children
Legitimate
,
the
question
may
lie
as
it
did
with
the
Corinthians
,
whether
they
were
bound
together
as
husband
and
wife
,
and
whether
the
unbeliever
be
sanctified
to
the
believing
yoke-mate
,
yea
or
no
:
but
taking
it
for
granted
that
they
have
Children
each
by
other
legitimate
,
it
is
then
out
of
question
;
the
conclusion
then
is
,
that
there
can
be
no
such
holynesse
understood
of
Children
in
this
place
of
Paul
as
by
which
they
must
be
Baptised
,
and
thus
is
your
third
Argument
refuted
.
Your
fourth
Argument
is
this
,
If
Baptisme
succeed
Circumcision
then
if
Infants
were
to
be
Circumcised
,
Infants
are
to
be
Baptised
;
but
Baptisme
succeeds
Circumcision
,
therefore
as
Infants
were
to
be
Circumcised
so
Infants
are
to
be
Baptised
.
To
which
I
answer
,
I
deny
the
consequence
of
the
proposition
for
it
doth
not
follow
,
because
Baptisme
in
a
sense
succeeddeth
Circumcision
,
that
therefore
the
same
subjects
that
were
to
be
Circumcised
then
,
are
to
be
Baptised
now
;
no
more
then
this
consequence
,
the
Gospell
succeeds
the
Law
,
the
Sons
of
Aaron
were
Ministers
of
the
Law
,
therefore
the
Sons
of
Aaron
are
to
be
Ministers
now
,
or
no
more
then
this
,
Baptisme
succeeds
Circumcision
,
then
if
they
Circumcised
all
the
Males
servants
though
they
were
men
and
had
no
Faith
,
then
so
they
are
to
Baptise
them
now
;
and
so
in
restriction
,
also
Baptisme
succeeds
Circumcision
,
Females
were
not
to
be
Circumcised
then
though
they
had
Faith
,
therefore
not
to
be
Baptised
now
:
or
thus
;
the
Lords
Supper
succeeds
the
Passeover
then
if
the
little
Children
and
servants
eate
it
,
namely
the
Passover
,
with
the
rest
of
the
Family
distinctly
by
themselves
in
a
house
,
then
so
are
little
children
and
servants
to
eate
the
Lords
Supper
with
the
rest
of
the
Family
distinctly
in
one
house
by
themselves
now
:
and
is
this
good
reason
?
and
yet
what
ever
objection
can
be
made
against
any
of
these
consequences
,
will
lie
against
yours
also
.
Secondly
,
I
say
the
body
of
the
Jewish
Nation
were
subjects
Circumcised
according
to
the
Law
,
even
when
Christ
died
,
yet
the
same
were
not
subjects
of
Baptisme
according
to
the
Gospell
untill
they
gladly
received
the
word
of
God
,
Act.
2.41
.
Thirdly
,
therefore
I
answer
,
that
as
Baptisme
succeeds
Circumcision
,
so
doth
the
commandement
of
Baptisme
succeed
the
commandement
of
Circumcision
,
and
the
Subject
commanded
to
be
Baptised
doth
succeed
the
subject
commanded
to
be
Circumcised
:
as
therefore
of
old
when
persons
were
to
be
Circumcised
,
they
had
recourse
to
the
commandement
of
Circumcision
for
direction
of
themselves
in
the
parties
to
be
circumcised
;
so
now
ought
we
to
have
recourse
to
the
commandement
of
Baptisme
for
direction
of
our selves
in
the
parties
to
be
Baptised
,
now
therfore
for
to
have
recourse
to
the
commandement
of
Circumcision
,
for
to
have
direction
in
the
parties
to
be
Baptised
,
is
not
onely
a
failing
in
method
,
order
,
and
good
decorum
,
but
also
causeth
a
necessity
of
erring
,
because
the
commandement
of
Circumcision
and
the
commandement
of
Baptisme
is
of
different
subjects
;
and
if
we
should
take
the
parties
to
be
Baptised
from
the
commandement
of
Circumcision
,
then
we
must
Baptise
none
but
Males
,
and
that
on
the
eighth
day
too
;
and
the
Proselyte
must
Baptise
all
his
Males
whether
they
have
Faith
or
no
,
and
the
Females
must
not
be
baptised
though
they
have
never
so
much
faith
;
wheras
contrariwise
the
commandement
of
baptisme
requireth
the
baptisme
of
Disciples
,
and
onely
Disciples
,
and
that
both
men
and
women
,
Mat
.
28.18
.
Ioh
4.1
,
2.
Act.
2.38.41
.
chap.
8.12.37
.
chap.
10.47
.
Gal.
3.26.27
,
28
,
29.
and
what
is
the
description
of
a
Disciple
,
see
Luke
14.26
,
27
,
33.
Fourthly
,
That
which
was
the
reason
of
the
change
of
the
Sacrament
was
the
reason
of
the
change
of
the
subject
which
the
Sacrament
was
to
be
administred
unto
wherupon
it
followeth
that
by
the
same
reason
that
we
take
Infants
to
be
baptised
,
because
Infants
were
formerly
Circumcised
,
by
the
same
reason
we
may
Circumcise
them
now
,
because
they
Circumcised
them
then
and
so
consequently
the
question
of
bap●isme
ended
,
unlesse
it
should
be
pleaded
,
that
Infants
should
be
baptised
and
circumcised
both
:
Now
if
it
be
absurd
to
circumcise
Infants
now
,
notwithstanding
they
circumcised
them
then
,
because
Christ
is
now
come
,
who
hath
put
an
end
to
Circumcision
and
all
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Law
,
surely
it
is
no
lesse
absurd
to
baptise
Infants
now
in
relation
to
their
circumcising
of
them
then
,
because
Christs
comming
doth
put
an
end
to
the
subject
also
,
and
hath
instituted
another
Subject
to
be
Bap●ised
,
and
th●y
are
those
that
first
taught
to
believe
in
Christ
,
and
onely
those
;
and
thus
is
the
consequence
of
baptisme
succeeding
circumcision
taken
away
.
And
thus
have
I
made
a
full
answer
to
your
discourse
touching
Jnfants
Baptisme
,
and
now
it
remaines
I
should
make
some
answere
to
your
discourse
touching
the
forme
of
the
Church
.
And
first
you
speake
of
Agreement
in
this
,
viz.
That
matter
and
forme
do
constitute
a
Church
,
(
to
which
we
do
agree
)
Also
you
say
,
That
the
matter
is
a
company
of
visible
Saints
,
professing
faith
in
the
righteousnesse
of
Christ
,
and
living
accordingly
.
To
this
I
answer
,
that
this
definition
agreeth
not
to
Infants
,
which
you
would
make
the
subjects
of
baptisme
,
who
are
borne
in
sinne
,
and
are
by
nature
the
children
of
wrath
,
Psal
.
51.5
.
Ephes
.
2.3
.
