A DIALOGUE Between A Baptist and a Poedobaptist.

MY Dear Friend, I am glad to see thee, pray what News in the Countrey?

O Sir! the Controversy about Baptism is again renewed, which I fear will occasion great differences amongst Profes­sors; whereas we did hope to live in love and peace together; but I see the point must farther be enquired into, and the people must have more satisfaction, before they will walk in commu­nion and fellowship together.

Well; but what is your opinion, do you still hold Infant-Baptism?

Yes, I am still of that opinion, but am willing to be inform'd, for I would not practise any thing that is not warranted from the Scrip­tures.

You say well in that, but have you been at disputes where you might receive sa­tisfaction?

Yea, I have been at divers, but their Logical way of discourse does so obscure and hide the truth, that when the Dispute is done, we are no wiser then before; now Sir, is there no way to finde out truth but by Logick?

My Friend, you must know, that there is a natural Logick, which all men have, except fools and Idiots, and it is nothing else but reason methodized: but as for School-Logick which men make a great flourish with, especially amongst women and illiterate persons, though by it also truth may be discovered, if men were ingenuous, and desired truth more then victory: but alas! it is miserably abused by men of corrupt minds, to the deceiving of the hearts of the simple; but seeing you have mentioned it, I shall give you the opinion of a Learned man about it: Nothing saith he, hath spoyled truth, more then the inventi­on of Logick, it hath found out so many distinctions, that it inwraps reason in a mist of doubts, tis rea­son drawn into too fine a thred, tying up truth in a twist of words; which being hard to unloose carry her away as a prisoner; 'tis a net to entangle her, or an art instructing you, how to tell a reasonable lie: like an overcurious workman, it hath sought to make truth so excellent, that it hath marred it. Vi­ves saith, he doubts not, the devil did invent it, It hath layd on so many Colours that the Counterfeit is more various then the pattern. It gives us so many likes, that we know not which is the same; nature it self makes every man a Logician; they that brought in the art have presented us with one that hath over­acted her; But I speak this of Logick at large, [Page 3] there may be an excellency found in the art, and it is good to retayn it, that we may make it de­fend us against it self, in matters of Religion, we must make faith the means to ascertain, for other matters simple nature is the best reason, and na­ked reason the best Logick.

Sir I thank you for your opinion about Logick, and I think it were better, if our Mi­nisters did less use it and dispute after the same manner as they preach; which is, to lay down a proposition, and to prove it by Scripture, and reason; it would better satisfy the people; but we have gone a little out of our way, my great desire is to discourse with you about Infants-Baptism: and especially concerning the Cove­nant, made to Abraham, and to his seed; which if you can remove, I resolve to be of your opi­nion.

Its true, the Covenant or promise made to Abraham, and to his seed, is the great hinge or Engine upon which the whole business of In­fants-Baptism moves; now if I prove that the In­fants of believing Gentiles are not the seed of Abraham, then Infant Church-member-ship, under the Gospel, and Baptism falls to the ground.

True Sir, and therefore pray let me hear your arguments.

First then, I argue thus. If none be the Children of Abraham, but those that do the works of Abraham: Then infants are not the seed of Abraham.

But the Antecedent is true, John 8.39. If ye [Page 4] were the Children of Abraham, ye would do the works of Abraham. So therefore is the consequent.

But our Ministers tells us this is meant of the adult; and not of Infants.

I know they do so, and they think they had better say something, then nothing, but I proceed.

The Second Argument.

If those that are Christs, are only Abrahams seed; then Infants are not Abrahams seed.

The Antecedent in true Gal. 3.3.19. Ergo, the consequent.

And if you say, Infants are Christs, I answer, some are so by Election, but the Apostle speaks of such as are Christs by calling, not Election: which is secret to us.

But 3dly. If none are blessed with Abraham but those that are of faith, then infants are not the seed of Abraham.

But the Antecedent is true, Gal. 3.9. so then they that are of faith, are blessed with faithfull Abraham.

Ergo the Consequent is true also.

4thly. If the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God, then infants are not now the seed of Abraham.

But the Antecedent is true. Rom. 9.8. they which are the children of flesh, these are not the children of God, But the children of the promise are counted for the seed: Ergo so is the conse­quent, I say, the children of the flesh may be the children of God by Election, but they are not so by calling, and so not counted for the seed; and if you still urge, as I know you will, that all these [Page 5] places are meant of the Adult only, then let us read the words as you would have us, and see what absurdity you will father upon the holy spirit.

First, from Gal. 3.9. They that are of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham: and they also that are not of faith.

Secondly from Gal. 3.19. They that are Christs (viz. visibly) are Abrahams seed, and they that are not Christs, are Abrahams seed.

Thirdly, from Rom. 9.8. They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God. (vi­sibly); and they that are the children of flesh are the children of God visibly.

So from John 8.39. They that do the works of Abraham are the children of God; and they that do not the works of Abraham are the children of God; so we must read the words, if these texts of Scri­pture be not exclusive.

It is very true, if those texts be not ex­clusive, we must read the words, or at least un­derstand them, as you have, said; but then we should make the Scripture guilty of great absur­dity, and contradiction.

But out ministers tells us, the promise is to you and your children, and them that are afar off: by which they understand believing Gentiles and their seed.

But what do you mean by promise? is it the promise and covenant of eternal life and sal­vation? or the promise of outward ordinances? If you say the first; then we ask you whether that promise be absolute or conditional? If absolute, [Page 6] then all the children of believers must needs be saved. If you say conditional, and faith and re­pentance, be the condition, then we are agreed: and the controversy is ended.

No, we do not say that by promise in the 2d of the Acts, is meant the promise of eternal life and salvation, for that is not made, much less made good to any, upon the tearms of their parents faith; but upon their own personal be­lief, and obedience, but we mean the promise of outward ordinances, as to be baptized, &c.

Very well; if that be Peters meaning, that believers infants shall be admitted to out­ward ordinances, when others shall not: Then consider what a poor promise this is, and what a miserable comforter he is made by you, in making as if this were all his meaning, and all that he in­tends by this pretious word of promise. But you must know Peters business was to support the Jewes smitten down under a sence of sin and the guilt of Christs blood, which lay heavy upon them but if this be all he intended you, and your children shall be baptized, &c. then the plaister is not broad enough for the soar; for, pray con­sider and we will suppose Peter speaking thus to them: you have by wicked hands crucified the Lord of life, and wished his blood to be upon you and your children, but be of good comfort, believe and be baptized, and then you and your children shall stand under the title of the people of God, under right to outward ordinances, when others shall not, and not only you, but your children shall be baptised. But neither you nor [Page 7] they ever the sooner saved, as born of you, fur­ther then together with you they shall believe and obey the Gospel; in which case of faith and obedience, all unbelievers in the world and their children, shall be saved as soon as either you or they. It is as much as to say, the promise of free­dome to partake of the ordinances, is to you, and your seed above other; but the promise of the in­heritance is as much to all others and their chil­dren, as to you and yours. What most comfort­less comfort is this, to men cast down under a sence of sin and guilt? what a pittiful plaister is here applied to men prick'd at the heart, and smarting under the direful apprehension of Gods wrath? besides what exquisite nonsence do you make the Apostle speak, if his words be taken in your sence, for they must run thus, viz. first by way of precept, repent and be baptized you and your children. 2ly, by way of encourage­ment, so the priviledge of being baptized shall belong to you and your children which unbelie­vers and their seed shall not enjoy. But the pro­mise of remission of sins, and salvation, is made no more to you then to them; But without doubt it must be otherwise: the promise, take it which way you will, either for the proffer of the pro­mise, or the thing promised, It must needs be of some more excellent matter than outward mem­bership, & ordinances, abstract from remission of sins and salvation: yea, 'tis most evident that the thing here promised is no less then remission of sins and salvation it self, for as no less is expressed in the very text remission of sins, and the holy spi­rit; [Page 8] which, elsewhere is called the earnest of in­heritance, So, unless you will divide the children from having a share alike with their parents in that promise, which in the self same sentence, term and sence, is promised alike to them both, so as to say, the word promise, is to be under­stood of remission of sins, and salvation, as in re­lation to the parents; but of an inferiour thing, viZ. a right to ordinances only, as in relation to the Infants only, which were great absurdity to utter, it must necessarily be meant of one kinde of mercy, to both parents and children: yea and upon the same termes too, and no other then those upon which its tendred to the parents, viz. personal repentance, and obedience, and so conse­quently of remission and salvation, and not of such a trivial title to external participation only as you talk of, which if it be, then, unless you assert that God hath promised salvation absolutly to all the natural seed of believers, upon those terms only, as they are their seed, which you dare not stand too, the promise, mean which you will, the bare proposal, or the salvation propoun­ded, or both; upon those terms, belongs of right, not only to believers and their posterity, but also to all men, and their posterity, without diffe­rence, when at years of capacity to neglect, or perform them; for the glad tidings of salvation are commanded to be preached to all, and proffe­red to every creature at years, to hear, and un­derstand; though not to infants on terms of their parents faith; so assuredly the terms being performed, the salvation so promised shall be [Page 9] enjoyed: there is no right by birth to salvation, or the promise of it in believers seed, more then in unbelievers; nor no priviledge to them more then to others, save the meer hopefulness of edu­cation, and advantage of instruction in the way and means of salvation; which may possibly be­fall believers children, more then others: though in case it happen (as sometime it doth) that the children of believers, have their breeding amongst unbelievers, and the children of unbelievers a­mongst believers, in that case these la [...]t have not only no less priviledge, as to the promise of sal­vation by bare birth, but a priviledge also by that breeding above the other.

That therefore, that the promise of the Gospel covenant in any sence in the world, is made to believers seed (as barely such) more then to the natural seed of unbelievers, can never be proved by the word; yea the contrary is evident from this place Acts. 2.38.39.

For, first neither were these parents believers as yet, when Peter said, the promise is to you, and your children; but only were pricked at the heart upon some measure of conviction; that the per­son whom they had crucified, was the Lord of life (which the devils believe & tremble at) & in order to begetting that saving faith, (which yet they had not) he spake these words of encouragement.

Secondly, doth Peter make the promise any otherwise to them and their children, then he doth to all others in the world, viz. on condition of their coming in at Gods call, 'tis sayd to you and your children, and them that are afar off; all man­ner [Page 10] of persons in all nations, and generations, as the Lord our God shall call, viz. as are prevailed with to come when God calls them; which to be the sence of this place, is further illustrated by that parallel place Heb. 9.15. they that are called, receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Thirdly, when the parents did believe, & were baptized; were any of their children baptized with them? which they must have been, had that promise been to the Infants, as well as to the pa­rents on that single account of being their seed, but that no Infants were then baptized, appears, be­cause the Scripture recording how many were baptized at that time, it concludes them under such a term, as excludes the Infant from that days work, while it says, as many, meaning no more (or else we are deceived in the relation) as gladly received the word (this Infants could not do) were then baptiZed, which number, as they are recorded to be about 3000 might in all like­lyhood have amounted to three times 3000. if all the Infants of those had been baptized also; so that I conclude, if they had Infants why did they not bring them? or at least send for them? here being so fit an opportunity, to baptize them; and so (for ever) to put the controversy out of doubt.

But fourthly, neither were there any more enchurched that day, but such as gladly received the word, and were thereupon baptized. For of these only (and not infants) its said they continu­ed together in the Apostles doctrine, in Fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayers. But all their Infants must have been Enchurch'd also, if they had been baptized.

[Page 11]Fifthly, it crosseth the current of all other Scripture to put such a construction upon this, for that the promise of old, I mean the old pro­mise of the law, which was of the Earthly Cana­an, and but a Type of this, did pertain unto a fleshly holy seed, I grant. But that the new Co­venant or Gospel promise is made to any mans fleshly seed, that thereupon we may baptize them in token of it, I deny. For sure I am the Scripture holds out no other seed of Abraham to be heirs with him of the heavenly Canaan, but his spiritual seed, i. e. Believers that do his works. Nor doth it own any (but these) to have the right of mem­bership and Fellowship in his family i. e. the vi­sible Church. For if it should be granted, that the visible Church is Abrahams family, under the Gospel, as well as under the law: yet it is so altered from what it was, so different in its consti­tution, that it is even turned upside down, and in a manner nothing remains as then it was. For as the covenant is not the same, with that of the law, so neither is there the same Mediator, nor the same Priesthood, nor the same Law, nor the same Law-giver, nor the same promises: That being of an Earthly, this of an heavenly inheritance, nor the same holy seed, to which the promises are made: that being to the Typical seed, Isaac and his po­sterity, this to the true seed Christ and believers Nor the same ordinances, theirs being Circumci­sion and the Passe-over, ours Baptism and the sup­per. Nor the same subjects for those ordinances, those being (by nature) Jews or at least by pro­fession, and their Male seed only; ours Male and [Page 12] female: theirs, whether believing or not, ours only as believing. So that whatever can be said of the Covenant, the promise, the holy seed; is only this, they were Typical, ceremonial, abiding only to the time of Reformation Heb. 9.9. and are now all abrogated, and out of date, so that we may say (as he) fuit Ilium, so fuit Cana­an, fuit lex, fuit Templum, fuit sacerdotium, fuit sacrosanctum semen. There was indeed a holy land, a holy law, a holy Priesthood, a holy seed, But all these belonging to a first Covenant which was faulty, are now long since vanished before a better, and whatever was glorious hath now no glo­ry, by reason of a glory that excelleth. 2 Cor. 3.9, 10, 12, 13.

Poed. Sir, I thank you for your opinion of this text Act. 2.39. But though the children of be­lieving Gentiles have no right to the Covenant by vertue of their Parents faith yet may they not have a right by vertue of Abrahams faith?

Bap. In no wise; for the natural posterity of believing Gentiles, are so far from being heires apparent with Abraham, of Gospel promises and priviledges, that even Abrahams own natu­ral seed, (as such only) are not at all his seed, at this day, nor at all holy with the birth-holynesse they once had, nor entail'd as heirs of that hea­venly Canaan, without faith and Repentance in their own persons; and because this is the very root and knot in the state of this controversy, the unfolding of which will discover the whole mystery of your mistakes, all which arise origi­nally from your erring in it, for error minimus in [Page 13] principio, fit major in medio, maximus in fine. Give me leave therefore to enlarge a little upon this point.

First then let it be considered, that Abrahams own seed, even those that were heirs with him of the earthly Canaan, though born of his body now (as truly though more remotely) of his bo­dy who was the greatest believer in the world (Christ excepted) even these are not his seed in the Gospel account, nor heirs of the Gospel pro­mise; nor (as born of his body) to be admitted to Baptism and Church priviledges, which I make appear from Rom. 9.6.7.8. in which pray ob­serve how the Apostle denies Abrahams own Natural Children, the name of Abrahams seed, in the sense of the Gospel.

First he magnifies them exceedingly in the 4th. verse, and sets out their dignity and prehemi­nence above all people under the name of Isra­elites, to whom pertained the Adoption, and the glory, and the Covenants, i. e. both Testaments, the Type, and the Anti-type, unto whom per­tained, not only the giving of the law, but also the promises, and that not only of the Earthly Canaan, but of the Gospel Covenant in the first tender of it, not in respect of any right they had to it by birth (whether they received it or not) but as I said in respect of the first tenders of it, which appears because by speciall order and ap­pointment it was to be offered to them in the first place.

Nor was it carried to the Gentiles till the Jews had slighted it, in proof whereof the Scripture is [Page 14] very plain Math. 10.5, 6, 7. Christ forbids his Disciples to go to any of the Gentiles, or to any save the lost sheep of the House of Israel, yea they were Children at this time, whose Bread, (till they loathed it) was not to be given to dogs except a few crums of it.

Hence the Jews were first bid to the wedding Math. 22.3. but they would not come. So they are called the Children of the kingdom Math. 8.12. that were to be cast out because they would not receive the Gospel; for he came unto his own and his own received him not; yea Paul tells the Jews it was necessary the word of God should first be spoken unto them, Act. 13.46.

