The Covenant and Church Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism

CHAP. 1. Sect. I. The Explication of 1 Cor. 7. 14.

THE Church of Corinth, having written to Paul about some cases of conscience touching matrimony, with which some of the members had acquainted the Church; the Apostle in this Chapter returneth answer thereunto from Vers. 1. to 15. To the first question, Whether a Christian in such a time as then it was, might marry, he answereth affirmatively, they may, Vers. 1, 2. The second question, What due benevolence Christian yokefellows do owe to each other, is answered, Vers. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. A third case, much like to the first, viz. How far it is meet for widowers, or other unmarried persons to remain so, is answered further, Vers. 8. 9. A fourth case, touching the lawfulness or unlawfulness of divorce, is answered, Vers. 10. 11. A fifth case, Whether persons being unequally yoked, the believing party may abide with the Infidel, or with a good conscience may continue cohabitation and communion; this is answered from Vers. 11. to the 25. In which answer, you have first, The Instructor, viz. not the Lord Jesus immediately and personally, who albeit he spake by word of mouth to that other case of divorce, Matth. 5. 39. and 19 9. yet to this other case last mentioned, he expressly spake not (not the Lord) but I Paul, speak rather expressly by word of mouth to this last case, albeit what I also herein speak, I speak by divine Inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord, Vers. 40. Secondly, you have the matter of this divine mandatory answer; and therein, 1. An Inhibition of any such refusal of desired conjugal communion and cohabitation with an Infidel yoke-fellow, verse. 12, 13 This he confirmeth by 4 reasons. 1. Because no pollution of conscience ariseth from such conjugal cohabitation unto the believing party, but rather a sanctification of the infidel. 2. Because inward and outward peace is furthered by such cohabitation Ver. 15. 3. Because thereby an opportunity is offered of gaining the Infidel party to the faith, Vers. 16. 4. Because each Christian is bound to be content with their calling, Vers. 17. whether respecting national, Vers. 18, 19, 20. or personal references, Vers. 21, 22, 23, 24. 2 A • oleration and grant of liberty in a passive way, in case of being willfully and hatefully rejected by an Infidel spouse, to the believing party. This rather needing the check and bit, then the loosing of the reins, he doth but touch it. In the first reason of the Inhibition lay the weight of the scruple of sundry of the Corinthian Church-members troubled consciences, and therefore Paul backeth that reason with another distinct reason to confirm it, in the later end of the fourteenth Vers. viz. else were, &c. but now, &c. where the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in Argumentations, as 1 Cor. 5. 10. and the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in like sort used 1 Cor. 12. 18. 20. so Rom. 3. 21. Heb. 8. 6. and 9. 26. and 11. 16. do declare that that sentence is annexed in way of Argument to the proposition immediately before.

SECT. II.

ERe we launch into this deep, so variously coasted and sounded, let us premise some few things.

1. That the persons moving this scruple, were not persons then to marry, as if that were inquired: whether it were meet for a believing party to match with an Infidel, forbidden 2 Cor. 6. but they were parties actually married, husband and wife.

2. That such as moved the case, were not couples whereof both were Infidels, and out of the Church: nor yet both visibly believing and in Church-fellowship: but persons unequally yoked; one believing Christian, and of the Church: the other Infidel, Pagan, and without.

3. That it was not the case properly and originally of the whole Church, but of some members in it, like as the former cases about persons which were to marry were the cases only of some.

4. That the ground of the believing parties scruple touching abiding in a conjugal way with their Infidel Yokefellowes lay in their perplexing fear, lest their souls might come to be thereby polluted; as having fellowship with such whose unbelief of it self tended to make such a course in it self lawful to become unsanctified, Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 15. 8. and 21. 4. And some other way they doubted they might run hazard of participation and reflection of guilt by intimacy of Communion, as Nebem. 13. 25, 26. or the like.

5. That the whole Church of Corinth engaged and embarked themselves in this case of some of their particular members, so far as to write for satisfaction about it, 2 Cor. 1. 2. compared with Chap. 7. 1, &c.