Secondly
,
neither
doth
it
agree
with
the
constitution
of
the
Jewish
Church
(
which
you
make
to
be
a
patterne
for
ours
,
by
bringing
your
grounds
from
thence
for
the
baptising
of
Infants
)
who
never
were
required
to
make
any
such
profession
at
the
time
of
their
admission
,
as
all
the
Churches
since
Christs
coming
are
,
and
all
the
Members
added
,
or
to
be
added
,
do
when
they
are
added
,
Act.
2.41
.
chap.
8.12
,
13.37
,
38.10.47
,
11.15
,
16
,
17
So
then
after
you
have
set
down
wherein
we
do
agree
,
(
as
indeed
it
were
well
if
you
did
agree
with
your selfe
in
it
)
then
you
make
a
Quaere
Whether
Baptisme
be
not
the
forme
of
it
,
and
your
answer
is
No
,
and
then
you
give
your
reasons
of
that
denyall
,
and
then
you
affirme
,
That
a
Covenant
acted
is
the
forme
;
to
all
which
I
answer
,
first
in
generall
,
that
we
are
to
distinguish
betwixt
that
which
formeth
and
the
forme
which
is
formed
▪
because
the
forme
of
any
thing
according
to
the
common
and
vulgar
acception
of
forme
is
that
outward
frame
fashion
or
figure
that
the
thing
hath
,
wherby
it
is
distinguished
or
hath
its
denomination
,
and
to
apply
it
to
the
question
in
hand
,
the
Church
being
an
Assembly
,
the
forme
,
fashion
,
or
figure
thereof
is
the
relation
or
state
that
every
Member
possesseth
from
Christ
their
King
and
common
head
,
and
each
with
other
,
wherby
every
Law
in
every
office
or
service
is
communicable
and
executed
;
so
then
neither
Baptisme
nor
a
Covenant
is
the
forme
of
the
Church
but
Baptisme
of
believers
is
the
instrumentall
meanes
by
which
the
Church
commeth
to
be
made
partakers
of
that
forme
which
it
hath
,
and
by
which
it
comes
to
be
a
Church
,
and
to
have
such
a
name
setled
upon
it
,
and
without
which
it
can
have
no
such
name
agree
unto
it
.
The
Instrumentall
meanes
then
of
the
being
of
this
Church
,
both
for
matter
and
forme
is
by
consent
of
love
,
issuing
forth
from
the
Covenant
of
grace
made
in
from
one
Lord
through
one
Spirit
,
one
Faith
,
one
Baptisme
:
Eph.
4.4.5
.
and
if
any
of
these
meanes
be
wanting
,
then
something
is
wanting
that
causeth
the
Church
to
be
,
and
except
that
want
be
supplied
,
the
Church
can
have
no
visible
existence
or
being
,
and
from
hence
the
conclusion
ariseth
,
that
although
Baptisme
be
not
the
forme
,
frame
,
fashion
,
or
figure
of
the
Church
,
yet
seeing
Baptisme
is
an
essentiall
part
of
the
meanes
conducing
to
the
being
of
the
visible
Church
,
yea
and
the
last
meanes
too
;
That
where
true
Baptisme
is
wanting
,
there
can
be
no
true
visible
Church
.
Secondly
,
whersoever
true
baptisme
is
administred
according
to
the
will
of
Christ
revealed
in
the
Scripture
,
there
the
true
visible
Church
is
by
that
meanes
,
truely
constituted
and
stated
in
his
true
being
.
It
is
therefore
called
the
birth
of
water
,
Joh
.
3.5
.
Titus
3.5
.
As
therefore
the
birth
which
we
receive
from
our
naturall
Parents
,
is
that
by
which
we
receive
the
beginning
of
our
natures
being
among
the
common
state
of
mankinde
in
the
affaires
of
this
corporall
life
,
even
so
Baptisme
being
the
birth
of
water
,
is
that
whereby
we
receive
the
beginning
of
our
visible
being
in
our
Spirituall
estate
among
the
Church
and
people
of
God
,
in
the
affaires
appertaining
to
eternall
life
,
but
the
first
is
true
from
the
analogy
that
baptisme
hath
with
naturall
birth
,
therefore
the
second
by
force
of
consequence
is
also
true
.
Secon●ly
,
I
argue
from
the
forme
of
baptisme
,
it
being
a
dipping
of
the
body
into
the
water
and
in
that
respect
called
a
buriall
with
Christ
,
Rom.
6.4
.
Col.
2.12
.
betokening
our
death
and
resurrection
.
As
therefore
the
rising
out
of
the
grave
at
the
last
day
is
the
beginning
of
our
being
bodily
in
the
state
of
glory
,
so
the
rising
out
of
the
water
of
baptisme
is
the
beginning
of
our
being
in
the
visible
state
of
grace
,
and
the
beginning
of
our
visible
spirituall
life
is
from
that
day
,
&c.
in
respect
of
their
outward
station
.
Thirdly
,
I
argue
from
the
end
for
which
baptisme
is
appointed
,
which
amnogst
other
,
is
to
unite
them
to
the
visible
body
of
Christ
,
1
Cor
.
12.13
.
Gal.
3
,
27.28
.
Eph.
4.5
,
6.
and
to
distinguish
them
from
the
rest
of
the
world
which
are
not
baptised
as
they
are
,
Col.
2.12
.
compared
20.
and
so
Circumcision
did
distinguish
and
denominate
the
Proselite
Jewes
from
what
they
were
before
,
and
from
all
other
Heathens
Ex.
12.48
49.
Ro
.
3.1.2
.
From
whence
I
reason
thus
;
if
union
and
communion
with
the
visible
body
of
Chrsst
,
and
distinguishment
from
the
rest
of
the
world
be
the
end
for
which
baptisme
is
appointed
,
then
whensoever
it
is
administred
according
to
appointment
,
it
must
necessarily
be
concluded
to
be
such
a
meanes
as
is
effectuall
to
accomplish
the
proposed
end
,
and
unlesse
baptisme
as
a
meanes
be
administred
to
persons
which
are
believers
,
subjects
only
capable
of
such
union
,
communion
,
and
distinction
,
such
an
end
can
no
waies
else
be
effected
,
and
that
way
it
may
be
and
is
;
but
the
former
is
true
by
the
ground
before
laid
,
Ergo
the
latter
is
also
true
.