Notwithstanding all which glory and prehemi­nence of this people Israel who were the fathers also, and of whom (as concerning the flesh) Christ came. Paul, after he had shewed their high priviledges, comes with Alas! and great sorrow of heart, that he was forced to exclude them, (save a few with whom the Gospel took effect) even from the name of Israelites, and from standing Abrahams Children any longer. For, saith he, (as who should say, the more is the pitty) they are not all Israel, that are of Israel, that is all that are Israel after the flesh, are not Gospel Israelites, Abrahams seed are no longer counted his seed, but they that are Christs by faith, are counted for the seed; and that this is the meaning of the words is evident from them that follow. For, saith he, neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all Children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, that is, these which [Page 15] are the Childsen of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

A clear illustration we have of this Gal. 3.7.9. where the Apostle urges this term, they which are of faith (that is, which believe) for none else are of faith, the same are the Children of Abraham, and are blessed with faithfull Abraham. He saith not, they which be of Abrahams flesh, for such are not accounted his Children as to the Gospel Covenant, much lesse doth he say or mean, that those which are born of the body's of them that be of faith are Abrahams children, and so to be signed, as his sons by Baptism, as his own fleshly seed were signed by Circumcision, as heirs with him of the old Canaan. As if because Abraham is the spiritual father of all that believe and walk in his steps, therefore he must be a father to all their natural posterity too, and be the spiritual father not of their persons only, but of their off­spring also.

But let me tell you he is not so much as a fa­ther to his own seed, in a Gospel sence, neither can these stand his children, nor the children of God, or heirs of the heavenly blessing and king­dom because they come out of his loins, unless they do as he did. For though his fleshly seed, as a type for the time then being, stood denomina­ted the children of God, and holy in an outward sense, and heirs according to the earthly promise, yet that account is now gone, & there is no other way whereby the Jews themselves, much lesse any generations amongst the Gentils can be stil'd [Page 16] the children of God, or of Abraham, so as to expect the Gospel portion, but by believing in Christ Jesus, in their own persons, Gal. 3.26. ye are all the Children of God by faith in Iesus Christ; and if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Another Scripture that proves that Abrahams own seed, in the old Covenant account are not his seed, in the account of the Gospel, so as there­upon to have right to ordinances is, John 8.33. to the 40. where Christ being cavilled at by the Jews, for promising freedom from sin, to which they were slaves and servants, notwithstanding the legal freedom they so much boasted of, disco­vers plainly, the cutting off the Jews from three things.

1. From the repute and denomination of Abra­hams children.

2. From any share in the spiritual blessings of the Gospel.

3. From any further right to Church-member­ship and ordinances.

First they alledge that they are Abrahams seed ver. 33. that they were not born of Fornication, ver. 39. (meaning as Ishmael was) but they had one father even God v. 41. To which Christ answers, not by denying of any of all this, for it was all true in that sense in which they meant it, yea they were Abrahams children, and Christ confesses it ver. 37. I know you are Abrahams seed, yea they were all the Children of God, by an outward and Typicall adoption of them unto himself. But Christ overthrows all, by telling them, that [Page 17] Abrahams children are accounted of otherwise now then formerly; not as coming out of his loyns, but doing his works, as being allyed to him, not so much after the flesh as after the faith. Whereupon not yet believing he denies them to be now Abrahams Children, in the true and substantiall sense, and that appears in this Hypothesis ver. 39. If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham. To which do but add the Minor; But ye do not the works of Abraham: And then the conclusion follows; Therefore ye are not the children of Abraham. You see Christ asserts them to be Abrahams chil­dren in the old account, so as to stand members of the old house, but denies them to be Abrahams children in the sense of the New.

2ly. They say they are freemen, and were ne­ver in bondage: this Christ also grants: it was so indeed in the outward Typical sense, they were freemen and heirs of that earthly glory that was promised to Abraham in that old Canaan, but de­ny's them to be freemen as to the Gospel, with heavenly freedom of that Jerusalem which is a­bove, which is the mother of all believers Gal. 4.20. yea asserts that they were but servants, and in bondage to sin, which is the greatest slavery of all ver. 34. he that commits sin is the servant of sin. So that for all their sonships, in truth they were but servants. He grants their sonship and title to the old inheritance, but denies it to the new.

3ly. They boast or blesse themselves in their standing in the house or family of Abraham, that is the visible Church, as to the ordinances, pri­viledges, [Page 18] and rights whereof, who but them­selves had the title. For this indeed was their ad­vantage of old, that to them were committed the oracles of God To which Christ answers, true; they did stand in the house for a time, yet but for a time, and though sons and heirs in the laws Typical sense, yet they were but servants in the Gospels. And being but servants, as Moses, and his house, the old Church were; they must anon be turn'd out of the house, and abide in the Church, that is Abrahams family no longer; that believers the true sons and heirs may come in, as in the 35. verse. And the servant (saith Christ) abideth not in the house for ever; but the son abideth for ever. If therefore the son make you free, and that he doth not for all your former freedom, unlesse you believe in him; then shall you be free indeed, even to the glory, oracles, and blessings of the spirituall house, the Gospel Church, which else, you must be cut off from.

And so indeed it came to passe within a while, for not believing and repenting, which are the only terms which give right to Gospel ordinan­ces and priviledges. So that these Jews though Natural branches still as much as ever (if being the fleshly seed of a believer could help them,) as to a standing there, were yet clean broke from the root Abraham, as he stands a root to all the faithful, because only of unbelief Rom. 11.20. when such as were wild olives, and no kin at all to Abraham after the flesh, were in their own persons, but not their natural seed with them (save as they believed with them) owned as his [Page 19] Children by believing, and as members of the true Church under the Gospel.

And this was declared by John the Baptist, and the rest of the first Ministers of the Gospel, who would not admit Jews as Jews (though Abra­hams own seed) unto Baptism, when they offered themselves upon the aforenamed terms without faith and repentance. See how the Pharisees, Sad­duces, and whole multitude of Abrahams seed come to be Baptized. Math. 3.7. Luke. 3.7. pretending and pleading that if Baptism were a Church priviledge, it must needs belong to them▪ who were the children of Abraham; But see how he rejects them, as having no part nor por­tion in this matter. O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? as if he should have said, what have you to do with the remission of sins and redemption from wrath, which I preach and baptize in token of, being (notwithstanding your priviledges) corrupt and sinful in your lives. Bring forth therefore, to the end you may be baptized, fruits answerable to a­mendment of life; and begin not to say, that we have Abraham to our father, we are the seed of an eminent believer, for God is able of these stones to raise up childeen to Abraham. i. e. God will without being beholden to you, raise a seed to Abraham rather then to want them, from a­mongst these stones; whether he means stones lite­rally, or the Gentiles, which were as stones in their eyes, it matters not.

But this we gather from it, that even at that very time, when the birth-priviledge and holy­nesse [Page 20] of a fleshly seed stood in full force, and un­repealed (as then it did) how much more since the abrogation thereof by faith, Abrahams seed could not, much less can the seed of believing Gentiles, now it is repeal'd, be admitted to Bap­tism without Repentance.

The Jews as impenitent and unbelieving as they were, stood uncast out of the Jewish Church, while the Church it self stood: But they could not passe out of that Church into the Gospel Church, nor from their right to circumcision, prove their right to Baptism; yet this they might have done, if what gave right of old to one of those ordinances, doth in like manner in right persons to the other.

So then seeing Abrahams own seed had no right to Baptism, as such, how can you expect it from your seed, who are not Abrahams seed: For Abraham hath but two seeds, as I know of (except Christ) the first is his seed after the flesh, and such were all those that were born of his bo­dy, as Ishmael, and his children by Keturah, and those that come of him, by Isaac and Jacob; which only were heirs with him of the land of Canaan (for Esau sold his birth-right.)

2. His seed after the faith, and they are all those that walk in his steps Rom. 4.12. and such that do his works John. 8. but to suppose that Abraham hath a third seed, and they are the chil­dren of believing Gentiles, is a fancy, for, non datur tertium semen Abrahae.

Two seeds of Abraham the Scripture mentions, but a third sort cannot be assign'd, The first are [Page 21] only these that descend from his loyns, as the Midianites, and others by Keturah; the Ishmae­lites by Hagar; The Edomites, and Israelites by Sarah; which last only were the holy seed, and children of promise, in reference to the Haga­rens in a type, and sole heirs of the Typical Ca­naan. All these I say were the first sort, and all believers of what Nation soever, are the second sort; but the natural seed of believers are neither of the one, nor of the other.

But were not the proselytes or strangers counted Abrahams seed, and circumcis'd upon that account?

No: they were not Abrahams seed, and circumcis'd on that account; but from a positive instruction, & an expresse command from God, as they were the males in the family of one that was a Jew, at least by devotion, for which see Gen. 17.12.13. And he that is eight days old shall be cir­cumcis'd among you, every man child in your genera­tions, he that is born in the house, or bought with mony from any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with mony, must needs be circumcis'd; and in Exod. 12.48.49. it is called a law, When a stranger shall so­journ with thee, and will keep the passeover, let all his males be circumcis'd, and then let him eat the the Passeover, and he shall be as one that is born in the land, and for the stranger. And in Numb. 9.14. it is called an Ordinance. Ye shall have one Ordi­nance for him that is born in the land, and for the stranger. Shew but so much for Infants-Baptism, that it is called a law, an ordinance, or hath any [Page 22] institution for it, and the controversy is ended. So that you see the prosclites were circumcis'd by vertue of a law, as they were Males in the fami­ly, and not as Abrahams seed: for so they were not, nor heirs either of the temporal, or spiritu­al Canaan. In the temporal Canaan they had no inheritance, nor any right to the heavenly, unless they were true believers as Abraham was.

So that the sum of what hath been said is:

First the seed of believers, are not Abraham [...]s seed.

Secondly, that Abrahams seed are cut off from all the priviledges of the old Covenant, and are not all counted his seed, in the sence of the new.

Thirdly, that Abrahams natural seed have no right to the priviledges of the new Covenant, by vertue of Abrahams faith.

Fourthly, that seeing Abrahams own seed, his natural children, have no right to the Gospel-Covenant, or priviledges thereof, much lesse can the children of believing Gentiles lay any claim thereunto, either by vertue of Abraham [...]s faith, or the faith of their own parents.

And so I might here end this matter; but be­cause you shall have full measure, I will add a­nother testimony concerning the Covenant, and the little ground there is to baptize Infants, from that Scripture Gen. 17.7.

Know then that the Covenant of grace is to be considered, either of the promise of eternal life and salvation, made to all the elect in Christ, the which remains one and the same in all ages, though variously administred, in the times of the [Page 23] old and new Testament. Or else of the manner of its Administration, in which sence, its now (in respect of the old Testament administration) which was a distinct Covenant in it self (for the time being) called the new Covenant, and the other to have waxen old, and to vanish away, Heb. 8. last. Which cannot be said of the promise or Covenant of eternal life, that being an ever­lasting covenant, and over remains one and the same. Now its one thing to be in the Covenant of grace, i. e. to have a right to the promise, which is only proper to the elect: another thing, to be under the administration of the Covenant, which is common to the elect and reprobates, and depends meerly upon Gods appointment.

Now if the Covenant be understood in the first sence, of the promise of eternal life and salvati­on, made to the elect in Christ: that did never belong to all the children born of believing pa­ren [...]s, as might be instanced in Ishmael and Esau, &c. but only to such as are elected of them, Rom. 9.7.8.9. neither because they are the seed of Abra­ham, are they all children, &c. The Covenant of grace being first made between God and Christ, & all the elect in Christ. And therefore in Scripture it is cal'd the promise of eternal life which was made to the elect before the world began; who are there­fore called the heirs of promise, which promise had its first promulgation to Adam, in the garden of Eden. Where we have also the first discovery of the mystery of the two seeds.

Now the Covenant taken in this sence, is not the ground and reason of administring ordinances [Page 24] to any person whatever. But the law of instituti­on is the ground or reason of visible Administrati­ons. For the administration of ordinances belongs not to the substance of the Covenant; but to its administration as to the persons to whom they shall be administred, and that meerly on the law of institution, without any other consideration; and hence we finde, that from the first promulgati­on of the Covenant to Adam, until Gods re­newing of it to Abraham, there was no ordinance to be administred to Infants, though some Infants as well as grown persons, both of believers, and unbelievers might be comprehended in the Co­venant yet not to be circumcis'd, and so not to be baptiz'd for want of an institution

So the promise in Act. 2.39. is said to be to them a far off, in the present tense, while uncal­led, even to as many as shall be called; and yet, not to be baptized before calling, unlesse you will baptize Gentiles in professed Gentilism; and so the Jews, some not yet born, some not cal'd, have the Covenant of grace made to them, Rom. 11.27. For this is my Covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins; and yet they are not to be baptized till converted.

Nor can the Covenant, considered in its pure nature, be a ministers rule to administer Ordi­nances by, seeing it is unknown, who are in the Covenant, and who are not; but that which is their rule, must be something that is manifest.

Secondly, when it is said, that the Covenant of grace belongs to believers children, and that is the ground of their Baptism. If it be meant of [Page 25] its Administration, you have heard, that depends meerly on the law of institution, and hath varied in several ages according to the will of the law-giver. For during all that period of time, from Adam to Abraham, there was no Ordinance to be administred to Infants; but when God renew­ed the promise to Abraham, he instituted circum­cision, which ordinance belongs peculiarly to the old Testament administration, and was part of Moses law, which is now abrogated and done away: And this was the first ordinance that was administred to Infants and not to all Infants, but only to male Infants living in Abrahams family if they did live to the eight day, otherwise, they had no right to this ordinance; though many of them doubtlesse in the Covenant of grace and so saved: so we say of Infants in the days of the Gospel, many of them are in the Covenant of grace, and so saved, by vertue of the free pro­mise: But yet not to be baptised, if they do not live to the time of believing and repenting, the only time appointed for Baptism: so that the Ad­ministration of ordinances to Infants, depends upon an Institution, and not upon their being in Covenant.

And as to that place Gen. 17.7. I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed, that is, say you, the Co­venat was made with Abraham, as a believer, and so with all believers and their seed. To which I answer; The Covenant was not made with be­lievers, and their seed; but with Abraham and his seed. Now Abraham is to be considered under a double relation.

[Page 26]First, as the father of the Jews, his fleshly seed.

Secondly, as he is the father of his spiritual seed, both Jews, and Gentiles; Rom. 4.11.12. Now to both seeds, doth God promise to be a God, but in a different manner and respect.

First, he promises to be a God to his fleshly seed, in giving to them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, the promise of which is expresly called the Covenant made with Abraham, and his seed as on Gods part, Psal. 105.9.10.11.12. which Covenant he made with Abraham, saying, unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance, &c. See also 1 Chron. 16.16.17.18. and Neh. 9.8. This, I say, was the Covenant on Gods part. And their obedience to circumcisi­on is expresly called the Covenant on their parts, Gen. 17.10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you; Every male shall be Cir­cumcis'd. So Act. 7.8. And he gave them the Co­venant of Circumcision, and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcis'd him the eight day. By which they stood engaged to keep all those other additi­onal ordinances which Moses gave them, when they were about to enter their promised inheri­tance as Gal. 5.3. I testify that whoever is Circum­cis'd is bound to keep the whole law.

Secondly, God promised to be a God to Abra­ham, and his spiritual seed; such as walk in his steps, that is believers, whether Jews or Gen­tiles, in giving unto them an eternal inheritance Heb. 9.15. incorruptible and undefiled, that fa­deth not away, purchased by the blood of Jesus, [Page 27] and reseved for them in heaven: of which the earthly inheritance in the land of Canaan was but a type.

So, there is a twofold seed of Abraham, a flesh­ly, and a spiritual, typed out by Ishmael, and Isaac: and a two-fold inheritance, an earthly and a heavenly. But the heavenly inheritance was not given to the fleshy seed, but only in Types offered to them, and confirmed to the spiritual seed, who are therefore called the heirs of pro­mise. Heb. 6.17. Neither was the Covenant made with Abraham, a pure Gospel Covenant, but a mixt Covenant, consisting partly of promi­ses of temporal blessings, of which Isaac, who is said to be born by promise, was the true and proper heir. And partly of promises of spiritu­al blessings, of an heavenly inheritance; and of these Jesus Christ was the true her; and Anti­typical Isaac: for as Ishmael, the child of the flesh had no right with Isaac, in the outward Ty­pical promise; so Isaac himself, by vertue of his fleshly descent, had no right nor Interest in the heavenly inheritance, and Gospel priviledges Rom. 9.7. any otherwise then he came to have an interest in Christ.

And therefore we find the Apostle in Gal. 3.16. expounding the word of promise (i. e.) I will be a God to thee, and thy seed; sheweth that the Gos-promises of Abrahams Covenant were not made to any ones fleshly seed, no, not with the meer fleshly seed of believing Abraham himself: but the promises did all run to Christ the inheriting seed to whom they were made; and when Christ [Page 28] was come they all center in him: see and consider the text. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made; he saith not to seeds, as of many but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ; to Isaac in the type, but to Christ in the Antitype, and in him are all the promises yea and Amen.

Having thus followed the promises down a­long from Abraham to Christ, and found them all to center in him; let us now see, to whom they came forth again: And it is not to any ones fleshly seed whatever; but from Christ they all flow forth again to believers, and only to be­lievers, and that by vertue of their union with Christ; and therefore says the Apostle; If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs ac­cording to the promise, for there is no other way to partake of the promise but by faith in Christ, Gal. 3.22. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe; where two things are observable; first, to whom the pro­mise is given, viz. to them that believe; second­ly, by what means, they come to partake of them,; and that is, by the faith of Christ: so in verse the 26. you are all the children of God, by faith in Jesus Christ; and if ye be Christs, (that is by faith) then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise: So then it seems all promises run to Christ, and from him flow forth again only to believers. Which being impartially considered, is a full answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenants, and the promise made to Abraham, and certainly and [Page 29] unavoidably cuts off Infants Church membership in the days of the Gospel, unlesse the Poedobaptists can finde a new institution for it. But for a fur­ther illustration of this, and that you may see, that this is not my opinion alone, I shall present you with some select passages that the judicious and eminent divine, Dr Owen hath upon this sub­ject, it is in his Exercitations upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, tom. 1. p. 55. &c. to which the Reader is referred, & which by another hand may be short­ly improved; In the mean time take these few instances; Two Priviledges did God grant unto Abraham upon his separation to a special interest in the old promise and Covenant.

First, that according to the flesh, he should be the father of the Messiah; the promised seed, who was the very life of the Covenant, the fountain and cause of all the blessings contained in it. That this Priviledge was temporary, having a limited sea­son, time and end appointed unto it, the very nature of the thing it self doth demonstrate. For upon this actual exhibition in the flesh, it was to cease. In pursuit hereof, were his posterity separated from the rest of the world, and preserved a peculiar people, that through them the promised seed might be brought forth in the fulnesse of time, and be of them accor­ding unto the flesh, Rom. 9.8.

Secondly, together will this he had also another priviledge granted unto him, namely, that his saith whereby he was personally interested in the Cove­nant, should be the pattern of the faith of the Church in all generations, and that none should ever come to be a member of it, or a sharer in its blessings, [Page 30] but by the same faith that he had, fixed on the seed that was in the promise, to be brought forth from him in the world. On the account of this Privi­ledge, he became the father of all them that do be­lieve; for they that are of the faith, the same aere the children of Abraham Gal. 3.7. Rom. 4.11. as also heirs of the world; Rom. 4.13. in that all that should believe throughout the world, being thereby implanted into the Covenant made with him, should become his spiritual children.

Answerable unto this twofold end of the separati­on of Abraham, there was a double seed allo [...]ed un­to him. A seed according to the flesh, separated to the bringing forth of the Messiah, according to the flesh; and a seed according to the promise, that is, such as by faith have an Interest in the promise, or all the elect of God. Not that these two seeds were always subjectively divers; so that the seed se­parated to the bringing forth of the Messiah in the flesh, should neither in whole, or in part be also the seed according to the promise; or on the contrary, that the seed according to the promise, should none of it be his seed after the flesh. Our Apostle declares the contrary in the instancos of Isaac and Jacob, with the remnant of Israel that shall be saved, Chap. 9.10.11. But sometimes the same seed came under diverse considerations, being the seed of Abraham both according to the flesh and promise, and some­times the seed it self was divers, those according to the flesh being not of the promise, and so on the con­trary. Thus Isaac and Jacob were the seed of Abra­ham according unto the flesh, separated unto the bringing forth of the Messiah after the flesh, because [Page 31] they were his carnal Posterity, and they were also the seed of the promise, because by their own per­sonal faith they were Interessed in the Covenant of Abraham their father. Multitudes afterwards were of the carnal seed of Abraham, and of the num­ber of People separated to bring forth the Messiah in the flesh, and yet were not of the seed according to the promise, nor interested in the spiritual blessings of the Covenant, because they did not personally believe, as our Apostle declares Chap. 4. of his Epistle. And many afterwards, who were not of the carnal seed of Abraham, nor interested in the priviledge of bringing forth the Messiah in the flesh, were yet designed to be made his spiritual seed by Faith, that in them he might become heir of the world, and all Nations of the Earth be blessed in him. Now it is evident, that it is the second Priviledge and spiritual seed, wherein the Church to whom the Promises are made is founded, and whereof it doth consist, namely in them, who by faith are in­terested in the Covenant of Abraham, whether they be of the carnal seed or no.

And herein lay the great mistake of the Jews of old, wherein they are followed by their Posterity un­to this day. They thought no more was needful to in­terest them in the Covenant of Abraham, but that they were his seed according to the flesh, and they con­stantly pleaded the latter Priviledge, as the ground and reason of the former. It is true, they were the children of Abraham according to the flesh; but on that account, they can have no other Priviledge then Abraham had in the flesh himself. And this was, as we have shewed, that he should be set apart as [Page 32] a special Channel, through whose loins God would derive the promised seed into the world. In like man­ner were they separated to be a peculiar people as his Posterity, from among whom he should be so brought forth.

That this separation and priviledge were to cease, when the end of it was accomplished, and the Messi­ah exhibited, the very nature of the thing declares. For to what purpose should it be continued, when that was fully effected whereunto it was designed? but they would extend this priviledge, and mix it with the other, contending that because they were the chil­dren of Abraham according to the flesh, the whole blessing and Covenant of Abraham belonged unto them. But as our Saviour proved that in the latter sense they were not the children of Abraham, be­cause they did not the works of Abraham; so as our Apostle plainly demonstrates, Rom. 4.9.10.11. Chapters. Gal. 3.4. Chap. That those of them who had not the faith of Abraham, had no interest in his blessings and Covenant; seeing therefore that their other priviledge was come to an end with all the Carnal ordinances that attended it, by the actual coming of the Messiah whereunto they were subservi­ent, if they did not by faith in the promised seed at­tain an Interest in this of the spiritual blessing, it is evident that they could on no account be considered as actually sharers in the Covenant of God.

We have seen then that Abraham on the account of his faith and not of his separation according to the flesh, was the father of all that believe, and heir of the world. And in the Covenant made with him, as to that which concerns, not the bringing forth of [Page 33] the promised seed according to the flesh, but as unto faith therein; and in the work of redemption to be performed thereby, lyes the foundation of the Church in all ages. Wheresoever this Covenant is, and with whomsoever it is established, with them is the Church, unto whom all the promises and Priviledges of the Church do belong. Hence it was, that at the coming of the Messiah there was not one Church taken away, and another set up in the room thereof, but the Church continued the same in those that were the children of Abraham according to the faith. The Christan Church, is not another Church, but the very same, that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same Covenant.

It is true, the former Carnal Priviledges of Abraham and his Posterity expiring on the grounds before mentioned, the Ordinances of worship which were suited thereunto did necessarily cease also. And this cast the Jews into great perplexityes, and pro­ved the last tryal that God made of them. For where­as both these, namely the carnal and spiritual Pri­viledges of Abrahams Covenant, had been carried on together in a mixed way for many generations, coming now to be separated, and a tryal to be made (Mal. 3) who of the Jews had Interest in both, who in one only, those who had only the Carnal priviledge of being children of Abraham according to the flesh, contended for a share on that single account in the other also, that is in all the Promises annexed unto the Covenant. But the foundation of their plea was taken away, and the Church unto which the promises belong remained with them, that were heirs of [Page 34] Abrahams faith only.

It remains then, that the Church founded in the Covenant, and unto which all the promises did and do belong, abode at the coming of Christ, and doth abide ever since in and among those who are the children of Abraham by faith.

And a little further he saith, No individual per­son hath any interest in the promises, but by vertue of his membership with the Church, which is and al­ways was one and the same, with whomsoever it re­mains the promises are theirs: and that Not by ap­plication or Analogie, but directly and properly. The Church unto whom all the promises belong, are only those who are heirs of Abrahams Faith; belie­ving as he did, and thereby interested in the Cove­nant.

So far this learned man, whose words need no comment, nor need we draw any inference, but recite his bare words, which are both perspicu­ous and Orthodox; clearly and fully evidencing our position, That believers only are the children of Abraham, and none but such have an Interest in the Covenant made with him, which unavoidably ex­cludes infants from Gospel-Ordinances, untill they believe in their own persons: And then, and not before, they may lay a just claim, that they are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the pro­mise. And if our opponents think Dr. O. inju­red (as they are apt to clamour to that purpose) for our improvement of his words to our advan­tage, he being for Poedobaptism; we say, that they are at liberty to reconcile his words to his practice if they can, to do which they have need [Page 35] of a considerable stock (but they are seldome un­furnisht) of artifice, and distinction, to help at this dead lift. The Dr. treating about the nature of the Covenant and promises made to Abraham, (and perhaps forgetting Infant-Baptism) opens and expounds them with such spirituality and Orthodoxy, as leaves no room for Infant Baptism, but excludes it beyond all possibility of reconci­liation; unless it can be proved, that they, viz. Infants are heirs of Abrahams faith, believing as he did; and that the promises are theirs, not by ap­plication or Analogie, but directly and properly, and by their own personal faith, which I despair ever to hear of; though Mr B. himself, that unparalleld distinguisher, should undertake it.

But our Ministers tells us, that when the promises are said to be made to Christ, it is not meant of Christ personally, but of Christ mysti­cally, as in the 1 Cor. 12.12. and so its to be un­derstood of the visible Church, of which infants born of believing parents are a part.

Its true these are your sayings: but, I must tell you, we must not be put off with fan­cies, and bare affirmations, but we expect solid proof from Scripture. And whereas you say, the promises are to be considered, as made to Christ mystically, that is, to the visible Church; the contrary appears in Gal. 3.16. where he affirms that Christ was the seed to whom the promises were made. And in vers. 19th. he saith; the law was added because of transgression, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made: where it is observable that the law (i. e.) the [Page 36] Mosaical administration, is said to be before the seed was come, and was to have its period then. Now, if by Christ the seed be not understood per­sonally, but mystically, for the visible or invisible Church, (take which you will) then the law could not have been before the seed; for God had his Church in Abrahams family 400 years be­fore the law was, of which Christ was the head, and they his mystical body. And so by this inter­pretation, the seed should have been before the law, contrary to the Apostle who makes the law to have been before the seed, and to have its pe­riod, when the seed to whom the promise was made, was come; and now the promises running to Christ personally, God makes him over for a Covenant to the Elect, and all the promises in him. Isa. 42.6. So that in Christ he is our God, and in Christ, he takes us to be his people. In Christ, and a right to the promises; out of Christ, and strangers to the Covenants of promise, Eph. 2.12. So that it is evident, that the promises, respecting the eternal inheritance, and spiritual blessings were first made to Christ personally, and in him to his mystical body, the Church, who are united to him by faith.

Secondly, as to that Scripture 1 Cor. 12.12. ‘for as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being ma­ny, are one body, so also is Christ:’ It rather seems to be meant of the invisible Church of true believers, then of the visible; for the Apostle there, calls none the body of Christ but such as [...]ad received the gifts of the spirit, and such, as by [Page 37] one spirit (as the concurring cause) had been bapti­Zed into one body, yea such who had received the spi­rit to profit withall, such, that had a real sympathy one with another, vers. the 26th. If one Member suf­fers all the members suffer with it, if one member be honoured, all the members rejoyce with it: All which cannot (in any tolerable sence) be applyed to the visible Church, amongst whom there are ma­ny hypocrites, that never received the spirit, nor by the spirit could sympathize one with another, &c. But however, it is most certain infants are not called the body of Christ, if it be meant of the visible Church indeed, by vertue of the grace of election, some of them may be members of his mystical body, the invisible Church, but not at all members of the visible, especially from this chapter; for it is said, if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and the manifestation of the spirit is given to every one to profit with­all, which cannot be applicable to infants.

For none in this Chapter are counted the body of Christ, but such as are usefull to the body, as an eye, an eare, or a foot, a hand, a head, &c. as vers. 21. the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee, nor the head to the feet I have no need of you. So that I draw these two conclusions.

First every member in a Chuch stands in need of the help of all the other members.

Secondly that every member in a Church must be usefull in his place to the rest of the mem­bers. But of what use are infants to the rest of the members in respect to edification?

Now this objection being answered, I hope [Page 38] you see plainly, that all the promises respecting spiritual blessings, and the eternal inheritance, were first made to Christ personally, and in him they are made over to his mistical body, the Church, who are united to him by faith, which being well weighed would put an end to the whole Controversy.

And in the next place you may see to what lit­tle purpose, the promise in Gen. 17.7. is brought to prove, that God made a Covenant of eternal life with believers and their Children.

The text speaks of a Covenant made with A­braham and his seed, it doth not say with all be­lievers and their seed, or all Church-members and their seed, neither doth it follow by any ne­cessary consequence, that because God made a Covenant with Abraham, and his seed, therefore he hath made a Covenant with believers and their seed; sure I am, the Apostle was of another mind, who when he expounds the Covenant Gen. 17.7. understands it to be made to Abraham, (as it contains Gospel blessings) not as a natural father but as the father of the faithfull, both Jews and Gentils, Rom. 4.11, 12. he received the sign ef Circumcision that he might be the father of all them that believe, and walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, so Gal. 3.7. know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the chil­dren of Abraham; And these only are the seed to whom the Covenant was made (in respect to Gospel priviledges) and not to the natural seed either of Abraham, or of any other believers, as hath been evidently made appear before, and [Page 39] that beyond all Contradiction: And whoever af­firms otherwise preaches another Gospel then Paul knew, and incurrs that doom mentioned Gal. 1.8, 9.

But we are told that as the Jews and their Children are broken off from the Covenant, so the Gentils and their Children are ingrafted in, in their room, according to Rom. 11.20. be­cause of unbelief they were broken off, and thou stan­dest by faith.

in answer to which, I grant there was a time, when the Jews and their children were broken off, as the Apostle saith, but there are two things to be considered. First, why they were broken off. Secondly, from what they were broken off.

1. Why? Answ. It was not because they had not believing Parents; for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were the fathers of them all, and upon whose account they had right to the priviledges of the Covenant.

2. Not because they wanted title, for they were Abrahams seed, when they were broken off; but,

3. Because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered; and the Church it self remo­ved: For before the Gospel came they stood members of the old Church, though as much un­believers for many generations, as they were when they were broken off; and why did not their unbelief break them off before?

But now Abrahams Church state is at an end, and all the priviledges and immunities cease; [Page 40] the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel Church; the Messiah being come, and about to build him a new house, into which none are (of right) to enter, but profest believers; and the Jews not believing now in that saviour who has the substance of the shadows, and which all their types pointed out, and whom all those ordinan­ces signified, yea for whose sake they did enjoy their ordinances, and to which end were com­mitted unto them the oracles of God, the giving of the law, and the promises; yea therefore was their seed counted holy, to point out, and keep them in memory of that holy child Jesus that was to come as the Anti-type of all these things: For the old house, or Jewish Church was not inten­ded to abide for ever, but to the time of reforma­tion; then the law must be changed, the priest­hood chang'd, the priviledges and ordinances chang'd, the seed chang'd, yea the Covenant chang'd, which they not believing, being willing to abide in the old house still, and to remain Churchmembers upon a meer fleshly and natural birth; still crying out, Abraham is our father, and we are his seed, and are free, and were ne­ver in bondage: and here it seems they are resol­ved to stand; wherefore they were broken off, and that whether they would or not, by reason of their unbelief, that is, because they would not believe that the old Covenant and all the pri­viledges thereof were ended, and the substance come, the Lord Jesus the Antitype of their types.

The second thing is, from what they were bro­ken off?

[Page 41]I answer, From all the glory they boasted so much of; as the Apostle sayes; thou art called a Jew, and makest thy boast of God, and trustest in the law; but all these things are now gone, yea the Typical Adoption, the glory, and the Cove­nants, the giving of the law, and the service of God and the promises; all their birth-priviled­ges, Church membership and ordinances; which continued but till the time of reformation; yea from that Covenant, which had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary, which is now all abolished, as you see Heb. 9.1.2.3.4. &c. And all because they did not be­lieve in him, who was the Antitype and substance of all their shadows; but were willing to abide in the old house still, and loath to lose their outward priviledges, their worldly sanctuary, their ordinances and Church membership upon the account of Abrahams faith, for it was indeed an easy service, a flesh pleasing religion, (if sal­vation could have been obtained by it) notwith­standing the bondage and laboriousness of some services, yet how willing would the carnal Jew have born all, if he might have been saved by the faith of another, rather then to lose all the righ­teousness of the law, and to count his circumci­sion, and Church membership as dung to winn Christ, as Paul did when converted, and be found in him only, not having his own righteousnesse which is of the law, but that which is by faith in Jesus Christ.