Fourthly
,
I
argue
from
the
Irreiteration
of
baptisme
,
it
being
to
be
administred
but
once
,
the
Lords
Supper
often
,
in
which
respect
baptisme
is
the
signe
of
our
birth
,
the
Lords
Supper
is
the
signe
of
our
growth
:
baptisme
is
the
Sacrament
of
our
entrance
or
initiation
,
the
Lords
Supper
is
the
Sacrament
of
our
continuance
and
conservation
in
the
visible
body
of
Christ
,
and
therefore
by
the
same
reason
that
a
man
may
be
conceived
to
have
a
being
in
the
visible
Church
for
a
time
without
baptisme
,
the
signe
and
Sacrament
of
his
birth
,
entrance
and
initiation
by
the
same
reason
he
may
have
a
continuance
of
his
being
there
without
the
same
also
,
and
so
cons●quently
baptisme
needlesse
:
but
baptisme
is
not
needlesse
but
needfull
,
(
being
a
signe
of
our
birth
,
entrance
and
initiation
)
to
be
administred
as
a
meanes
of
our
visible
birth
,
entrance
initiation
or
the
beginning
of
our
visible
being
in
the
visible
body
of
Christ
(
which
therefore
in
that
respect
is
called
the
birth
of
water
)
which
thereby
do
visibly
enter
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Therefore
without
baptisme
they
have
noe
visible
being
in
the
Church
,
and
by
it
they
have
.
Fiftly
,
I
argue
from
the
nature
of
baptisme
as
it
is
a
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
and
so
consequently
a
part
of
the
Covenant
,
an
Ordinance
of
mutuall
ingagement
between
God
and
man
,
Act.
2.38
.
chap.
22.16
.
1
Cor
.
1.13
.
even
as
circumcision
was
an
ingagement
to
all
the
duties
or
Ordinances
of
the
Law
,
Gal
5.3
.
so
is
Baptisme
an
ingagement
to
all
the
Ordinances
of
the
Gospell
,
which
is
therfore
called
Christs
bond
or
yoke
,
Psal
.
2.3
.
Mat
.
11.29
.
his
badge
or
livery
of
his
professed
Disciples
,
there
being
no
other
visible
Ordinance
of
God
appointed
to
passe
upon
persons
,
to
note
out
their
being
in
the
Covenant
before
this
;
from
hence
I
reason
They
that
are
baptised
upon
profession
of
Faith
have
sealed
to
the
covenant
,
&
are
known
thereby
to
belong
to
the
covenant
,
and
so
have
a
visible
being
in
the
same
,
whereas
they
that
are
not
baptised
by
vertue
of
profession
of
Faith
by
them
made
cannot
by
any
Ordinance
of
God
be
knowne
to
belong
thereunto
.
But
God
hath
appointed
some
Ordinance
to
be
administred
upon
persons
which
make
profession
of
Faith
,
whereby
they
may
be
visibly
knowne
to
belong
to
the
covenant
of
grace
,
wheras
others
that
partake
not
thereof
cannot
be
so
knowne
,
and
there
is
nothing
before
Baptisme
appointed
so
to
doe
.
Therefore
Baptisme
administred
to
persons
professing
Faith
and
repentance
,
is
it
alone
by
which
they
may
be
knowne
according
to
Gods
Ordinance
,
to
be
in
the
covenant
of
grace
,
and
to
be
of
the
visible
body
of
Christ
.
Lastly
,
I
argue
from
the
Commission
for
Baptisme
,
Mat
.
28
18.
given
to
the
first
,
which
was
,
that
they
should
make
Disciples
,
all
Nations
baptising
them
,
where
note
that
baptising
is
a
participle
to
the
making
of
them
,
to
beare
the
name
of
Disciples
or
Shollers
in
Christs
schoole
,
hereupon
the
words
of
Christ
in
the
Commission
,
Mar.
16.16
.
are
,
he
that
believeth
and
is
baptised
shall
be
saved
;
Faith
puts
a
man
into
the
State
of
salvation
before
God
:
Baptisme
before
men
;
and
assoone
as
they
were
Disciples
baptised
,
and
so
stated
a
visible
assembly
,
then
to
teach
them
to
observe
all
things
whatsoever
he
had
commanded
them
,
ver
.
19.
where
note
,
they
were
first
to
be
a
Church
of
Christ
;
Secondly
,
they
were
to
doe
and
observe
as
a
Church
of
Christ
,
from
whence
I
reason
.
If
the
Commission
for
Baptisme
given
to
the
first
Church-planters
of
the
new
Testament
,
did
require
Baptisme
,
and
that
only
to
be
administred
upon
persons
,
as
the
last
thing
to
make
Disciples
or
Schollers
in
Christs
schoole
,
in
a
visible
state
of
salvation
,
seated
in
the
observation
of
all
the
rest
of
the
Ordinances
of
Christs
Kingdome
,
then
Baptisme
administred
upon
those
which
are
first
taught
,
is
that
by
which
the
true
visible
Church
is
constituted
,
and
stated
in
its
true
being
:
but
the
former
appeares
by
the
ground
before
laid
,
Ergo
.
Thus
have
I
cleared
and
proved
my
position
,
that
Baptisme
is
the
thing
or
instrument
and
meanes
forming
and
constituting
of
the
Church
,
though
it
bee
not
the
outward
fashion
,
frame
,
figure
,
or
forme
of
the
Church
formed
;
yet
never●helesse
because
your
Arguments
seeme
to
lye
against
the
question
thus
stated
,
I
will
consider
them
in
order
as
they
lie
;
First
therefore
you
say
,
that
which
giveth
being
to
a
Church
must
be
removed
,
if
the
Church
cease
to
be
a
Church
.
But
Baptisme
cannot
be
removed
from
a
Church
.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
it
is
as
easie
to
remove
Baptisme
from
a
Church
,
as
to
remove
a
Church
from
being
a
Church
.
Secondly
,
you
say
that
which
being
wanting
to
a
Churc●
constituted
,
doth
not
cause
it
to
be
no
Church
,
that
cannot
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
But
Baptisme
may
be
wanting
in
a
Church
constituted
,
and
yet
it
be
a
Church
as
circumcision
to
them
,
Joshua
5.
Ergo
.
Answer
,
I
deny
the
second
proposition
namely
,
that
Baptisme
may
be
wanting
in
a
Church
constituted
because
it
is
constituted
by
Baptisme
,
as
we
have
prov●d
before
,
neither
will
,
Ioshua
5
helpe
you
herein
,
the
case
of
the
Israelites
being
extraordinary
,
having
speciall
dispensation
from
God
himselfe
in
the
supply
of
miraculous
Sacraments
in
the
cloud
and
Sea
,
Manna
and
the
rock
1
Cor
10.1.2
.
which
God
gave
them
while
their
travailes
necessarily
required
the
forbearance
of
circumcision
,
and
the
Passeover
,
which
if
such
necessity
had
not
been
,
would
not
have
beene
dispenced
with
,
but
the
parties
so
neglecting
should
have
been
cut
off
,
Gen.
17.14
.
If
it
be
replyed
they
were
members
of
the
Church
of
Israel
yet
not
circumcised
:
therfore
we
may
be
members
now
though
not
baptised
.
I
deny
the
consequence
,
unlesse
that
any
can
shew
the
like
case
and
president
of
the
supply
of
miraculous
Sacraments
,
to
serve
in
their
room
;
which
when
they
can
,
we
will
then
grant
that
those
new
meanes
from
God
may
serve
to
effect
the
same
thing
which
till
then
we
must
be
contented
with
the
rule
of
his
Word
,
namely
,
to
have
the
Church
constituted
by
baptising
of
believers
in
ordinary
cases
,
and
not
otherwise
.
Thirdly
you
say
,
That
which
is
but
an
adjunct
to
a
thing
cannot
be
the
forme
of
it
:
but
Baptisme
is
but
an
adiunct
of
a
Church
:
Ergo
.
To
which
I
answere
,
this
argument
lyeth
not
against
my
question
,
as
I
have
stated
it
,
because
that
which
is
but
an
adjunct
may
be
a
meanes
of
forming
and
constituting
of
the
thing
to
which
it
is
adjoyned
:
so
Baptisme
being
administred
upon
believers
,
may
be
a
meanes
to
constitute
and
forme
them
into
a
true
visible
Church-state
.
Fourthly
,
you
say
,
That
which
is
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
cannot
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
:
but
Baptisme
is
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
,
Ergo
.
To
which
I
answere
,
That
which
is
the
seale
of
the
Covenant
may
be
a
meanes
to
constitute
and
put
the
Church
into
an
outward
visible
form
,
for
the
which
I
have
spoken
somwhat
before
in
the
5.
Argument
:
unto
which
I
referre
the
Reader
for
brevities
sake
.
Fifthly
,
you
say
,
That
which
remaines
when
a
man
is
no
Church-member
and
is
not
to
be
administred
to
restore
him
unto
Membership
,
that
cannot
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
.
But
Baptisme
remaines
when
a
man
is
no
Church-member
,
Ergo
.
To
which
I
answer
denying
the
assumption
,
but
yet
because
many
seeme
to
stumble
at
this
argument
most
,
I
will
indeavour
a
more
satisfactory
answer
.
That
by
which
a
person
professeth
Christ
with
,
is
that
onely
by
which
he
truely
professeth
Baptisme
and
Membership
with
the
Church
and
body
of
Christ
;
whereupon
it
followeth
,
that
upon
the
same
reason
that
any
person
is
dispossessed
of
Membership
with
the
Church
,
upon
the
same
reason
he
must
be
concluded
to
be
dispossessed
of
Christ
and
of
Baptisme
also
,
and
the
reason
is
because
he
is
to
be
concluded
destitute
of
all
the
ends
for
which
Baptisme
is
appointed
,
yea
and
the
grounds
also
upon
which
it
is
administred
;
in
that
he
possesseth
not
Christ
,
he
possesseth
neither
ground
of
Baptisme
,
nor
end
,
and
therefore
no
true
being
of
Baptisme
it selfe
.
As
for
the
restoring
of
a
person
to
Membership
,
we
are
to
note
that
repentance
is
but
an
effect
of
the
same
faith
by
which
he
possessed
Christ
at
first
,
and
by
which
he
had
right
to
,
and
possessed
Baptisme
in
deed
,
and
in
truth
,
though
it
did
seem
otherwise
to
us
whiles
error
or
sin
did
appeare
to
be
predominate
in
him
,
which
repentance
is
that
by
which
he
is
to
be
restor'd
to
communion
with
the
Church
againe
after
Excommunication
,
which
if
he
repents
not
,
and
so
hath
no
such
effect
of
faith
appearing
in
him
,
by
which
he
did
apprehend
Christ
at
first
,
then
it
doth
appeare
that
he
never
did
possesse
Christ
the
gro
nd
of
Ba●tisme
,
and
consequently
not
Baptisme
in
its
true
being
:
for
though
men
may
deceive
themselves
,
and
may
deceive
other
men
like
themselves
,
yet
they
cannot
deceive
God
,
whose
Ordinance
it
is
,
and
upon
whom
Baptisme
,
and
all
other
divine
Ordinances
have
their
dependance
,
who
hath
ordained
that
onely
believers
should
be
baptised
,
which
if
therefore
men
have
no
faith
though
they
pretend
to
have
faith
,
then
have
they
no
right
to
Baptisme
before
God
,
who
knoweth
them
to
be
destitute
of
faith
.
Yet
because
they
seeme
to
men
to
whom
the
power
of
such
administration
is
committed
,
to
have
faith
,
they
therfore
are
bound
to
baptise
them
;
yet
ha●h
this
baptisme
no
true
being
from
God
,
unlesse
and
untill
the
parties
do
believe
in
deed
and
in
truth
,
as
they
seeme
to
do
by
their
profession
.
By
all
which
it
doth
appeare
plainly
,
that
in
every
Excommunicate
person
,
there
is
a
necessary
and
unavoydable
mistake
of
him
first
or
last
,
either
therefore
first
he
was
no
believer
,
and
so
had
no
right
to
baptisme
,
and
so
baptisme
had
no
true
being
in
him
,
although
he
seemed
to
have
faith
,
or
else
secondly
he
is
a
believer
,
when
Excommunicate
,
and
hath
Christ
and
baptisme
in
its
true
being
,
although
now
through
the
prevalency
of
error
or
sinne
he
seemed
to
have
no
faith
.
Therefore
from
hence
it
followeth
that
as
a
man
falleth
from
his
faith
,
he
falleth
from
his
baptisme
too
,
and
as
he
returnes
to
his
faith
so
he
returnes
to
his
baptisme
againe
also
;
then
if
he
seemeth
to
fall
from
his
faith
and
doth
it
not
really
then
so
likewise
he
seemeth
to
fall
from
his
baptisme
also
.
Then
likewise
if
he
fall
wholly
from
the
faith
indeed
,
which
he
professed
to
have
,
as
a
man
may
do
,
then
doth
he
fall
wholly
from
his
baptisme
indeed
,
and
shall
never
have
benefit
by
it
.
From
whence
I
reason
,
as
a
man
cleaveth
to
his
baptisme
so
he
cleaveth
to
the
Church
which
is
constituted
by
it
,
but
as
a
man
forsakes
his
Baptisme
so
hee
forsakes
the
Church
.
But
he
that
forsakes
the
ground
and
ends
of
baptisme
forsakes
baptisme
which
is
administred
upon
those
grounds
,
and
apointed
for
those
ends
.
Ergo
Baptisme
cannot
be
concluded
to
remaine
when
a
man
is
no
Church
Member
indeed
and
in
truth
.
Secondly
I
reason
,
he
that
returneth
to
his
baptisme
,
returneth
to
the
Church
which
is
constituted
by
it
.
But
he
that
returneth
to
the
grounds
and
ends
for
which
it
is
appointed
and
upon
which
it
is
administred
,
returneth
to
baptisme
in
respect
of
its
true
being
.
Ergo
Hee
that
returneth
to
baptisme
returneth
to
the
Church
which
is
constituted
by
it
.