Thus you see why the Jews ars broken off, and from what. But they are not all broken off from [Page 42] the Gospel Covenant, for there is yet a remnant according to the election of grace, and as many of them as believe, and repent of their sins shall be admitted to the more easy, and more excellent priviledges of the Gospel Church membership and ordinances, and shall be a pillar in the Tem­ple of God, and shall go no more out.

Besides, we see many of the Jews have been converted, and shall be more generally in the la­ter days.

And if you say, May not the children of the Jews, be broken off from the Gospel Covenant? I answer.

They are no more broken off, then the chil­dren of the Gentiles; for those that dye in infan­cy, as many as belong to the election of grace shall be saved: if they live to years of discretion, and then believe they shall be saved, as soon as any children of believing gentiles.

But if the children of the Jews, be broken off from the Gospel Covenant, it is either because of their parents unbelief, or their own personal unbelief. If it be meerly their parents unbelief, then if any do believe in their own persons they cannot be admitted, because of their parents un­belief, for that which cuts them off, will keep them off; and so the parents unbelief keeps the children from the Gospel Covenant, and so, is the cause of their damnation, for causa causae, est causa causati. But where do we finde that chil­dren shall be damn'd for the sins of their parents; the Scripture saith, the soul that sins shall dye.

And if you say, the Jews unbelief doth not keep [Page 43] their children from the Covenant of grace, but only from the administrations of it, as Baptism, &c. I answer, that according to your principles, it a­mounts to the same thing, for you say out of the Church no salvation.

But if you say their parents unbelief keeps them out of the Church, only during their infancy, when they come to years, if they believe, they may be ad­mitted: Then it will follow that such children of the Jews, yea of all unbelievers that dye in in­fancy are in a miserable condition, their case is deplorable, for their parents (secundum te) can have no hopes of their salvation. Poor souls! had you lived a while longer, you had been in the Covenant of grace, and enjoy'd the priviledges thereof, but meerly because of your parents un­belief you are cut off while you are infants.

But if this be true, parents have cause to mourn to the breaking of their loynes, when their children dye. But David was of another mind, who when his child dyed, rejoyced though it dyed on the seventh day, the day before cir­cumsion, and that not without hopes of its good estate, as learned men conceive; for he said, I shall go to that, but that shall not return to me; which is not meant only of going to the grave, but to a state of happynesse, for our going barely to the grave, is no cause of comfort.

But we are told, that Circumcision was a great priviledge, as the Apostle saith Rom. 3.1. What advantage is there of Circumcision? much e­very way; and therefore, to be broken off, was their misery.

Its true the Apostle propounds that question, what profit is there of Circumcision? his meaning is, that there was a time when they had advantage by circumcision, and the main was, that Christ should come of their flesh; of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came. But this and all other advantages are ceased, and now it is a mercy rather then a misery, (though they thought otherwise) to be broken off from the Covenant of Circumcision; and that it is so I shall make ap­pear from these Arguments.

1. If standing in the Covenant of Circumcision, did keep up the expectation of Christ to come, and so deny him to be already come in the flesh, then their breaking off from that Covenant was a mercy not a misery.

But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, so is the con­sequence.

2. If while the Jew and his seed now stand in the Covenant of Circumcision, Christ did profit them nothing: then to be broken off from that Covenant is a mercy, not a misery.

But the Antecedent is true Gal. 5.2. If ye be circumcis'd Christ shall profit you nothing, (that is if you now continue in the old Covenant) Ergo, so is the consequent.

3. If while the Jew and his seed stand in the Covenant of Circumcision, they go about to esta­blish their own righteousnesse, and do not sub­mit to the righteousnesse of God: then to be bro­ken off from the covenant is a mercy not a misery.

But the antecedent is true, Rom. 10.3. &c. Ergo, so is the consequent.

[Page 45]4. If the standing in the Covenant of Circum­cision did oblige them to keep the whole Law, then their breaking off is a mercy, not a misery. But the Antecedent is true; Gal. 5.3. I testify, says Paul, that every one that is Circumcised is bound to keep the whole law.

Ergo, so is the consequent.

5. If while the Jews stand in the Covenant of Circumcision they cannot be justified in the sight of God; then to be broken off is a mercy not a misery.

But the Antecedent is true, Gal. 3.11. Ergo, so is the consequent.

Thus it appears that though the Jews thought it a misery to be broken off from the old Cove­nant from Circumcision and Church membership, from the priviledge of being Abrahams seed; yet it was indeed their mercy if they did believe and embrace the Gospel; for now they are deli­vered from all their yokes, and cruel bondage, yea, from the curse of the law; for Christ hath redeemed as many of them as believe from the curse of the law, being made a curse for them.

Obj. And if it be objected, then their unbelief was a mercy.

Answ. It doth not follow that because their breaking off was a mercy, therefore the means by which, was a mercy, for the death of Christ was a mercy, but the means of effecting it was not so; for they did it by wicked hands.

But had the Jewes believed, they would wil­lingly have broke off themselves, but because they did not, they were broken off, contrary to [Page 46] their own wills, (though for their good). For though it be not a mercy for any person to be broke off from any mercy God gives, during the time it is to be enjoyed; But if greater privi­ledges be offered, and they shall adhere to the worse, (and there being a period put to the for­mer) then 'tis their mercy rather then their misery to be forced out whether they will or no: as it is a mercy for a man to live in his own house, and enjoy the benefits and priviledges thereof; But if that house be like to fall upon his head, it is his mercy to be forced out of it, whether he will or not. So Lot would willingly have staid in Sodom, for the text saith he lingred, but God being mer­ciful unto him, forced him out, so the Jews would have staid longer in the old Covenant, but God being merciful unto them, took away all their priviledges, and concluded them all under sin, and made them all as well as Gentiles guil­ty before God, that he might have mercy upon all.

But if Circumcision and all the Jews pri­viledges did hold out Christ to come in the flesh, then they should have been broken off as soon as Christ came, but they were not.

Its true they were not broken off de facto, but de jure they were; but Christ was yet graci­ous to them, and tendred the Gospel first to them as you have heard, saying, he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and a consi­derable time after the Apostles preach'd to the Jews, till they contradicting and blaspheming, Paul said; It was necessary the word of God [Page 47] should be first spoken unto them But seeing you put it from you, and so judge your selves unwor­thy of eternal life, loe, we turn to the Gentiles, whence we may observe.

1. How tender the Lord Jesus and his Apostles were to these people, and that because they had all the types of Christ coming in the flesh, and the shaddows of good things to come, and it was a great pitty that Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, and that they which follow­ed after the law of righteousness have not obtain­ed the law of righteousness.

2ly. We may observe that they broke off them­selves, yet not all, the Apostle saith, 'tis but some of the branches are broken off, that is, some of Abrahams seed, for blindness is but in part hap'ned to Israel; And they also if they a­bide not in unbelief shall be grafted in again.

So then it is a great mistake to think that all Is­rael, and their seed are broken off from the Gos­pel Covenant, and the Gentiles and their seed come in their room, and so their children to en­joy Church priviledges, as membership and Bap­tism. For the Jews, that is the whole lump of Abrahams seed, are not broken off from the Gos­pel Covenant, but some only that abide in unbe­lief, but for others of them that do believe, they have still as great a priviledge, and as much a right to Gospel ordinances as any believing Gen­tils in the world. 'Tis true they are all broken off from the old Covenant, that could not give life, that made nothing perfect, which as you have heard is their mercy rather then misery, if they could believe it.

But me thinks, believers Children should have some priviledge above the children of hea­thens, or else they will lose some priviledge by the coming of Chrrst, and the Gospel dispensati­on will be less then that of the law.

To which I answer,

1. That it must be prov'd that Baptism is any priviledge at all to infants, for we must under­stand that ordinances are the hard part of the Co­venant; and so, rather a burthen then a priviledg, without faith; they are part of Christs yoke, and though they be made easy to believers from their interest in Christ, and the hope of the recom­pence of reward, yet they are a burthen to the flesh, both in respect to the performance of them, and the consequences of them; yea rather a bur­then and a yoke then a mercy, and a priviledge, where there is no faith to make them easy. But,

2ly. If Circumcision were a priviledge, (though the Apostle calls it a yoke) it must be considered, whether our infants are capable of such priviledges by Baptism, as theirs were by Circumcision: for,

1. Circumcision did assure them that Christ should be born of their loyns.

2. It did inright them to the land of Canaan none of which we can expect.

3. By Circumcision you say they were accoun­ted Gods people, and this is the only thing you mean. But,

Is it so great a priviledge to have the name without the nature? the shadow without the substance? We use to count that a misery rather [Page 49] then a mercy: and Sardis is blamed for having a name to live and was dead. Is it any benefit for a man to be counted rich when he is poor: we see Naomies modesty is commended, who would not own the shadow without the substance; call me no more Naomi, but call me Marah.

But in the next place, you say infants unbap­tiz'd lose some priviledge: I say some things that were counted priviledges are lost, for it was a priviledge, that all the sons of the priests were born Priests, but it is not so now. But further; Its you your selves make your children lose a priviledge since the coming of Christ, and so make the new Covenant narrower then the old: And that because the faith of a believing parent, as you say, admits only your immediate children to Church membership and Baptism, but as to your childrens children, they have no benefit by your faith, no admittance to Ordinances upon your account; but it was otherwise of old; the Covenant of circumcision, and the priviledges of Church membership, was not only to the next generation flowing from Abraham, but to his seed after him in their generations, Gen. 17.7. and that not only to the third and fourth generati­on, but to Christs time, they enjoyed the privi­ledges of the Covenant by vertue of Abrahams faith. But now you have narrowed the Gospel dispensation, for you allow Baptism to none but your immediate seed, by vertue of the parents faith: your childrens children must come in up­on another account, their parents must be actual believers or else no admittance.

[Page 50]But what reason you have for so doing I know not, yea, I chalenge any man to give me a sub­stantial ground, why the faith of a believer may not now as well inright his childrens children to the 3d & 4th generation to Church-membership and Baptism, as the faith of Abraham did inright his seed in their generations to the priviledges of the old Covenant.

Will you say Abraham was a famous believer, and therefore had this priviledge above others? These are indeed your sayings; but must we be­lieve it therefore? where is it so said? or what necessary consequence is there from any Scripture, to enforce belief, that Abrahams personal faith shall inright him and his seed in their generations? But a believers faith in the days of the Gospel (though in some respect more excellent then that of Abraham) viz. in reference to the Messiah al­ready come, and Redemption compleated) shall inright only his immediate children such as are born of his loynes: so that you make the Gospel dispensation narrower then that of the law.

And whereas you say, if believers children are not baptized, they have no priviledge above the children of heathens. I answer, That had God so appointed, that believers children should have been baptized, and unbelievers children should not, you had ground then to consider it as a pri­viledge; but seeing there is no institution, you cannot say, they are denyed a priviledge: but if it be a priviledge, then (according to your pra­ctise) you run a great hazard of denying Baptism to such to whom it doth belong.

[Page 51]For if I should ask you, what sort of believers they are, whose children have a right to Baptism, here you would be at a losse, and must needs say, such only whom you count believers as your pra­ctise evidently proves: but it was not so of old, it was certainly known, what children had a right to Circumcision, and what had not: but if you do (as you do) baptize the children only of such parents as you count believers, then you may leave out many thousands of children that have as great a right to it as yours. For there are no persons called by the name of Christians, but do count themselves believers, yea doubtlesse there are many believers amongst them to whose children you deny Baptism, for,

Let it be considered how many sorts there are, who count themselves believers.

1. The Papists have their believers, and they are such, as own Christ to be the son of God, and believe all the Articles of the Church of Rome, &c. amongst whom surely God hath some peo­ple, for it is said, come out of her my people.

2. The Episcopalians have their believers, that is, such whom they count so, and they are such that believe that Christ is the son of God, that he dyed for sinners, and that whoever believes in him shall be saved, and so the whole nation own­ing and professing the faith of Christ, they bap­tize all their children, amongst whom there are many thousand real believers, and so their chil­dren have as much right to Baptism as yours.

3. The Presbyterians have their believers, and they are such (that is, so accounted) who own [Page 52] the faith of Christ, professe regeneration, and are morally righteous in their lives and conversa­tions.

4. The Independents have their believers, and they are such who own the faith of Christ, make a personal manifestation of their faith and repen­tance, and so are enchurcht and become mem­bers (by a Covenant) of some particular con­gregations.

Now pray tell me which of all these sorts of believers have right to have their children bapti­zed? If you say all of them, then you contra­dict your own practise, it being famously known, that some of you will baptize none but them of your own party. But if you say those children on­ly have right to Baptism, whose parents we count believers, then you run a hazard of denying Bap­tism to the children of diverse whose parents are as true believers as your selves, and so deny them the priviledges of the Covenant, and in as much as in you lyes occasion their damnation, as you use to tell the Baptist.

And if you say, so the Baptists themselves may keep persons from Baptism, to whom of right it doth belong, and so are equally guilty.

I answer, that cannot be, for our principles are, that no person hath right to Baptism, but he that desires it upon the profession of his faith and repentance: to such a person we do not deny it, unlesse his profession be contradicted by an unho­ly life. By all which it appears,

1. That you (practically) deny the priviledge of Baptism to many that have as real a right to it, as your selves.

[Page 53]2. That you count the children of diverse true believers to be in no better condition then hea­thens.

3. You do extreamly narrow the Gospel dis­pensation, (a fault you use, though unjustly, to charge the Baptists with) and so make the privi­ledges of the Gospel, lesse then the priviledges of the law; for whereas of old all the seed of Abra­ham, all his numerous posterity were circumcis'd, and that whether their parents believed, or not, there was no questioning of their faith, no enqui­ry into their conversations, &c. But now you, (practically) own no children to have right to Baptism, but those whose immediate parents have given some visible demonstration of their conversion, and manifested their faith and Re­pentance, who are so few, that were their num­ber reckoned up, it would not amount to one a­mongst a hundred of them that are true believers, in the world.

But further, if the children of believers only (as you say) have right to the Covenant and Baptism, and that of such believers as you count so; and so, their parents, only, have hope of their salvation; then what shall become of the children of unbelievers, yea of such, whom you count unbelievers? may not they make this ap­peal to their parents, and say? O wretched and miserable parents, that have brought forth so de­plorable an off spring; other children as soon as they are born are in the Covenant of grace, and by vertue of their parents faith, have aright to Church membership and baptism, wherein they [Page 54] are made children of God, heirs of Christ, and in­heritors of the kingdom of heaven. But wo and alas to us, that ever we were born of unbelie­ving parents, or at least of such that were never enchurcht, nor members of any Presbyterian or Independant congregation. We are unholy, un­clean, doggs that must not meddle with the chil­drens bread, without the pale of the Church, a­liens from the common weal of Israel, without hope and without God in the world. We must not be admitted to the priviledges of the Cove­nant of grace, though diverse of our parents are professed Christians, and believe Christ crucified, &c. yet because they have not made a personal manifestation of their faith and repentance, and so joyned to some Church diverse ministers will not admit us to Baptism.

But stay children, there is hope for you for all this: If you dye in infancy, as many of you, as belong to the election of grace shall be saved, though ye are not baptized, and if you live to years of discretion, and understanding, if then you believe in Christ and repent of your sins, and obey the Gospel, you shall be saved as soon as they, yea upon those terms, and none other, shall those that are Baptized in their infancy be saved if they live to years of understanding.

Well Sir I see, it is a hard matter to prove that the infants of believers have a right to the Covenant, more then the infants of unbelie­vers, but yet methinks they should have right to the administration of the Covenant.

In no wise; and that for the want of an [Page 55] institution, as you have heard, and it is answer enough to satisfy any that are willing to be sa­tisfy'd: for none ever had a right to the admini­strations of the Covenant any otherwise then by vertue of a law; had it been otherwise of old, then Enoch, Lot, Noah, and their seed had been circumcis'd; and Ishmael, Esau, and others had not been circumcis'd: now if the natural bran­ches, the seed of Abraham had not this priviledge to be circumcis'd by vertue of a right, but vertue of a law, how can you expect that your infants should have a right to the administrations of the Covenant by vertue of your faith? Besides you your selves deny one administration to your in­fants, but what reason you have for so doing I know not, seeing the same grace is signified in both. Will you say, because your children are not capable to examine themselves? then let them plead their own cause, and suppose they should make this Apostrophe to their parents?