And
thus
have
I
done
with
the
negative
arguments
,
and
now
I
come
to
the
affirmative
,
first
therefore
you
say
,
That
an
outward
Covenant
acted
betweene
God
and
a
company
of
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
,
and
so
the
like
amongst
themselves
is
the
forme
of
a
Church
.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
the
Covenant
of
God
makes
the
Church
,
I
grant
,
but
that
any
can
be
concluded
to
have
an
outward
being
in
the
Covenant
of
the
Gospell
now
in
the
time
of
the
Gospell
without
baptisme
,
is
it
which
I
deny
,
and
require
you
to
prove
,
having
formerly
proved
the
contrary
.
But
whereas
you
speake
of
a
company
of
believers
acting
a
Covenant
to
become
one
anothers
amongst
themselves
to
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
by
the
same
reason
,
that
if
a
Covenant
acted
to
becom
one
&
anothers
amongst
themselves
,
should
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
without
being
baptised
for
the
present
,
by
the
same
reason
they
may
receive
the
forme
of
the
Church
without
all
the
administrations
of
the
Gospell
for
the
future
,
which
I
conceive
would
be
absurd
to
affirme
.
Secondly
,
neither
is
there
any
warrant
that
God
hath
appointed
men
to
act
any
such
covenant
for
any
such
end
,
and
therefore
so
to
do
is
will-worship
,
vanity
,
the
invention
of
man
,
and
mens
inventions
in
Gods
worship
are
plaine
superstitions
and
flat
breaches
of
the
second
commandement
,
Thou
shalt
not
make
to
thy selfe
,
&c.
And
therefore
if
it
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
it
must
needs
be
a
Superstitious
Church
,
which
is
formed
by
such
a
Superstitious
action
.
Thirdly
,
a
Covenant
acted
by
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
amongst
themselves
,
may
be
with
ignorance
both
of
the
nature
and
duties
of
a
true
Church
,
as
is
proved
by
the
presupposition
of
it
to
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
without
baptisme
,
how
then
should
it
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
for
if
they
be
ignorant
that
the
visible
Church
must
subsist
of
baptised
ones
,
how
can
it
be
avoyded
,
but
that
they
are
ignorant
of
the
nature
of
the
true
visible
Church
?
and
being
ignorant
of
the
nature
thereof
,
they
are
necessarily
ignorant
of
the
duties
thereof
:
for
if
they
conceive
that
persons
should
be
imployed
in
the
services
of
relation
in
the
Church
unbaptised
,
then
they
be
ignorant
of
the
duties
of
the
Church
,
because
all
the
externall
services
of
relation
must
flow
from
the
visible
union
and
relation
made
in
baptisme
,
1
Cor
.
1.13
.
chap.
12.13
.
Rom.
6.3
,
4
,
5.
Gal.
3.26
,
27.
Eph.
5.26
.
Col.
2.12.20
.
compared
chap.
3.1.2
.
Heb
.
10.22
,
23
,
24
,
25.
therefore
it
cannot
be
the
forme
of
Christs
true
visible
Church
.
But
let
us
examine
your
proofes
,
you
say
First
,
if
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
that
es
the
Church-state
that
we
now
have
be
the
same
that
the
Iewes
had
,
then
what
was
the
forme
of
that
is
the
sorme
of
this
.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
if
the
Church-state
we
have
now
,
be
not
the
same
with
theirs
,
then
the
forme
of
that
is
not
the
forme
of
this
:
and
then
your
argument
is
grounded
upon
an
if
;
that
is
upon
nothing
:
but
the
Church-state
we
have
now
,
is
not
the
same
that
the
Jewes
had
,
that
being
constituted
of
a
naturall
seed
,
according
to
the
course
of
a
naturall
generation
,
this
being
constituted
of
a
Spirituall
seed
according
to
Gods
gracious
effectuall
working
by
the
powerfull
preaching
of
the
Gospell
by
Spirituall
regeneration
,
Act.
2.41
.
Ergo
Secondly
,
whereas
you
said
a
little
before
,
that
a
Covenant
acted
by
believers
to
become
one
anothers
amongst
themselves
to
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
and
then
argue
from
the
State
of
the
Jewes
to
prove
this
forme
which
never
did
forme
themselves
so
this
;
therefore
surely
tends
to
overthrow
your selfe
,
and
to
argue
from
your
proofe
to
overthrow
your
principle
.
But
you
say
,
That
the
forme
of
the
Jewish
Church-state
was
such
a
Covenant
as
is
by
you
above
expressed
,
this
you
cleare
by
4
particulars
as
you
say
first
their
entrance
into
it
with
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
was
by
a
visible
and
outward
Covenant
,
into
which
Reprobates
aswell
as
Elect
were
admitted
,
as
Ishmaell
and
Esaw
,
Gen.
17.
and
Circumcision
was
not
the
Covenant
but
a
token
of
the
Covenant
,
ver
.
11
First
I
answer
,
this
proues
not
the
forme
of
the
Church
to
be
such
a
Covenant
as
is
by
you
above
expressed
,
acted
by
a
company
of
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
amongst
themselves
,
for
Abraham
and
his
seed
,
Reprobates
aswell
as
Elect
enter
into
it
:
Now
Abraham
was
but
one
believer
,
and
Ishmaell
his
seed
which
entred
with
him
,
you
instance
to
be
a
Reprobate
.
Secondly
,
I
answer
,
that
Circumcision
was
not
only
a
token
of
the
Covenant
but
a
part
of
the
Covenant
it selfe
,
being
that
whereby
the
parties
circumcised
were
bound
to
keepe
the
whole
Law
,
Gal.
5.3
.
and
therefore
God
saith
,
Gen.
17
,
10.
This
is
my
Covenant
let
every
Man-child
be
circumcised
,
and
ver
.
13
He
that
is
borne
in
thine
house
,
and
he
that
is
bought
with
thy
money
,
must
needs
be
circumcised
,
so
shall
my
Covenant
be
in
your
flesh
:
but
the
uncircumcised
Man-child
,
in
whose
flesh
the
fore-skin
is
not
circumcised
,
even
that
person
shall
be
cut
off
from
his
people
,
because
he
hath
broken
my
Covenant
:
therefore
the
Covenant
here
spoken
of
was
such
as
was
entred
into
by
Circumcision
,
and
not
such
as
was
acted
by
a
company
of
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
amongst
themselves
to
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
But
you
would
seeme
to
cleare
it
by
a
second
particular
(
viz
)
by
the
establishment
of
it
in
the
plaine
of
Moab
.
But
this
establishment
was
by
a
Church-Covena●t
Deut.
29.10.16
.
in
which
they
avouched
God
to
be
their
God
,
and
God
avouched
they
were
his
people
,
Deut.
26.17
,
●8
.
ne●ther
could
circumcision
be
any
ingredient
here
,
because
they
had
not
circumcised
any
of
40.
yeares
ever
since
they
came
out
of
Egypt
;
nor
did
they
circumcise
any
till
after
Moses
and
Joshua
,
had
brought
them
through
Iordan
into
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
Joshua
.
5.5
.
To
this
I
answer
,
that
this
covenant
which
was
now
established
,
with
the
people
of
Israel
in
the
plaine
of
Moab
,
was
the
same
covenant
which
was
made
with
Abram
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
,
v.
13.
which
they
entered
into
with
God
in
the
behalfe
of
themselves
,
and
their
posterity
by
being
circumcised
,
Gen.
17.10
,
11
,
12
,
13
,
14
compared
23
,
24
,
25
,
26
,
27.
Act.
7
,
8.
and
therefore
being
in
the
covenant
before
,
they
did
not
begin
to
be
a
Church
now
,
and
therefore
this
proves
not
that
a
covenant
acted
by
a
company
of
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
,
should
be
it
,
that
should
constitute
them
to
be
a
Church
now
.
Secondly
,
whereas
you
say
,
neither
was
circumcision
any
ingredient
here
,
because
they
had
not
circumcised
any
of
40.
yeares
,
I
answer
,
I
conceive
notwithstanding
,
that
circumcision
was
an
ingredient
in
their
parents
who
thereby
entered
into
a
covenant
for
themselves
,
and
these
children
even
as
the
covenant
here
specified
,
did
comprehend
the
posterity
to
come
,
ver
.
15.
Thirdly
,
the
case
of
the
Israelites
was
extraordinary
,
having
speciall
dispensation
from
God
,
in
the
supply
of
miraculous
Sacraments
,
and
signes
of
his
grace
as
meanes
of
manifestation
,
in
speciall
of
the
testification
of
the
covenant
,
as
leading
them
through
the
red
Sea
dry
,
giving
the
cloudy
pillar
by
day
,
and
the
Pillar
of
fire
by
night
,
to
guide
and
defend
them
miraculously
,
causing
their
clothes
and
shoes
to
remaine
sutable
to
their
bodies
and
feete
,
without
new
supplies
,
and
without
waxing
old
.
who
were
fed
miraculously
without
bread
,
even
by
Manna
,
and
water
out
of
the
Rock
,
that
they
might
thereby
know
that
he
was
the
Lord
their
God
,
Deut
.
29.5.6
.
Whiles
their
travailes
necessarily
required
the
forbearance
of
Circumcision
,
and
the
Passeover
,
which
necessity
if
it
had
not
been
;
it
should
not
have
been
so
dispenced
with
,
Numbers
9
13.
Gen.
17
14.
which
necessity
,
seeing
it
came
to
passe
by
Gods
commanding
them
to
journey
in
the
Wildernesse
,
therefore
did
in
the
roome
of
Circumcision
for
that
time
,
supply
with
such
miraculous
Sacraments
which
are
no
rules
in
ordinary
cases
,
as
may
appeare
by
their
cessation
assoone
as
they
came
into
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
who
then
were
presently
led
by
ordinary
rules
,
as
circumcision
,
and
the
Passeover
,
Iosh
.
5.
wherefore
in
ordinary
cases
circumcision
was
the
distinction
of
Jew
and
Gentiles
,
and
the
meanes
of
the
constitution
of
the
Church
of
Israel
,
Gen.
17.10.11
,
12
13
,
14.
Exodus
12.48
.
Act.
7
,
8.
Rom.
3.1
,
2.
Ezek
.
44.9
.
Act.
11.2
,
3.
chap.
16.1.3
.
Rom.
2.25
,
26
,
27
,
28
,
29.
chap.
3.30
.
and
4.
Ephes
.
2.11
.
Phil
.
3.2
,
3.5
.
Col.
2.13
.
1
Sam
.
17.26
36.
Hereupon
it
followeth
,
that
although
the
Church
of
Israel
were
a
people
in
covenant
with
God
,
yet
the
way
of
entrance
into
this
covenant
visibly
,
and
so
the
constitution
of
this
Church
was
ordinarily
circumcision
.
Therefore
as
a
covenant
acted
by
a
company
of
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
,
was
not
the
forme
of
that
Church
then
,
but
a
speciall
communication
of
Gods
covenant
,
by
circumcision
ordinarily
,
with
the
whole
Nation
believers
and
Infidells
,
and
whosoever
of
any
Nation
that
would
be
circumcised
,
and
come
to
Ierusalem
to
worship
;
much
lesse
hath
it
any
consequence
to
prove
it
so
now
.
But
the
the
third
particular
by
which
you
would
cleare
it
,
is
by
the
Iewes
,
renewing
themselves
after
some
Apostacy
,
2
Chron
.
15.12
,
13.16
.
and
34.30.31
.
Neh
.
9.38.10.1
.
From
whence
you
reason
.
That
without
which
they
could
not
stand
in
a
right
Church-estate
,
that
is
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
but
without
the
renewall
of
their
covenant
,
they
could
not
stand
in
a
right
and
pure
Church-Estate
.
Ergo
.
To
the
assumption
I
answer
,
that
the
Jewes
made
a
covenant
to
seeke
the
God
of
their
Fathers
,
I
grant
;
that
they
did
well
in
so
doing
,
I
grant
also
;
but
they
could
not
be
in
a
Church-state
without
so
doing
I
deny
,
and
you
have
not
proved
,
and
I
will
prove
the
contrary
:
first
because
they
were
the
Church
of
God
before
.
Secondly
,
that
which
was
now
renewed
had
a
being
before
,
and
the
making
of
this
covenant
was
but
animating
,
and
inabling
them
to
doe
that
which
they
were
ingaged
,
and
bound
to
doe
before
by
th●ir
circumcision
,
G●l
.
5.3
and
therefore
as
this
renuing
of
their
cov●nant
is
not
by
your
Argument
proved
to
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
then
much
lesse
hath
it
any
consequence
,
to
prove
that
a
covenant
acted
by
a
company
of
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
amongst
themselves
,
is
the
forme
of
a
Church
now
.
But
the
fourth
particular
by
which
you
would
cleare
it
,
is
from
their
deissolution
,
from
whence
you
reason
thus
.
That
which
being
taken
away
makes
them
cease
to
be
a
Church
,
that
is
,
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
but
the
dissolving
of
the
covenant
is
the
making
of
them
cease
to
be
a
Church
.
Ergo
,
That
the
taking
away
of
the
covenant
maketh
them
cease
to
be
a
Church
you
say
,
is
cleare
from
Zach.
11.10.14
.
Whence
it
was
prophesied
off
,
and
from
the
New
Testament
,
whence
it
is
shewed
how
it
is
accomplished
after
the
death
of
Christ
.
To
which
I
answer
,
first
that
the
covenant
of
grace
is
eternall
,
the
things
thereof
remaining
unshaken
,
the
Kingdom
that
comes
by
it
cannot
be
shaken
,
Heb
.