O, our tender and indulgent parents, you have brought us into the visible Church as you say, and admitted us to Baptism and membership; but why must we not partake of the Lords supper, that soul strenghtning and soul-nourishing ordi­nance? you take care to feed our bodies dayly, and that in order to our growth, and have you no pitty to our souls? must they starve? the chil­dren of the Jews of old were admitted to the passeover, all the males were to appear thrice in a year, and very early partook of that Sacrament, and were instructed in the use and end of it, and have we lost this priviledge by this coming of [Page 56] Christ? besides the ancient Church did use it, for many years, and must we be kept from it till we be come of age? yea, and not then neither (not­withstanding our Baptism contrary to all Scrip­ture president) unless we make a personal mani­festation of our faith and repentance. Will you say, it is because we cannot examine our selves? We answer that Scripture concerns the Adult, not us. You might as well have kept us from Baptism, because we could not believe and re­pent; but surely the Apostle never intended that infants should examine themselves.

Besides you say we are clean, holy with a fe­deral holyness, innocent, in the Covenant of grace, Church members, that we have habituall faith, and without any sin (except original) there­fore there is no need of self-examination. Why then are we not admitted? will our parents faith serve to admit us to Baptism, and not to the sup­per? Who will unriddle this? surely we want some Alexander to cut this Gordian knot; for none will ever untie it.

But again; if infants have a right to the admi­nistration of the Covenant by vertue of the pa­rents faith, then if the parents turn Atheists, or Apostates, the children lose their right, and are cast out from the said priviledges. That it must be so appears, if we consider, Rom. 11.20. thou standest by faith; (that is, say you) thou standest in the Gospel Covenant, and hast right to ordi­nances by vertue of their own faith; and thy chil­dren by vertue of thine. Now this standing is not unalterable, a state which cannot be fallen from; [Page 57] but a changable state from which thou mayst fall, for the Apostle adds, be not high minded, but fear. Now if thou fallest by unbelief, and so casts out thy self, thy children must needs be cast out with thee; for ablatâ causâ tollitur effectus, take away the cause, and the effect ceaseth: thy personal and actual faith was the ground and cause of thy Childrens admittance, so then thy unbelief must dispriviledge them, for so it was with the Jews when they were cut off, how many thousands of their infants were cut off with them from mem­bership & ordinances, & remain so to this day by reason of their parents unbelief; And do you ex­pect a greater priviledge then the natural bran­ches: the Apostle lays them in an equal ballance Rom. 11.20, 21, 22. and what ground have you to expect better; the unbelief of their parents broke off their Children: By unbelief they were broken off, and thy standing is but conditional, if thou abide in his goodness, otherwise thou shalt be cut off. By which you see what absurdi­ties and contradictions to your own practise, your opinion leads to; if the father be cast out, the chil­dren must be cast out with him.

Thus you see that as the children of believers have no right to the Covenant of grace, more then the Children of unbelievers, by vertue of their parents faith; so, they have no right to the administration of the Covenant, for want of an institution, there being no precept nor presi­dent in the word of God for such a practise.

But though there be no precept nor president for Infants-Baptism, yet our Mini­sters [Page 58] tells us, there is no weight in that Argument, for though we do not finde it written, that In­fants were baptized, (yet perhaps some were,) for a negative Argument don't conclude.

Indeed Mr Wills says so, and Mr Sy­denham before him, and diverse of your Mini­sters, and here they cry, Victoria; this being their beloved Argument they so much boast of; but,

Quisquis amat ranam, ranam putat esse Dianam; but pray stay a while, and let us consider what veriety is in this position, a negative Argument don't conclude.

It's true in some cases, it doth not, but in the matter of positive worship, we have the opinion of diverse able and Godly men, who have told us, that what is not commanded in the worship of God, is forbidden, and that every affirmative com­mand of Christ includes a negative. But if it be true that a negative Argument concludes not in matters of Worship; then this had been a good plea for Nadab, and Abihu; Levit. 10. who were destroyed for offering strange fire which God had not commanded, they might have said; Lord, its true thou hast not commanded this strange fire, so thou, hast not forbid it, and a negative Argu­ment don't conclude.

So God commanded Abraham to circumcise the eighth day, but he did not forbid the 7th day, And a negative Argument don't conclude.

So in the passeover God commanded a Lamb, a male of the 1st year to be eaten; but he did not forbid an ewe, or a Ram of the 2d or 3d year, and [Page 59] a negative Argument don't conclude.

So, God smote ƲzZah for holding the Ark, but he might have said; Lord thou hast not for­bid me to support the Ark, when the Oxen did shake it and a negative Argument don't conclude.

So, when God threatens Idolatrous Israel, for causing their sons and daughters to passe through the fire to Molech, which the Lord commanded not, neither came it into his heart Jer. 32.35. Yet they might say, though he had not commanded it, so he had not forbidden it, and a negative Argu­ment don't conclude.

So, God hath not forbid Crucifixes, beads, Altars, praying to Saints, Images in Churches, pilgrimages, the Crosse in Baptism &c. and a Negative Argument don't conclude.

So God hath not forbid unbelievers children to be Baptized, nor the children of believers to communicate in the Lords supper; and a negative Argument don't conclude.

Lastly, Bells are not forbidden to be Bapti­zed, and a negative Argument don't conclude.

But Mr. Wills saith that Bells are not sub­jectum capax, a subject capable.

I answer wherein lyes their incapacity? Cannot a Minister sprinkle a little water upon a Bell, and use the words of Institution in as so­lemn a manner, as he does, when he Baptizes a child? Or are they uncapable for want of an In­stitution? We say the same of infants.

But if he say they are not capable of the uses and ends of Baptism as men are, I answer.

If God had pleased he could have made them [Page 60] (by an institution) capable of some sacred useful­ness, yea, capable of relative holiness, as well as Aarons bels, or the bels mention'd Zec. 14.20. up­on whom it was written, holyness to the Lord.

But its well known there are those in the world, who think themselves as wise as Mr. Wills that judge Bells capable subjects of Baptism, and have done so diverse ages.

Thus you see what absurdities follow from that position; But surely God is more jealous of his honour, and tender of his worsh [...], then to leave it to the pleasure of superstitious persons; And that God in all ages hath testified his [...]ke, yea abhorrency of will-worship, and th [...] because he hath not commanded it. See Jer. 7.3 [...]. They have built the high places unto Toph [...], which I com­manded them not, neither come it into my heart: See, what God never commanded, never came into his heart; and for this he threatens great judgments, in the following verses. So Ezek. 4.3.8. they have set their thresholds by my threshold, and their posts by my posts, wherefore I have consumed them by mine anger. But pray let us reason a lit­tle about it, and be serious in this matter. Do you think will worship is no sin? when the same person who is to perform the obedience, shall dare to appoint the laws? Implying a perempto­ry purpose of no further observance then may consist with the allowance of his own Judgment, whereas true obedience must be grounded on the Majesty of that power, that commands, not on the judgment of the subject or benefit of the pre­cept proposed. Divine laws require obedience, [Page 61] not so much from the quality of the things commanded, as from the Authority of him that insti­tutes them: We are all servants of God, and ser­vants are but living instruments, whose property is to be governed by the will of those, in whose possession they are. Will-worship and superstiti­on, well may they flatter God, they cannot please him. He that requires us to deny our selves in his service, doth therein teach us, that his commands stand rather in fear then in need of us; in fear of our boldness, lest we abuse them, not in need of our judgment to polish or alter them.

The conquest of an enemy against the Com­mand of his General, cost a Roman gentleman his life, though his own father were the Judge. Christ in Rom. Hom. 2.

And the killing of a Lyon contrary to the laws of the Kings hunting (though it were only to rescue the King himself) cost a poor Persian his head. Brisson. de Reg. Pers. lib. 1.

So the overwise industry of the Architect in bringing not the same but a fitter piece of timber, then he was commanded to the Romish Consu [...], was rewarded with nothing but a bundle of rodds. So jealous and displeas'd are even men themselves to have their own laws undervalued by the private judgments of those, who rather interpret then obey them.

And therefore we find that those men who e­rected the Fabricks of superstition and will-wor­ship, yet endeavoured to derive the original of them from some divine Revelations, And the Ro­man Captain Scipio, before the undertaking any [Page 62] business, would first enter the Capitoll, and pre­tend a consultation with the Gods. And generally in all the Roman sacrifices, the Minister or servant was to attend a command before he was to strike the beast that was offered.

Semper agatne? rogat, nec nisi jussus agit. Ovid.

Horrible then, and more then heathenish, is the impiety of those, who mixing humane inven­tions and appointments of their own with the in­stitutions of God, and imposing them as divine duties, with a necessity of obedience, do by that means take Christs divine prerogative out of his own hands, and so make themselves joynt Au­thors of his Sacraments; yea rather indeed the destroyers of them; For he that practises an Or­dinance otherwise then Christ hath instituted, doth not honour the Ordinance but an Idol of his own making.

This the Apostles durst not do; they tell us they declared unto them the Counsell of God; but nothing else. And Paul tells the Corinthians, he delivered nothing unto them, but what he had re­ceived from the Lord, 1 Cor. 11.23. and sure he did not receive Infants-Baptism from the Lord; for he never declares it unto them.

This therefore should be a boundary to Mini­sters, that they deliver nothing to the people, but what they have received from the Lord. That faith that was once delivered to the Saints must be preach'd and contended for, but nothing else: and if Ministers have not received Infants-Bap­tism from the Lord, and if they cannot prove that it was once delivered unto the Saints, it is not to [Page 63] be preached. It is sad to think how full our pul­pits are of vain traditions and humane mixtures; as if the all-wise God wanted the help of dim­ey'd man to mend his worship by mixing their Inventions with Gods institutions. But as to mixtures they are useful only for these two pur­poses; either to slacken and abate something that is excessive; or to supply something that is deficient: And so all heterogeneous mixtures do plainly intimate, either a vitiousnesse to be corre­cted, or a defect to be supplyed: Now it were great wickednesse to charge any of these upon the pure and perfect word of God, and by conse­quence to use deceit by adulterating of it; either by such glosses as diminish and take away the force of it, or by the addition of humane Tradi­tions as argue any defect. So that to stamp any thing (of but an humane original) with a divine character, and obtrude it upon the consciences of men; to take any dead child of ours, as the har­lot did, and lay in the bosome of the Scripture, and father it upon God; to build any Structure of ours in the road to Heaven, and so stop up the way; is one of the highest, and most daring pre­sumptions that the pride of man can aspire unto: To erect a throne in the consciences of his fellow creatures, and to counterfeit the great seal of heaven for the countenancing his own forgeries, is a sin most severely provided against by God, with special prohibitions and threatnings: se [...] Deut. [...]2.32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereunto, nor diminish from it. So Deut. 18.20. The prophet [Page 64] that shall speak a word in my name, that I have not commanded, even that prophet shall dye. So Jer. 26.2. and Prov. 30.6. Adde not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou beest found a lyer.

And that will-worship is so great a sin, we have the testimony of that learned man M. Green­hill in his exposition upon EZekiel, where he hath these Observations, fit to be written with the the point of a Diamond, upon the heart of every Christian.

1. That men love to have somthing of their own in worship, they are not content with what the infinite wise God commands them, but will be adding. The second Commandement shews that man is prone to be medling, and making somthing in Worship till he marrs. Israel provoked God to anger with their In­ventions: Psal. 106.29.

2. God is not pleased with any thing in worship which is not his own. It is not the works of mens hands, nor their heads that are pleasing to him; that which pleases God must come from God, what he ap­points he approves, and nothing else.

3. That will-worship and mixtures of mans in­ventions with Gods pure ordinances, are the great Canons that batter Cities, and the Gunpowder that blows them up.

These bring the Lord of hosts to warr against them; it was the Calves that wounded Israel, and laid their Cities wast. Hos. 10.5. the Inhabitants of Samaria shall fear, because of the Calves of Bethaven.

4. That false worship doth grive God Ezek. 6.9. I am broken with their whorish heart, their su­perstitious [Page 65] and corrupt mixtures, did not simply displease God, but oppressed, afflicted, and broke his heart. Great injuries enter deep, and eat up the spi­rits of any they are done unto; and what greater wrong can be done to God then to set at nought his Counsels, forsake his worship, and impose that which he never commanded; yea it draws away the heart of men from God: and therefore they are said to go a whoring from God by their own inventions.

5. Will-worship is a work of darkness Ezek. 8.12. See what the Ancients of the house of Israel are doing in the dark.

6. Will-worship is that which God will not honour with his presence. Neither Christ nor the Angels will be present at it, as Ezek. 9.2. The six men in the vision that came into the Temple stood besides the brazen Altar; they had made a golden Altar, thinking that would please God better, but they would not come at it, but stood by the brazen Altar which was of Gods appointment. Haec ille.

Thus you see that will-worship is a horrible sin; and methinks you should examine whether Infant Baptism be not will-worship, as having no insti­tution: and if it be will-worship, it is not only e­vil in it self, but stands aggravated with this cir­cumstance, that it makes void the commande­ment of God; for will-worship doth usually op­pose some part of Gods true worship (as Infants-Baptism doth believers Baptism in these nations) as Christ told the Pharisees; you make void the Commandments of God by your Traditions.

But these persons you mention in Eze­kiel, against whom God threatens such Judg­ments [Page 66] were Idolaters: And I hope you do not count Infant-Baptism Idolatry.

That Infant-Baptism is will-worship and Superstition is evident. But whether it be Idola­try? I leave that to enquiry.

But I shall give you the Definition of Idolatry, as we have it from our Protestant Divines; which, say they, [...]s to worship a false God, or the true God in a false manner. And that appears from the Second Commandment, where all kinde of Idolatry is forbidden, as all sin is forbidden in the ten Commandements, though not in expresse words, yet in the meaning thereof; For it is a received Maxime, That all sins forbidden by the word, are reducible to the 10 Commandements, and fall under the prohibition of one of them, or other: For upon the two tables of the law, hang all the law and the prophets, Math. 22.40. Now it is plain, all sins are not contained in the letter of the Commandements; and therefore we must open the later by Synechdoche's, and Metonymies; Synechdoches do comprehend all sins of the like kinde, and all the degrees thereof: and Metony­mies do comprehend all causes, and means, and occasions thereof; so that for opening the 2d. Commandement, which forbids both making and the worshiping any image or similitude, it is re­quisite to consider in what sence or respect Ima­ges or similitudes are forbidden.

Images or similitudes then, are forbidden, not as Objects of worship, for all false objects of worship, are the false Gods forbidden in the first Commandement: but Images and similitudes [Page 67] are forbidden in the 2d Commandement, not as false objects or worship, wherein the worship of God is terminated; but as false means of wor­shiping the true God. The Golden Calf was not considered as the God of Israel, but as an Image of that Jehovah, which brought them out of Egipt; whence it is said that Aaron proclaimed a feast, not to the Calfe, but to Jehovah, whereof the Calfe was an Image: the Calfe then was not the God, but an Image of that God they worshipped, as that which resembled him, and put them in minde of him.

And then further, the Image forbidden in the 2d Commandement, is, not only a false means of worship devised by man; but a false manner also: and therefore when the Samaritan-strangers knew not the manner of worshiping God in the Calves of Jeroboam, it is said they knew not the manner of the God of the Country 2 King. 17.26. and one of the Priests was sent to teach them the manner of fear (or worship) of Jehovah; and so they feared Jehovah after the same manner that was in serving him after their own devising.

So that under this one kinde of false worship is forbidden by a Synechdoche not only all worship of God in carved, moulten, or painted Images (all bodily representations) of God; but all spi­ritual Images too, which are the Imaginations and inventions of man, whether they be ordained for worship, as the high places, and the devised feast of the eighth Month 2. Kin. 12.33. or whe­ther they be brought in, and used as helps and means of worship, as the strange fire of Nadab [Page 68] Lev. 10, and Davids new Cart to carry the Ark; he did not make a new Ark, but a new cart; which devise of his, there being no command for it, fell under the condemnation of the second Commandement. And so all Images and Imagi­nations of men, all forms and manner of worship, devised by man, and not ordained by God are forbidden as Idolatrous.

But Sir if your way be true, is it not strange, that so many learned men should be of a contrary opinion?

No, it is not more strange then that there are so many learned men against the Protestant Religion; and especially against your practise of baptizing the children of believers only, and upon those grounds you do it; for the whole Christian world (as its called) of learned men are against your grounds of baptizing Infants, for they administer Baptism for the taking away of Original sin, and to confer grace, and that not restrained to such believers Infants, as you do it, but to the Infants of all persons in the nations where they live: so that your opinion is a very novelty.

2. But Secondly, it is not strange if you con­sider what Christ saith, Math. 11.25. I thank thee O father, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, &c. Even so because it see­med good in thy sight. There is the reason given, it is, beneplacitum, his good pleasure.

3. And Thirdly, I answer; we have not been without the testimony of learned men, not only in this, but in former ages; for it is well known [Page 69] that Infant-Baptism was very early opposed, and for any thing I know as soon as it was born, for no Antiquity mentions Infant-Baptism to have any peaceable being in the world any long time before it was opposed; and if it be said it was not opposed at the beginning as soon as we heard of it in the world. It may be so, for Christ saith, while the servants slept the evil ones sow'd tares; and surely it was a sleepy time amongst Christi­ans when it came in, but when they begun to a­wake, they opposed it.

Besides all this, we have the testimony of some of your own party, whose tongues and pens God hath (at least) so over-ruled, that they have born a famous testimony for our practise.

First Doctor Taylor saith, This indeed is true Baptism, when it is both in the Symbol, and in the mistery; whatsoever is lesse then this, is but the Sym­b [...]l only and a meer ceremony, an opus operatum, a dead letter, an empty shadow, an instrument without an agent to manage it.

2ly, Baptism is never propounded, mentioned, or enjoyn'd as a means of remission of sins, or of eternal life, but something of duty, choice and sanctity is joyn'd with it, in order to the production of the end so mentioned.

3ly, They that baptize children make Baptism to be wholy an outward duty, a work of the law, a car­nal ordinance, it makes us adhere to the letter, with­out regard of the spirit, and to relinquish the myste­riousnesse, the substance, the spirituality of the Gos­pel, which Argument is of so much the more conside­ration, because under the spiritual Covenant, or the [Page 70] Gospel of grace. If the mystery goes not before the Symbol (which it doth, when the Symboles are con­signations of grace, as the Sacraments are) yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of time; and is cleare in the perpetual Analogy of holy Scripture.

4. That the words mentioned in St. Peters ser­mon Acts. 2. which are the only Records of the pro­mises) are interpreted upon a weak mistake: the pro­mise belongs to you and your children, therefore In­fants are actually receptive of it in that capacity: That is the Argument, but the reason of it is not yet discovered nor ever will, for (to you and your children) is to you, and your posterity, to you; and your children when they are of the same capacity, in which you are, receptive of the promise, but he that whenever the word children is exprest, understands Infants, must needs believe that in all Israel there were no men but all were Infants, &c.

5. From the action of Christ blessing infants, to infer, that they were Baptized, proves nothing so much, as that there is want of better Arguments: for the conclusion would with more probability be de­rived thus—Christ blessed Children, and so dismis­sed them, but baptized them not: Therefore Infants are not to be baptized. But let this be as weake as its enemy; yet that Christ did not Baptize them, is an Argument sufficient that he hath other ways of bring­ing them to heaven then by Baptism. And we are sure God hath not commanded infants to be baptized, so we are sure God will do them no injustice, nor damn them for what they cannot help, viz. if the parents baptize them not.

[Page 71] Many theusand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself; but nothing is so unreasonable, because he hath tyed all men of years of discretion to this way, therefore we of our own heads shall carry Infants to him that way with [...]ut his direction: The conceit is po [...]r and low, and the acti­on consequent to it bold and venturous. Let him do what he pleases with infants, we must not.

Then Mr. Baxter saith, if there can be no exam­ple given in Scripture of any one that was baptized without the profession of a saving faith, nor any pre­cept for so doing; then must we not baptize any with­out it: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent.

2. Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration; but to men that professe not a justifying faith, it cannot be admini­stred as a sign of present Regeneration; therefore he hath instituted no Baptism to be administred to such.

3. If it be the appointed use of all Christian Bap­tism to solemnize our Mariage with Christ, or to seal and confirm our union with him; then must we baptize none that profess not justifying faith; but the Antecedent and consequent are evident, Gal. 3.27.28.29.

Doctor Hammond saith, that all men were in­structed in the fundamentalls of faith anciently be­fore they were permitted to be baptized.

The Lord Brookes saith; That the analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the old law, is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before: But I somewhat doubt, whether it [Page 72] be proof enough for that which some would prove by it, since (besides the vast difference in the ordinance) the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a positive law, so express, that it leaves no place for scruple: But it is far otherwise in Baptism, where all the De­signation of persons fit to be partakers, for ought I know are such as believe, &c.

But Mr. Wills, and others say, that Do­ctor Taylor did but personate an Anabaptist, he himself was for Infants Baptism, only he gave some weak Arguments to please the Baptists.

Its true Mr. Wills and others say so: But must it needs be as they suppose? Does it follow infallibly that the Doctor does prevaricate in his first book? is it not possible that he might be un­der some measure of conviction, and so receded from the opinion he was once perswaded of, and fell from that truth he so strenuously contended for? The Galatians once received the Gospel, but were so foolish as to fall from it. Besides how frequently do we find divers of the fathers contra­dict themselves, and to build again the things that they destroyd? But we need not go so far: Mr. Baxter himself is a famous instance: How often do's Mr. Baxter contradict Mr. Baxter? and is it impossible Doctor Taylor should do so.

But you'l say he wrote another book, wherein he submitted to the Judgment of the Church in the matter of Baptism. Its very like he did, and perhaps he was of the opinion of a Popish-priest who told me; There was indeed no Scripture for baptizing infants, but yet it ought to be done, be­cause the Church commanded it. He spake what many think.

[Page 73]But suppose the Doctor did, as you say, only personate an Anabaptist, and make use of some weak Arguments to please them. Then,

1. I wonder Mr. Wills or some other have not answered the Doctors weak Arguments all this while; for none that ever I heard of durst enter the lists with the Doctor in the matter: And to say, he did it by his contrary practise, is a frivo­lous answer.

2. But secondly, grant all to be true that you would have, and that the Doctor was not against baptizing infants (which we grant) nor Mr. Baxter, nor Doctor Hammond, &c. Yet we make use of their Arguments to a very good pur­pose, viz. to set off the wisdom, goodnesse, and power of God, who as he hath the hearts of all men in his hands; so also their tongues, and can, when he pleases, make use of them to bear wit­ness to, and proclaim that truth, they neither owned, nor practised; as in the case of the High-priest, who prophecied, that it was expedient, one should die for the people: so we say, God hath o­ver-ruled the tongues and pens of Doctor Taylor, Mr. Baxter &c. and made them to bear so fa­mous a Testimony to his truth, and strike so dead­ly a wound to Infants Baptism, that whoever shall go about to heal it, will prove themselves phisitians of no value.

But pray Sir what do you say to Rom. 11.16. If the first fruit be holy, the lump is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. From whence, we are told, this inference may be drawn, that as Abraham (considered as a root was holy, so [Page 74] were his children and so to be Circumcised. So Believers being holy, their Children are so, and so to be Baptized.

There hath been enough said to shew the fallacy of this consequence: But that you may have no cause to complain, I shall speak further to it; first, then you must know, that the Apo­stles purpose is to shew what Abraham was here­tofore, a holy root to his natural seed; but you will not say, he is so now; and that his children after the flesh are still holy, for they are cut off: And that he is not a holy root to the Infants of believing Gentiles, and that they are none of his branches, is abundantly proved: but if you say he is a holy root to believers, his spiritual seed, and they are holy; then we are agreed. For sure­ly the Apostle intends nothing else, but that as Abraham was a two-fold father, so he had a two-fold seed; so he is a two-fold root, and hath two sorts of branches.

His first sort of branches were holy with a ty­pical ceremonial holyness; his second sort are ho­ly by believing as he did, and walking in his steps. But to pursue your consequence a little further; that a believer (considered as a root) being holy, so his seed is holy, as of old it was with Abraham.

Then you must prove, that what was promised to Abraham, and what was his priviledge; just so it is with believers and their seed, and herein we expect plain Scripture proof, and not forced consequences, and groundlesse non sequiturs.

But Secondly; If the natural seed of believers [Page 75] be holy, what kinde of holynesse is it? surely you do not mean moral holynesse which is oppo­sed to sin, and that they have some inward qua­lity, inherent habit, or principle of grace in them, more then unbelievers infants.

Secondly, you do not mean negative holy­nesse, for there is as much also of that in unbelie­vers infants as in yours. But,

Thirdly, perhaps you mean a Covenant ho­lynesse; but what kinde of holynesse that is, we could never yet learn from you.

But if believers natural seed be holy, with a Covenant holynesse, as Abrahams were; then you must baptise all their childrens children in their several generations (as you have heard) whether their parents believe or not; as it was of old: Abrahams branches, yea all his bran­ches were holy to the 3d, and 4th, yea the 10th. generation, and so must yours be, and so to be baptized; If the Grandfather or great-grandfa­ther were, or further removed: he was the root and his posterity are the branches, as well as his immediate infants, and so to be baptized. And if you say 'tis hard to finde whether their progeni­tors were believers so far remote; then 'tis but going a step higher to Noah; and his faith will serve to Baptise the whole world, for Noah consi­dered as a believer is as well a root as Abraham.

But that there is no kinde of holynesse in the natural seed of believers more then in the seed of unbelievers now under the Gospel appears from these Arguments.

1. If there be no persons in the dayes of the [Page 76] Gospel, to be accounted common or unclean, that is unholy (by nature) more then others; then there are no persons to be accounted clean or holy (by nature) more then others: but the antecedent is true, Act. 10.28. God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or un­clean: Ergo so is the consequent.

But they that baptise Infants break the com­mand of God to Peter, by counting the children of unbelievers common and unclean, and the chil­dren of believers clean or holy.

But if the children of believers be holy with any kinde of holynesse above others: Then the children of unbelievers are unholy, with some kinde of unholinesse more then others, and so to be accounted common and unclean.

But this is not so, for believers children are by nature children of wrath as well as others, as your selves confesse. Therefore, call nothing, no men, or species of men, common or unclean; for in every nation, he that fears God and works righ­teousnesse shall be accepted. Observe, divine acceptation comes in upon the account of actual and personal righteousnesse; no persons nor their seed are now accepted for the holynesse of ano­ther (rather then others.)

2ly, If God be now no respecter of persons, then there is no birth holynesse, and so no pecu­liar priviledges belongs to believers natural seed by Gods appointment, more then to the seed of unbelievers: but the first is true Act. 10. I per­ceive saith Peter, that God is no respecter of per­sons: therefore, so is the latter.

[Page 77]And that Peter meant this of birth holynesse, and natural priviledges is evident, because he mentions this as the result of his vision, where he was forbid to count any man common or unclean that is, more then others by nature, for God is no respecter of persons. Its true all men are (by nature) common and unclean, in oppositi­on to moral cleaness, and Gospel-holiness: but no sort of persons are by nature clean, or holy, with any kinde of ceremonial, dedicative, or Covenant holynesse above others. But,

3. If there be a Covenant holynesse now, in the days of the Gospel, flowing from the root to the branches; then God would rather have continued his Church in the posterity of belie­vers (as of old); but he hath not done so; there­fore there is no such holynesse.

We read in the Second of the Acts. of 3000. baptized, and afterwards 5000. The greatest part of which were believers, and the 7 Churches of Asia; and (as you say) their children holy, with a Covenant holynesse: It is strange then the Church was not continued in their posterity: but it was not, for I suppose it is hard, if not impossi­ble to finde any one of their off-spring a member of any true Church in the world.

So the Church of Rome, once a true Church: But you do not count the present Church so. why? they had believing parents, who were in Covenant, and their seed holy, yet God did not think fit to continue them a true Church any long time; But hath rather raised his Church out of the posterity of unbelievers, and longer continued [Page 78] them. As in this nation; our progenitors were all Idolaters as the Brittains, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; The off-spring of some of whom we are: yet God hath continued his Church amongst us a very considerable time. But if we boast of our Covenant holyness and birth priviledges, God may soon unchurch us, and raise up Church members out of stones, as John the Baptist told the Pharisees.

4ly. There is no such Covenant holyness under the Gospel; because that holynesse was a Typical Ceremonial holynesse, such as was in beasts, birds, Garments, oyl, the Altar, temple, yea in the whole land, and therefore called Emanuels land, and no other kind of holyness was in the seed: (let Pedo-Baptists say what they will) all which holyness is now abolished and done away, and that appears thus.

If all uncleaness, and unholyness that was in some beasts, birds, garments, oyl, Altars, Tem­ples, and men &c. be now abolished and done away; then all that cleaness and holyness that was in some beasts, birds, garments, men &c. is also abolished, and done away: But the Antecedent is true Act. 10. as appears by Peters vision; what God hath cleansed, call not thou common or unclean, Ergo, so is the Consequent.

And that there was an uncleaness, commoness, and unholyness in some men, as well as in beasts, birds &c. is evident: For it was not lawfull for a Jew to eat with him that was a Gentile. But now it is not so—If an unbeliever invite thee to a feast, if thou beest disposed thou maiest go. 1 Cor. 10.25.

[Page 79]And that all this Typical, dedicative denomi­native holyness is now abolished appears further;

Because that holyness that sanctifyed the Jews land, City, Temple &c. was Ceremonial only, and so abolished; but that holyness which sancti­fyed the seed was the same and no other, that sanctifyed the land: therefore that holyness which sanctifyed the seed is now abolished.

And if it be said, that the holyness of the seed was not typical and Ceremonial, I prove it thus.

1. If all things under the law were but a fi­gure, and shaddow of good things to come; then the holyness of the seed was but a figure and shadow of good things to come; And so a type.

But the Antecedent is true, as we find in the 9th. and 10th. Chapters of the Hebrews; where all things under the law, all the priviledges of the old Covenant, all the perquisites, dependances and appurtenances are called by such names, as make them evidently appear to be Typical: as first they are called a figure Heb. 9.9. which was a figure for the time then present. So verse 24. For Christ is not entred into the holy place made with hands, which are the figures of the true.

They are called a patern Heb. 9.23. It was ne­cessary that the paterns of the things in the hea­vens &c.

3. They are called a shaddow Heb. 10.1. for the law having a shaddow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things.

So then the holyness of the seed being a depen­dance, an appurtenance, a priviledge of the law, or old Covenant was but a figure, patern, sha­dow; [Page 80] and so Typical, and abolished.

And if you say, if the holyness of the seed was a Type; what did it tipify? I answer:

1. First it typifyed the holyness of Christ who is called the holy child Jesus.

2. It was a type of the holyness of all Abra­hams spiritual seed under the Gospel, true be­lievers, who are made holy by believing in Christ.

But we have heard that when the Jews were broken off, their natural Children were broken off with them; so when the Gentiles are grafted in, their Children are grafted in with them.

You have heard that the children of the unbelieving Jews was not so broken off from the Gospel Church and covenant, and excluded with their parents unbelief, for if any of the children of the unbelieving Jews when they come to years (and children when at years are the seed of their parents, I hope) if I say, those unbelieving Jews children do believe the promise is so made to them, that their parents unbelief cannot exclude them: but if when at years they do not believe, the promise is so made to believers and their seed, as that the parents faith, avails no further then to the ingrafting of himself; but he cannot at all entitle his natural seed, by his single faith to the Gospel Covenant or ordinances: For if it be otherwise, then the natural seed of those thou­sands of Jews that were converted in the primi­tive times, have a birth priviledge, and are holy to this day, upon which they may claim admit­tance [Page 81] unto baptism as well as any; for they may plead as you do and say. Baptism is our right, we are the posterity of those believing Jews mentio­ned Act. 2. And if the first fruits be holy, so [...]s the lump, & if the root be holy, so are the branches. Now we are the lump of these holy first fruits; and the branches of the holy root; yet for all this I believe you would not Baptize them, unlesse they did be­lieve in their own persons. By which you do no lesse then grant what we contend for: that the faith of Ancestors gives no right to their posterity, to stand at all in the Gospel Church and Covenant, but faith in the particular persons. So that the Jews were broken off by unbelief; and thou and thine (O believing Gentile) must stand by faith. Yet not thy seed by thy faith, but thou, thy self, by thine, and they by their own faith. Faith is that by which (thou standing, and not thy seed) hast right to stand in the Church, and not they. But if thy seed have faith, and thou hast none, they have right to stand in the Church, and thou shalt be kept out. By which it appears, that the root may be holy (in a Gospel sence) and not the branches, and the branches may be holy, and not the root: so that your consequence from Rom. 11.16. if the root be holy, so are the branches, is false, and the whole Argument vain and empty.

And if you still say (for nothing will satisfy some persons) that the natural seed may be coun­ted holy, with a denominative, and dedicative holynesse: I answer.