12.27
,
28.
the
Ordinance
of
Baptisme
which
belongs
unto
it
,
the
fruit
and
benefit
of
it
is
eternall
;
the
Church
which
is
constituted
by
it
is
never
dissolved
,
but
remaines
to
all
eternity
for
it
to
be
administred
onely
to
believers
,
Act.
8.37
.
And
Christ
saith
,
hee
that
believeth
in
him
shall
never
die
.
Iohn
11.26
:
Secondly
,
as
the
taking
away
the
covenant
makes
the
Church
to
cease
:
so
it
onely
proves
the
covenant
to
be
the
ground
of
the
Church
,
and
the
Church
only
to
have
a
being
,
as
it
is
stated
upon
that
ground
,
and
that
is
in
participating
in
the
covenant
,
and
not
otherwise
:
now
the
question
being
of
the
visible
Church
,
then
there
must
needs
be
a
visible
participation
of
the
covenant
,
or
otherwise
there
can
be
no
visible
being
;
now
there
was
no
visible
participation
of
the
covenant
made
with
the
people
of
Israel
,
,
before
the
comming
of
Christ
ordinarily
,
and
by
ordinance
before
circumcision
,
neither
is
there
any
visible
participation
of
the
covenant
since
Christ
,
by
order
of
appointment
without
,
or
before
Baptisme
:
therefore
circumcision
then
,
and
Baptisme
now
must
be
it
,
by
which
they
are
constituted
,
or
concluded
to
have
a
visible
being
in
the
covenant
,
and
consequently
the
Church
to
have
a
visible
being
,
in
respect
of
this
visible
participation
in
the
covenant
,
whereupon
it
followeth
,
that
if
the
covenant
be
dissolved
or
ceaseth
,
or
be
taken
away
,
needs
must
the
circumcision
or
baptisme
,
which
is
the
ordinance
of
participation
be
dissolved
,
cease
,
or
bee
taken
away
,
whereby
their
relation
or
being
a
visible
member
doth
consist
.
Now
then
,
seeing
that
the
covenant
which
was
before
Christ
did
cermonially
lead
to
Christ
,
and
is
in
that
respect
dissolved
,
ceased
and
taken
away
;
then
circumcision
by
which
persons
had
visible
participa●ion
thereof
is
also
dissolved
,
ceased
and
taken
away
,
and
so
cons●quently
the
visible
Church
of
the
Jewes
ceased
as
was
prophecied
,
Zach.
11.10.14
.
and
was
accomplished
at
the
death
of
Christ
at
which
●ime
the
partition
wall
was
broken
,
Act.
2.41.10.28
.
Ephe
.
2
,
13
,
14
15.
And
also
seeing
the
covenant
since
Christ
is
ratified
by
the
death
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
Jesus
the
Testator
,
cannot
be
removed
,
dissolved
,
ceased
and
taken
away
(
as
you
your selfe
affirme
in
your
third
proposition
,
and
fourth
period
)
then
Baptisme
administred
upon
believers
,
by
which
they
have
visible
participation
thereof
,
cannot
be
removed
,
dissolved
,
ceased
,
and
taken
a
way
.
Therfore
the
true
visible
Church
now
in
respect
of
the
ground
of
it
,
cannot
be
removed
,
dissolved
cease
,
or
be
taken
away
.
Onely
two
exceptions
need
explication
:
first
the
true
Church
may
possibly
die
,
and
none
survive
them
in
the
same
visible
state
Ergo
,
the
true
visible
Church
may
be
removed
,
dissolved
,
ceased
,
and
taken
away
.
Secondly
,
persons
may
seeme
to
be
,
and
not
be
true
members
of
the
true
visible
Church
,
which
afterwards
may
shew
themselves
otherwise
,
and
so
the
Church
may
cease
.
To
the
first
I
answer
,
that
the
cessation
of
the
Church
by
death
is
but
onely
to
our
outward
view
,
for
to
our
Faith
it
is
no
more
ceased
,
then
their
relation
to
the
covenant
is
ceased
,
and
the
relation
which
the
faithfull
have
in
,
and
to
the
covenant
when
they
die
doth
not
cease
;
no
more
then
the
covenant
it selfe
,
whereupon
such
a
relation
is
grounded
doth
,
which
is
as
firme
as
God
himselfe
the
mak●r
of
the
covenant
is
.
Secondly
as
the
outward
view
of
the
●hurch
ceaseth
,
so
the
outward
view
of
their
relation
to
the
Church
by
Baptisme
ceaseth
also
,
by
which
they
had
visible
participation
with
the
body
of
Christ
and
●herefore
this
excep●ion
hinders
not
,
but
that
the
true
visible
Church
of
the
New
Testament
constituted
by
the
Baptism●
of
believers
,
by
which
they
have
visible
participation
cannot
be
removed
,
dissolved
,
ceased
or
taken
away
.
To
the
second
exception
I
answer
,
that
the
covenant
cannot
properly
be
said
to
be
dissolved
,
or
taken
away
from
such
as
only
seemed
to
be
in
the
covenant
,
and
were
not
indeed
and
in
truth
in
it
,
but
when
they
manifest
themselves
to
bee
what
they
are
,
they
doe
declare
that
they
never
were
in
covenant
with
Christ
at
all
,
and
therefore
the
dissolving
of
the
Church
,
in
respect
of
hypocrites
,
is
not
by
dissolving
or
taking
of
the
covenant
from
them
,
but
by
discovering
of
them
to
be
such
as
never
had
any
true
right
to
Baptisme
,
which
therefore
hath
now
no
true
being
in
them
,
and
consequently
were
never
in
the
covenant
,
1
Iohn
2
19.
From
all
which
it
doth
appeare
that
the
covenant
(
no
not
of
God
himselfe
)
cannot
be
the
forme
of
the
Church
,
but
only
the
ground
whereupon
the
Church
is
stated
,
and
it
is
constituted
by
participation
,
and
visibly
by
visible
participation
,
and
that
is
onely
Baptisme
,
and
the
continuance
in
the
Church
,
is
the
continuance
of
the
manifestation
of
the
same
participation
,
possessed
by
Baptisme
,
therefore
Baptisme
of
believers
is
the
constitution
of
the
visible
Church
of
Christ
.
But
from
these
4.
particulars
,
you
argue
,
That
if
an
outward
Covenant
was
the
forme
of
the
Church
under
the
old
Testament
,
then
is
it
the
forme
of
the
Churches
under
the
new
Testament
:
But
the
former
is
true
.
Ergo
.
To
which
I
answer
,
denying
both
antecedent
and
consequent
also
:
for
if
the
Covenant
of
God
himselfe
is
not
the
forme
of
the
Church
of
the
old
Testament
(
but
only
the
ground
upon
which
the
Church
was
stated
)
much
lesse
can
it
be
said
that
an
outward
Covenant
acted
by
the
people
of
Israel
,
a
company
of
them
to
become
one
and
anothers
,
is
the
form
of
the
Church
:
but
least
of
all
doth
it
prove
such
a
thing
to
forme
the
Church
now
:
But
the
former
is
manifested
by
what
is
above
said
:
Ergo
.