1. That then the first born of every creature both of man & beast is still to be called and coun­ted [Page 82] holy; for these were sanctifyed and holy by dedication as well as the seed. Sanctify unto me all the first born of every creature both of man and beast, they are still to be called and counted holy, for these were sanctifyed, and holy by dedication as well as the seed. See Exod. 13.2. Sanctify un­to me all the first born, whatsoever openeth the womb, amongst the children of Israel, both of man and beast, it is mine. So that you may as well dedi­cate the first born still, and count them holyer then the rest, yea and that with better warrant then you can count the seed of believers, only, holy, because (as you say) you dedicate them to God; there being an in [...]titution for the first, but none for the last; For God no where saith, that believers shall sanctify all their natural seed, whatsoever openeth the womb, for it is mine.

2ly. If the seed be to be accounted holy with a dedicative holynesse, then you may as well count all things holy which were dedicated of old, as Temples, Altars, Tables, Garments, Tapers, Candlesticks, yea the very windows, Fonts, Rails, Copes, Surplices, &c. But this you deny, and have laboured hard both by pen and pulpit to make these holy things unholy: Though those that own this dedicative holynesse still have more to say for Infant-Baptism, then you who disown it in all things else but in the natural seed.

But pray Sirs let me ask you a few questions.

1. Si aliquando, quare non nunc? If so once, why not now? If under the law, why not under the Gospel? The same question you put to us when we deny any birth holynesse in your fleshly [Page 83] seed. So we say concerning Temples, Altars, Garments, &c. Si aliquando, quare non nunc? If so of old, why not now?

2ly, Si aliquid, quare non quicquid? If any thing holy with a dedicative ceremonial holy­nesse, why not every thing? yea, quare non aequa­liter? (if you will Judaize) why not in every thing alike, as it was of old? but I may expect an answer ad Gracas Calendas.

But Sir may not Infants be capable of the main and principal end of Baptism, which our Ministers tells us is the washing away our sins by the blood of Christ? If so, why may they not then be baptized?

There are not wanting learned men that are of another opinion, and say that the blood of Christ is not the main thing signified in Baptism, but that Baptism is a signe of our Regeneration; and that is the principal end of Baptism. And herein I will give you the opinion of Judicious and learned Mr. Mede upon that text Tit. 3.5. By the washing of Water and renewing of the holy Ghost, and shall beg the Readers patience to read his entire sence upon that text. He saith thus.

The words, as it is easy to conceive, upon the first hearing are spoken of Baptism, of which I intend not by this choice to make any full or accurate [...]racta­tion; but only to acquaint you with my thoughts con­cerning two particulars therein: one, from what propriety, analogy, or use of water, the washing therewith was instituted for a signe of new birth, according as it is here called [...] the washing of Regeneration. The other, what is [Page 84] the Countertype or thing which the water figureth in this Sacrament.

I will begin with the last first, because the knowledge thereof must be supposed for the explication and more distinct understanding of the other. In every Sacrament as ye well know, there is the outward Symbol or signe, res terrena, and the signatum fi­gured and represented thereby, res Caelestis. In this of Baptism the signe, or res terrena, is wash­ing with water: the question is what is the signatum, the i [...]visible and celestial thing, which answers thereunto. In our Catechetical explications of this mystery, it is wont to be affirmed to be the blood of Christ; that as water w [...]sheth away the filth of the body, so the blood of Christ cleanseth us from the guilt and pollution of sin. And there is no question but the bloud of Christ is the fountain of all the grace and good communicated to us, either in this or any other Sacrament, or mistery of the Gospel. But that this should be the [...], the counter part, or thing figured by the water in Baptism I believe not, because the Scripture, which must be our guide, and direction in this case, makes it another thing, to wit, the spirit or holy Ghost; this to be that, whereby the soul is cleansed and renewed within, as the body with water is without; so sayth our Saviour to Nicodemus in John. 3. Except a man be born of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And the Apostle in the words I have read, parallels the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the holy Ghost, as Type and Countertype. God (saith he) hath saved us (that is brought us into the state of salvation) by the washing of regeneration, and [Page 85] the renewing of the holy Ghost: Where none, I trow, will deny that he speaks of Baptism. The same was represented by that vision at our Saviours baptism, of the holy Ghosts descending upon him, as he came out of the water, in the similitude of a dove: For I suppose, that in that Baptism of his, the Mi­stery of all our Baptisms was visibly acted; and that God says to every one, truly baptiZed, as he said to him, (in a proportionable sense) thou art my son, in whom I am well pleased.

And how pliable the Analogy of water is to typifie the spirit, will appear by the figuring of the spirit thereby in other places of Scripture; as in that of Isay, I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and flouds upon the dry ground: I will pour my spi­rit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off­spring, where the later expounds the former: Also by the discourse of our Saviour with the samaritan woman, John 4.14. Whosoever (saith he) drink­eth of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up to everlasting life: By that also, John 7.37. where on the last day of the great feast, Jesus stood and said, If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture saith (that is, as the Scripture is wont to expresse it, for otherwise there is no such place of Scripture to be found in all the Bible) out of his belly shall flow rivers of li­ving water. But this (saith the Evangelist) he spake of the spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. Nor did the fathers or ancient Church, as far as I can find suppose any other corre­lative [Page 86] to the element in baptism, but this; of this the speak often, of the bloud of Christ they are altoge­ther silent in their explications of this mistery: ma­ny are the allusions, they seek ou [...] for the illustration thereof, and some perhaps forced, but this of the wa­ter, signifying, or having any relation to the bloud of Christ, never comes amongst them, which were impossible, if they had not supposed some other thing figured by the water, then it; which barred them from falling on that conce [...]t.

The like silence is to be observed in our Liturgy, where the holy Ghost is more [...]en once paralleld with the water in baptism, washing and regeneration at­tributed thereunto; but no such notion of the bloud of Christ; and that the opinion thereof [...] nove [...], may be gathered, because some [...] Divines make it peculiar and proper to the, [...] Cal [...]in.

Whatsoever it be, it hath no [...] in Scrip­ture, and we must n [...] of our own heads assign signi­fications to Sacramental types without some warrant thence. For whereas some conceive those two expres­sions of [...] or sprinkling of the bloud of Christ, and of our being washed from our sins in (or by) his bloud, do intimate some such matter, they are surely mistaken; for those expressions have refe­rence not to the water of Baptism in the new Testa­ment, but to the rise [...] manner of sacrificing in the old; where the Altar was wont to be sprinkled with the bloud of the sacrifices, which were offered, and that which was unclean paris [...]ed with the same bloud: Whence is that elegant a [...]course of S. Paul, (Heb. 9.) comparing the sacrifice of the law, with that of Christ upon the Crosse, as much the better. [Page 87] And that whereas in the law, [...], Almost all things are pu­rified with bloud, so much more the bloud of Christ, who offered himself without spot to God, cleanseth our consciences from dead works: but that this washing, that is, cleansing by the bloud of Christ, should have reference to baptism, where is that to be found? I s [...]ppose they will not alledge the water and bloud, which came out of our Saviours side, when they pierced him; for that is taken to signify the two Sacraments ordained by Christ, that of bloud, the Eucharist; of water, baptism; and not both to be referred to baptism: I add, because perhaps some mens fancies are corrupted therewith, that there was no such thing as sprinkling, or [...] used in bap­tism in the Apostles times, nor many ages after them; and that therefore it is no way probable, that [...] in Peter should have any re­ference to the laver of baptism.

Let this then be our conclusion; thht the bloud of Christ concurrs in the mistery of baptism, by way of efficacy and merit, but not as the thing there figured; which the Scripture tells us not to be the bloud of Christ, but the spirit.

And so I come to my other Quaere, from what pro­perty or use of water, the washing therewith is a Sa­crament of our new birth, for so it is here called the washing of Regeneration; & our Saviour says to Ni­codemus, except a man be born of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For in every Sacrament there some Analogy between what is outwardly done, and what is thereby signified: therefore in this. But what should it be? [Page 88] It is a thing of some moment, and yet in the tractats of this mist [...]ry, but little or seldom enquired after; and therefore deserves the more consideration. I an­swer, this [...]alogy between the washing with water, and regeneration lies in that custome of washing in­fants from the pollutions of the womb, when they are first born, for this is the first office done unto them when they come out of the womb, if they purpose to nourish and bring them up. As therefore in our na­tural birth, the body is washt with water from the pol­lutions wherewith it com [...]s into the world: so in our second birth from above the soul is purified by the spi­rit from the guilt and p [...]tion of sin, to begin a new life to God-ward.

The Analogy you see is apt and proper, if that be true of the Custome [...]hereof there is no cause to make question; for the use at present, any man, I think, knows how to inform himself. For that of elder times, I can produce two pregnant and notable testimonies; one of the Jews and people of God; ano­ther of the Gentiles. The first you shall finde in the 16. Chapter of Ezekiel, where God describes the poor and forlorn condition of Jerusalem, when he first took her to himself, under the parable of an ex­posed Infant; As for thy Nativity, (saith he) in the day thou wast born, thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water, to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swadled at all, no eye pitied thee, none to do any of these things unto thee, to have compassion on thee; but thou wast cast out in open field, to the loath­ing of thy person in the day that thou wast born. Here you may learn what was wont to be done unto [Page 89] infants at their nativity, by that which was not done to Israel, till God himself to [...]k pitty on her, cutting of the Navel string, washing, salting, swadling: upon this place, S. Hierome takes notice (but scarce any body else, that I can yet finde) that our Saviour, where speaking of Baptism he says, Except a man be born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; alludes to the custome here mentioned of washing Infants at their Nati­vity.

The other testimony (and that most pertinent to the application we make) I finde in a story related by Plutarch, in his Questiones Romanae, not far from the beginning, in this manner.

Among the Greeks, if one that were living were reported to be dead and funeral obsequies performed for him, if afterwards he returned alive, he was of all men abominated, as a prophane aad unlucky per­son; No man would come into his company, and (which was the highest degree of calamity) they ex­cluded him from their Temples, and the sacrifices of their Gods: it chanced that one Aristinus being fallen into the like disaster, and not knowing which way to expiate himself therefrom, sent to the Oracle at Delphos to Apollo, beseeching him to shew him the means whereby he might be freed and discharged thereof; Pythia gave him this Answer.

[...]. What women do, when one in childbed lyes, That do again, so maist thou sacrifice.

Aristinus rightly apprehending what the Oracle meant, offered himself to women, as one newly brought [Page 90] forth to be washed again with water; from which Example it grew a custome among the Greeks, when the like misfortune befell any man, after this man­ner to expiate them; they called them Hysteropot­mi, or Postliminio nati: How well doth this befit the mystery of Baptism? where those who were dead to God through sin are like Hysteropotmi, regene­rate and born again by water, and the holy Ghost.

These two passages discover sufficiently the Ana­logy of the washing with water in Baptism, to re­generation or new birth; according as the text, I have chosen for the Scope of my discourse, exppesseth it; namely, that washing with water is a signe of spiritual Infancy; for as much as Infants are wont to be washed, when they came first into the world.

Hence the Jews before John the Baptist came a­mongst them, were wont by this rite to initiate such, as they made Proselytes, (to wit) as becoming In­fants again, and entring into a new life and being, which before they had not. That, which here I have affirmed, will be yet more evident, if we consider those other rites anciently added and used in the ce­lebration of this mystery, which had the self same end we speak of; to wit, to signify spiritual Infancy. I will name them, and so conclude; as th [...]t of giving the new baptized milk and hony, ad infantandum, as Tertullian speaks, ad infantiae significationem, so S. Hierome; because the like was used to Infants New born; according to that in the 7th. of Isay. of Immanuels infancy; A virgin shall conceive and bear a son, butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse evil and choose good. Secondly, that of Salt, as is implyed in that of [Page 91] Ezekiel, thou wast not washed with water, nor salted with salt: That of putting on the white gar­ment, to resemble swadling: all these were ancient­ly (especially the first) used in the Sacrament of our spiritual birth, out of reference to that which was done to Infants at their natural birth; who then can doubt but the principal rite of washing with water, the only one ordained by our blessed Saviour, was chosen for the same reason? to be the element of our Initiation; and that those who brought in the other, did so conceive of this; and from thence derived those imitations.

Thus for Mr Mede. From whom we learn these truths.

1. That it not lawful to assigne significations to sacramental Types (of our own heads) with­out warrant from the Scriptures.

2. That in every Sacrament there is the signe, and the thing signified, res terrena, & res caelestis.

3. That in Baptism there is an Invisible and cae­lestial thing signified.

4. That though the blood of Christ is the foun­tain and cause of all that grace and good we re­ceive in Baptism, yet it is not the thing signified by the water in Baptism; but the spirit cleansing the soul from sin in the work of Regeneration, according to Tit. 3.5.

5. That in the Baptism of Christ the mistery of all our Baptism was visibly acted.

6. That God says to every one (truly Bapti­zed (as he said to Christ (in a proportionable sence) thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.

[Page 92]7. That there is a plain Analogy between wa­ter and the spirit, confirmed by divers Scrip­tures: But not so, between the water in Bap­tism, and the blood of Christ.

8. That the Fathers and primitive Church did not suppose any other correlative to the wa­ter in Baptism, but the spirit, though they did allude to Christs blood for illustration thereof.

9. That in our Liturgy the water in Baptism, is made to signifie the holy spirit in our Regene­ration: But not the Blood of Christ.

10. That there was no such thing as [...] or sprinkling used in the Apostles times, nor ma­ny ages after.

11. That the Analogy between washing with water in Baptism, and Regeneration, appears from the custome of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb, when first born, accord­ing to the practice of Jews and Gentiles.

12. That the Fathers and ancient Church did use to give the new baptized Milk and honey, and put white garments on them, to signify their spi­ritual birth, out of reference to that which was done to infants at their natural birth.

From all which you see that baptism is not so much a sign of purging our sins by the bloud of Christ; though that concurs by way of merit and efficacy, but is not the thing there signifi'd or figu­red: & then to what purpose are infants baptized?

Thus you see how this learned man (ere he was aware) hath spoyl'd Infant-Baptism: for if baptism be a symbol of regeneration (as un­doubtedly it is) then unless you say (and that [Page 93] from Scripture grounds) that your infants are regenerated, or seem so to be, baptism doth not at all belong to them.

And it will no ways help you to say, that the Baptists do baptize some persons that are not re­generated; for it is enough to warrant our pra­ctise, if they profess so to be; and give us those Scripture characters, i.e. actuall faith, and Re­pentance.

But pray Sir what think you of the Co­venant made to Abraham and his natural seed, what kind of Covenant was it?

I confess there are various opinions about it; some say it was a Covenant of grace; others, a Covenant of works, others, a mixt Covenant: But surely that Covenant made with Abraham, and his natural seed called the Covenant of Cir­cumcision, or Covenant of the Law was not the Covenant of Eternal life and salvation, which was made with all the elect in Christ upon the condition of faith: but a distinct Cove­nant of it self concerning the worship and service of God, and so may be called a Covenant of works, rather then a Covenant of grace; though there was also grace in it, as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with men—yet we say, it was a distinct Covenant, and therefore called the old Covenant, and the Covenant of grace the new Covenant.

And if you say the Covenant of grace was the same in all ages under various administrations, we confess it, and say that the Covenant of grace was made to Adam after the fall, to the Patri­archs, [Page 94] and to Abraham, before the Covenant of Circumcision was mentioned, and is the same to us now. But, as ours, its called new, (or re­newed) yet it doth not follow, but this Cove­nant of Circumcision was a distinct Covenant still; for Abraham and all believers in that age, were in the Covenant of grace before this Cove­nant was made; and would have been so, if the Covenant of Circumcision had never been. And if you demand then, why the Covenant of works is called the old Covenant, and the Covenant of grace, the new?

1. I answer, because of its priority, it being the first Covenant God made with man before the fall, as Protestant Divines say; that God made a Covenant of works with Adam, concern­ing perfect obedience, which he had then power to perform. And some think God renewed this Covenant of works after the fall, as appears by the sacrifices that Adam, Abel, &c. offered; and from that Scripture, if thou dost well, shalt not thou be accepted; if not, sin lyes at the door. And afterwards this Covenant of works or Cove­nant concerning worship is renewed to Abraham, and his posterity.

2. It is called the old Covenant in respect to its deteriority, it being a Covenant found fault with, as the Scripture saith.

3. In respect to its decaying and perishing na­ture; it was not durable or lasting, as the Apo­stle saith, that which decayeh and waxeth old is rea­dy to perish, meaning this Covenant.—And the Covenant of grace is called the new Covenant.