Your
arguments
from
the
new
Testament
follow
.
First
,
but
you
further
prove
it
from
the
new
Testament
,
you
say
from
Mat
.
18.20
.
That
it
is
a
company
not
baptising
themselves
,
but
gathering
themselus
together
in
his
name
,
where
the
word
used
doth
properly
and
commonly
signifie
a
Church
assembling
or
synagoguising
,
as
Joh
.
20.19
.
Act.
4.31
.
&
11.26.13.44
.
&
14.27
.
&
1
Cor
.
15.6.30
.
&
20.8.15.8
.
To
which
I
answere
,
that
though
it
be
a
company
not
baptising
themselves
,
yet
do
none
of
the
Scriptures
prove
that
a
company
of
●nbaptised
persons
have
this
name
of
true
visible
Church
given
unto
them
:
and
therfore
the
assemb
ing
of
persons
meerly
is
not
the
cause
of
that
denomination
in
the
Scripture
sence
:
but
when
their
Baptisme
is
the
cause
of
their
assembling
,
wherby
they
do
assemble
,
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
in
whose
name
they
are
Baptised
,
that
is
the
reason
why
the
Scripture
affords
them
the
denomination
of
Christs
true
visible
Church
;
for
they
were
the
assemblies
of
D●sciples
,
and
Disciples
were
all
Baptised
,
being
first
taught
,
Ioh
.
4.1.2
.
Mat
.
28.18
.
You
say
,
Looke
what
makes
a
member
of
a
Church
to
be
a
member
,
or
no
member
,
that
makes
a
Church
to
be
a
Church
or
no
Church
:
and
so
that
is
the
forme
of
it
,
there
is
the
same
reason
of
the
whole
that
is
of
every
part
.
But
the
making
,
or
dismembering
,
or
restoring
of
a
member
,
is
by
a
Covenant
(
acted
,
to
become
one
and
anothers
)
Esay
56
4.6
.
To
which
I
answer
,
that
the
Covenant
of
God
is
the
ground
upon
which
the
Church
and
every
member
therof
is
stated
,
I
grant
,
and
have
formerly
proved
:
but
that
a
Covenant
acted
by
any
to
become
one
and
a●others
amongst
themselves
,
should
forme
the
member
or
Church
,
either
is
by
me
denyed
;
neither
doth
Esay
56.4
6
prove
any
such
thing
,
for
it
only
saith
,
The
Eunuches
that
take
hold
of
my
Covenant
,
and
the
stranger
that
embraceth
my
Covenant
,
that
is
were
Circumcised
,
and
performeth
the
duties
which
they
were
bound
to
performe
by
Circumcision
,
Gal.
5
,
3.
should
have
a
place
in
his
house
,
and
not
by
acting
a
Covenant
to
become
one
and
anothers
,
and
neglecting
of
Circumcision
.
3.
You
say
The
comparison
is
of
a
Church
with
a
candlestick
.
Rev.
1.12.20
.
looke
what
is
the
forme
of
a
candlesticke
,
the
same
by
proportion
is
the
form
of
a
Church
;
as
the
matter
signifies
the
matter
of
a
Chu●ch
proportionably
.
But
the
form
of
a
candlesticke
is
the
joyning
toegether
the
shaft
and
the
branches
,
which
signifies
Christ
and
many
members
united
together
,
which
cannot
be
but
by
agreement
or
Covenant
.
To
which
I
answer
,
I
grant
the
comparison
and
the
proportion
also
,
but
that
this
cannot
be
but
by
an
outward
agreement
or
covenant
acted
by
a
company
of
believers
to
become
one
and
anothers
amongst
themselves
,
is
the
thing
that
I
deny
;
for
persons
may
be
united
to
Christ
by
faith
and
baptisme
,
and
so
stated
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
members
of
●he
visible
Church
proportionably
,
like
as
the
forme
of
a
Candlestick
is
the
joyning
together
the
shaft
and
the
branches
.
Fourthly
,
You
say
,
If
the
removing
of
the
Candlestick
,
and
so
the
unchurching
of
them
be
by
dissolving
of
the
Covenant
and
their
fellowship
as
to
them
,
Zach.
11.10
14.
by
dissipation
,
then
that
was
the
forme
of
it
.
But
removing
of
the
Candlestick
is
the
dissolving
of
the
Covenant
and
their
fellowship
thereby
;
as
to
them
by
dissipation
,
Zach.
11.10.14
.
Therefore
that
was
the
forme
of
it
.
To
which
I
answer
,
denying
the
second
proposition
,
because
the
everlast●ng
Covenant
of
the
new
Testament
established
by
the
blood
of
Christ
,
cannot
be
sh●k●●
,
removed
,
dissolved
,
but
remaineth
for
ever
,
Heb
.
12.27
28
13
20.
and
therefore
the
Covenant
upon
which
the
Church
is
stated
,
now
doth
differ
from
that
which
was
before
the
comming
of
C●rist
,
upon
which
the
Iewish
Church
was
stated
seeing
that
was
d●sso●uble
,
but
this
is
undissoluble
,
Heb
.
8.13
.
and
there●ore
thei●
Kingdom
of
heaven
was
shaken
and
taken
away
,
Zac
.
11.10.15
.
Heb
.
12.26
,
27
,
28.
Mat
.
21.43
.
Hag
.
2
7.
and
this
King●ome
cannot
be
shak●n
and
taken
away
in
respect
of
the
ground
and
foundation
upon
which
it
is
built
,
Heb
.
12.28
.
Mat
.
16
,
18
,
19.
A●d
as
for
the
removing
of
the
Candlesticke
,
and
so
the
unchurching
the
of
them
,
●is
only
by
a
discovery
or
laying
open
,
or
manifestation
of
a
people
to
bee
void
of
any
participation
of
the
Covenant
w●ich
fo●merly
they
professed
,
were
esteemed
,
and
had
a
name
to
hav●
,
1
J
h
.
2.19
.
Rev.
3.1
.
and
not
the
d●ssolving
or
taking
away
of
a
Covenant
from
them
,
which
onc●
they
had
and
injoyed
,
much
lesse
is
it
the
disso●ving
the
outward
Covenant
,
acted
by
a
covenant
of
believers
,
to
become
one
and
an
oth●rs
amongst
themselves
:
The
u●churching
of
them
,
which
as
the
acting
of
it
is
will-worsh●p
,
and
no
o●dinance
o●
G●d
,
and
so
the
church
so
constituted
meerly
Antichristian
,
so
the
dissolving
of
such
C●venant
cannot
be
the
unchurching
of
any
true
churches
,
because
Ie●us
Christ
hath
no
Churches
,
in
true
visible
being
so
constituted
.
FINIS
.