[Page 95]First, because of its meliority, or bitterness, it is more excellent, as the new heavens and the new earth that God will make will be more ex­cellent then the old.

2. In opposition to the old, as appears Heb. 8.8. when God says he will make a new Covenant, he adds, not according to the Covenant, when I brought your fathers out of Egipt, which was by virtue of the Covenant made with Abraham.

3. In respect to its perpetuity and duration, it is the everlasting Covenant: the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed is vanished and done away, but this remains, as the Apostle says: if that which was done away was glorious, how much more that which remains. That which was done away was the old Covenant, or Covenant made with Abraham, and his natural seed with all the priviledges of it. And that which remains is the new Covenant, or promise of eternal life made in Jesus to all believers.

4. It is called the new Covenant, as to us, be­cause renewed in a more Gospel and glorious manner. So that we are indeed still under the same Covenant of grace made with Adam and all the partriarchs: but not under the same Covenant of works made with Abraham and his natural seed.

But further, that you may know what the Co­venant made with Abraham was, take the opi­nion of a late learned Author

The old Covenant (saith he) was a political Co­venant made with the Jews, as Princes compacts are with their people when they first set up Government: God promises them his protection, and that he would [Page 96] lead them to a fruitful land, overcome all their ene­mies, &c. with the like blessings. And they promise they will be ruled by him, &c. To this purpose did God in sundry ways appear to them, To Moses, to their elders, to them all in the cloud and fire, and then causes a Tabernacle to be made for him; which was a keeping house amongst them, where the sacri­fices and offerings were his provisions, and the Priests his servants that lived on him. And unto that Ta­bernacle and Ark, might they repair for counsel and Judgment. This people then, being under a Theocracy, which Samuel does in two places ex­presly signify (at least unto the time of Saul) so that the Church and Common-wealth of the Jews were but one. It is no wonder if Religion be made their laws and so required of them together with other po­litical Ordinances and statutes for their happinesse and publick peace as a nation.

And though in their ceremonial offerings and Priests appointmens there was a remembrance still of sin; yet had they Types of Christ, of remedying mer­cy, and of the glory to come.

Their sacrifices as I have said serve to the main­tenance of this house, the Tabernacle and Temple which he was pleased to keep up amongst them for a time, God indeed making use of these, for Types and representations of other things, that is to say spiritual, and so the law being a Paedagogy under a temporal dispensation, leading men to Christ. So far my Author.

But God hath quite pulled down this house, brake up house-keeping as we say, and turned the servants, Infants and all out of doors Rom. 11. [Page 97] The natural branches are broken off—and Heb. 8.13. That which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish. And saith the Apostle, if that which was done away was glorious &c. what was that but this old house with all the priviledges of it?

But now God hath built him a new house into which he hath admitted none as his houshold ser­vants but believers or such as profess so to be. And these two houses are mentioned Heb. 3.2, 3, 4. where one is called Moses his house, and the other Christs house: As Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was accounted worthy of more honour then Moses; in as much as he that hath buil­ded the house, hath more honour, then the house. Moses was faithful as a servant but Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence &c. where the servants are al­so described, they are belivers, not infants, hence they are also called living stones, and a spiritual house 1 Pet. 2.3.

And that none but such are of this houshold ap­pears, in that Christ the great Master of this house is compared to a king travelling into a far Coun­try, who called his servants, (all his servants) and delivered unto them his goods, that is, Cer­tain Talents to improve Math. 25.14, 15. which cannot be supposed to be delivered to infants while they want the use of reason; for these [...]a­lents are presently to be improv'd and laid out, not laid up.

So again Christ is compared to a house-keeper who made a great supper, and invited his guests, but they were not infants, because the first that were [Page 98] invited made excuses. The next are compeld to come in, which supposes an unwillingness in the parties, and that they were persons capable to consent or deny. The summe of all is, that the old house the Jewish Church, with all the appurte­nances and priviledges of it, is pulled down, and a new one built, into which infants are not ad­mitted, because not invited nor appointed by any law. They were of the houshold of old, but it was by a positive law; shew us the like now, or you say nothing. Sure I am there is no instituti­on that makes infants now fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the houshold of God: Neither are they so to be accounted till they believe, and are able to do service in the house.

And if you say, that amongst men, infants are counted of the houshold though they can do no service; I answer; that comparison does not run upon four feet, it doth not follow, that, because we count our infants of our family, therefore they are to be accounted members of Gods family, the Gospel Church, unless God by any instituti­on had made them so. The houshold of God is called the houshold of faith; do good unto all, especially the houshold of faith; or a house con­sisting of believers: now, unless you prove your infants to be believers they are not of this house: For all the servants here must be believers either really, or Historically and professedly, which infants cannot be. And it will not help you to say the Church was (or may be) called the hou­should of faith synecdochically, from the greatest part; for it is evident all the materialls of the first [Page 99] Churches were adult persons, and professed be­lievers as appears by the narrative we have in the Acts of the Apostles, the direction of all the E­pistles, and divers Scriptures. Besides it may so happen that the infants may be the greatest part of a Congregation, and then where is your hou­shold of faith?

But Mr. Wills tells us, that Mr. Baxter saith; That Infant Church membership did take place as an ordinance of God, before Circumcision was enjoyned, or the Ceremonial law instituted, and why then should it cease with it? It was no part of the typical administration, but a moral institution of God even from the beginning of the world. God e­ver made a distinction between the seed of the faith­ful and the seed of the wicked, as visibly belonging to several kingdomes of God, and of Satan. Mal. 2.15. Therefore they are called a holy seed. Wills pag. 54.

Here is vox & praeterea nihil. 'Tis true Mr. Baxter saith so; but if it be warrant enough for Mr. Wills to believe it, it is not for me. It is strange, of what authority some mens words are when they have got the estimation of Orthodox and pious; and we have no great cause to won­der at the implicite faith of the Church of Rome, when an ipse dixit, from an English oracle com­mands such credit, and vassals us to their raw and undigested dictates. But let us examine this as­sertion.

He saith, that Infant Church-membership did take place as an ordinance of God, before Circum­cision &c. But where is that ordinance? why are [Page 100] we not directed to some place of Scripture where we may find it? Did God make Mr. Baxter of his Cabinet Councel, and reveal it to him, and no body else? Or in what Ancient father did he find it? Did any one ever say so before him?

2. He saith, that it was no part of the typical Administration, but a moral institution of God &c.

I answer; there hath been enough said to prove the fallacy and novelty of this position. Therefore I referr you to what hath been written. But he saith, it is a moral institution.—We still de­mand, where we shall find that institution, or else wee'l say, Mr. Baxter is wise above what is written.

3. He saith God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful, and the seed of the wicked. —But what distinction? Did God single them out, and separate them by any visible sign or character before the law of Circumcision? It is evidently known he did not.—Or did God di­stinguish them by his providential care of them, or provision for them more then others? The Scripture is silent as to this also.—Or did God love them with a saving love more then the chil­dren of unbelievers? This seems to be his mean­ing, because of his next words—as visibly be­longing to several kingdoms, of God, and Satan.

But is it so? Did all the children of believers from Adam to Abraham belong to the kingdom of God? and all the children of unbelievers be­long to the kingdom of the Devil? If it be Mr. Baxters Divinity, or M. Wills charity, it shall be none of mine. But he thinks to salve all with the [Page 101] word [visibly] But pray when the sons of God took the Daughters of men, and all flesh had cor­cupted its ways, to what kingdom did they be­long? Did not the seed of believers grow pro­phane and wicked, and the seed of unbelievers pious and Godly? as appears in divers, even A­braham himself, whose father was an Idolater, as is probably supposed (he himself being bred up in Idolatry) But Mr. Baxter hath some Scripture for his warrant, and it is Mal. 2.15.—that he might seek a godly seed—But he that can find in­fants Church-membership in this text, and that the seed of believers did always belong visibly to the kingdom of God, and all others to the king­dom of the Devil—erit mihi magnus Apollo.

What though God says, he that s [...]ught a godly feed, therefore let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth; implying that children born in lawful wedlock are this Godly seed? Let none, whether believer or unbeliever—unless you hold, that children of unbelivers may not be a godly seed.

But these are such Non sequiturs, that it is in vain to spend further time about them.

So that the Morality of Infants Church-mem­bership is a very fancy. And that which Mr. Bax­ter drives at, can never be prov'd, viz. that there was a lineal successive conveyance of grace from the parent to the child: If so, it is strange that all flesh should so soon have corrupted its ways, that God saw cause to bring the flood upon the world of ungodly.

Surely had there been any such Covenant ho­lyness [Page 102] as the Poedo-Baptists dream of, before the flood; there would have been some godly socie­ty, some greater number of believers, to have been preserv'd besides Noah and his Family, who were not all godly neither; there was a Cham a­mong them, which would not have been if there were such a conveyance of grace and Covenant holyness from the Father to the son.

So that notwithstanding what hath been said, Infant Church-membership came in with the law of Circumcision, and went out and was re­pealed with it, as hath been abundantly proved For when there was a change of the Priesthood, there was a change of the law, which must needs include Circumcision with all the appurtenances and pri­viledges belonging to it.

But what think you of that principle that some told, that Infants are Church-mem­bers before they are baptized? so Mr. Wills pag. 27. saith.

The first and chief end of Baptism is to be the in­itiating sign and seal of Gods Covenant, and favour to us in Christ, and not to give an entrance or ad­mission into the Church. Ʋnless persons are to be re­puted members of the Church, they are not to be bap­tized: For Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our being already ingrafted into Christ, and con­sequently into the Church. For which he Quotes Dr. Ames. And pag. 45. We deny saith he, that Bap­tism doth give Formality, or make a man a member of a visible Church, though that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism, the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church, and have ascribed [Page 103] our admission or entrance into it, thereunto pag. 46. To which I answer.

It seems then, that Mr. Wills is wiser then his orthodox Divines.

2. If Baptism be a sign of our being already in Christ, and so members of the Church before they are Baptized; Then I hope our children may be in Christ, & reputed members of the Church, though they are not Baptized. And then what need is there of these clamours against the Baptists for keeping their children out of the Church, and (in as much as in them lyes) hindring their salvation, when they are in Christ, and members of his Church before Baptism, by vertue of their pa­rents faith? And if you say, we deny them a pri­viledge that is due to them; We say, we do not: Our great desire is they should be Baptized, and do instruct them in the principles of Christianity for that end; that as soon as they are capable to improve the priviledge they may have it. And as for the Circumstance of time your selves say, that is not materal, w [...]e [...]her it be done on the 8th. 10th. or 20th. day, and why may not the Baptists deferr it to the 20th. year, there being as much warrant in Scriptures for the one as for the other, though indeed no positive rule for either, only the time of believing is the most certain time assigned for Baptism.

3. But thirdly Mr Wills spoiles all he has said, and contradicts himself pag. 229. where he saith, that as Circumcision gave entrance into the Church of the Jews, so are believers and their seed by Bap­tism entred into the Gospel Church. And it will not [Page 104] help him to say, that Infants by vertue of their pa­rents faith are only members of the universal visible Church (as he calls it) before Baptism, but not of any particular Church: For he himself saith, that he that is a member of the universal Church, may at any time claim his priviledge in any particular Church.

What confusion is here! sometimes Baptism gives not admittance into the Church, but they are members of the Church before as pag. 27, 28. And then again that believers and their seed are by Baptism admitted into particular Church­es; at another place that Baptism only admits them into the Universal visible Church. I think Mr Wills has little hopes to reconcile the Baptist [...] and the Poedo-Baptists, seeing he is not reconciled to himself.

But as to the principle you mention that persons may be Church members before they are Baptized: Its true Mr Wills makes a great stir against Mr Paul and others, whom he calls rigid Anabaptists because they cannot see any ground to admit persons to the supper before Baptism. And there­fore labours hard to prove that which he confesses Orthodox divines are against, yet he would be singular, and force this novelty upon the world, which himself & but few others have of late con­tended for. But what would the man have? sup­pose a Turk or a Jew should be converted, would he admit them to the supper before Baptism? and so own them Church members, whether ever they were baptised or not? God strictly commanded of old, that no uncircumcised person should eate [Page 105] the passeover: And what rule have you that un­baptized persons should be admitted to the sup­per? But he tells us this is the opinion only of some rigid Anabaptist, and thinks there to shel­ter himself. Indeed Mr Iessey, and some other good men were of that opinion, that some per­sons might be admitted to the supper who were not yet convinced, but that their Infant-Baptism was true Baptism. But why must all others be counted rigid Anabaptists because they cannot see with other mens eyes? But this is one of the many scurrilous reflections in Mr Wills's Book, to supply the scarcity of Argument. I could tell him of some rigid Independents, and rigid Presby­terians too, who are so far from having Commu­nion with the Baptists, that they would pluck up such Tares (so they account them) out of the [...]ield of the world, and that before the harvest, contrary to the expresse words of our Saviour. Let both grow together till the harvest: And the reason is very cogent; lest plucking up the tares, you pluck up the wheat also. But Mr Wills makes a­mends for this and tells us, that some of the Bap­tists are godly, liberal men, of holy and pious con­versations and such whom he could have com­munion with; but this is Joabs curtesy, who sa­lutes Abner friendly, but smote him under the fifth ribb. And I may say Meliora sunt amici vulnera, quàm inimici oscula. The many hard speeches, and uncomely reflections, the so often mentioning the miscariages of the people in Germany he calls by that denomination shew what gall his pen was dipt in. But for all these things I say, The Lord for­give him.

Sir I thank you for this discourse and the pains you have taken in order to my satisfaction. I confesse I finde my self more convinc'd then I was; and do think you are of the surest side, it being most certain that believers were and ought to be baptized; but whether any Infants were or ought, is very uncertain. And surely it is safest (in controverted matters) to adhere to that side that is most certain. Besides there are two things that I am much stumbled at.

The First, is the great ignorance of the mem­bers of the Paedo-baptist congregations in this matter: Not one amongst many, is able to prove Infant-Baptism, or to answer your Arguments, but are forced to referr the matter to their mini­sters: whereas, hardly any amongst you, but are able to give a satisfactory reason of their hope in this thing; and can presently prove believers Baptism from Scripture precept and example. As of old if a heathen had demanded of any Jew the reason and Ground of his circumcision, he could presently turn to the 17th. of Genesis, and there prove it from a positive command of God. But if a heathen should ask us, why we baptize our In­fants, we that are but ordinary persons know not how to satisfy him; we cannot direct him to any Scripture where it is written: Which is strange, that a Gospel ordinance should be left so dark and intricate, and the ordinance of circumcision under the law, be so plain and obvious that eve­ry child of any reason could presently shew the ground of it. This makes me suspect the truth of it; because the Apostle says he used great [Page 107] plainesse of speech, and not as Moses who put a vail upon his face, &c. surely Gospel Ordinan­ces should be so plain, especially as to the sub­jects, that he that runs may read them.

2ly. The next thing that offends me is the great difference amongst Ministers, about the ground of Infant-Baptism, as if they knew not where to fasten it, what basis to build it upon, some (as Mr Danvers observes) draw it from the Univer­sality of grace, and the necessity of Baptism to salvation, as Cyprian and others.

Some from the faith of the Church; some from a supposed seminal faith that may be in the child.

Some from the faith of the parents; others from the faith of the sureties; some (if the im­mediate parents be not Godly) think the faith of the Grand-father, or great-Grand-father may serve.

Some upon the account of Covenant holynesse, or the promise made to Abraham and his seed; others, if both, or one of the parents be a mem­ber of a gathered Church. Some think they are born members of the visible Church by vertue of their parents faith, and so may be baptized.

Besides this there is a great difference about baptizing of bastards: some think if the father repent, the child may be baptized; others think otherwise, because a Bastard was not to enter into the Congregation to the 10th. generation; and so about the children of excommunicate per­sons, &c. All which makes us fear that we are out of the way, and our leaders have caused us to err seeing they cannot agree, upon what ground [Page 108] to baptise our Infants. Its true Mr Wills pretends to answer this, but very weakly: he tells us the baptists differ amongst themselves about the ground of their practise; but sure I am there is no such material difference as there's amongst us.

You are all agreed that the profession of faith and Repentance is the ground of Baptism, and if some desire a larger confession then others, and signes of grace, I think it is no great error, but rather an evidence of zeal to God, and good to the parties soul. But what is this to those materi­al and essential differences before mentioned?

These things will put me upon further search, and I hope what you have said will be of advan­tage to me. In the mean time I take leave and bid you farewell.