6. That by the words foregoing, husband, wife, is intended only the believing parties, whether husband or wife: and that also they were considered in this passage, of such, as to, in, or by whom the Infidel parties were sanctified, not merely as husbands and wives, but as believing. The former I think none will deny: For what had the Church to do with those couples whereof both were without? or what likelihood was it, that Pagan couples should scruple such abode upon any ground of pollution of conscience, which they feared? Besides, the occasion of this Vers. 12. The husband having such a wife is expressly called a brother, verse. 15. in the resolution of the matter in case of willful rejection, what liberty may be taken: The parties chiefly interested, are called by the name of brother and sister. The second is as evident, that in this case, they are considered as believers, both by the opposition of them to the unbelieving parties, in regard of whom they scrupled pollution: and in that that being sanctified, is not appropriated in any way of efficiency to the unbelievers; thus. The wife is sanctified to, in, or by the unbelieving husband, or the husband is sanctified, to, in, or by the unbelieving wife; as if the unbelieving party were chief in this; but contrariwise, rather the unbelieving husband is sanctified in, to, or by the wife, &c. Finally, when in the 16. verse the case is understood of a person, which is as well a believer, as an husband or wife, by whom it's said the other infidel party may come to be saved, yet that party is barely named wife or husband, not believing wife or husband; will any now say, that there can be no other reason thereof rendered, but this; that albeit the party intended were both an husband or wife, and a believer: yet in that particular the party is considered, not as a believer, but as an husband or wife? I suppose here the absurdity would be so gross, that none would own it, no more let any truly judicious speak that way of that here mentioned; the unbelieving husband is sanctified by, or to, or in the wife.

7. That the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are thus to be understood, by the particle [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] in, or to, or by, as our translators have rendered it, for so also that particle is frequently used, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , per, or by, as John 1. 4. life in, or by him: So Rom. 5. 15. The Gift, in or by grace: So 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. in one verse, 'tis by man, and by man, verse 22. expressed, die in Adam, in Christ made alive, or by him. So, 2 Cor. 6. 6, 7. in or by knowledge pureness, &c. and verse. 7. in, or by the word of truth, there 'tis [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] in the next phrase it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In the same sense by the power of God, &c. But I contend not, if rendered in, or to, the husband or wife.

By [ Sanctified ] is not meant made Gratious, or Converted. This might be possible, verse. 16. yet uncertain; not known: but this is so, de praesenti, the unbelieving husband is sanctified.

2. Nor is it meant barely, being made a lawful husband or wife, of whom the other party might make lawful use: John Spilsbury is right in that: That the Corinthians never scrupled that, but that marriage fellowship was honorable, and the bed undefiled. This was so, to and among all, Pagan or Christian, equally or unequally yoked in the days of the Author to the Hebrews, Heb. 13. 4. This was no such puzzling case, that they need write to an Apostle so solemnly about it from learned Corinth, where they had so much, if not too much civil and common Law. And to what purpose were it to make so narrow a Plaister, as that of civil lawfulness of conjugal use to so broad a sore, as a troubled conscience: knowing, that many things may be by civil Laws lawful, yet tender consciences dare not take liberty to make use thereof accordingly▪ some Laws, even amongst God's people, were made rather for their hardness of heart, as that of divorce, Matth. 19. 8. then otherwise; yea this was to give Physic which did not suite with the malady: The Corinthians not being troubled about the matter of lawfulness of marriage fellowship. That bed was to all Corinthians, as well as others, counted in it self undefiled. But rather, whether that use was sanctified to them; so, as that which was in it self lawful, did not by the Infidels sin become defiled, yea, so far, as that they partaking with them in that marriage use, should partake with them in some defilement of conscience. The Apostle when speaking to the case as believers were Interested in it, he saith more in that, the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified to the other party; then thus: that such become lawful husband or wife to such, or their conjugal use lawful. Believers in all lawful things have all which others have, scil. lawful use thereof: as men: but they have more then any unbelieving Infidel persons have, or can have, whilst Infidel, even a holy use thereof also as believers; To the pure all things are pure: scil. not only lawful, for so meat, and drink, and physic, and marriage, &c. are to others, but holy in and for the use thereof: Each one which hath a lawful use of a person or thing, hath not therefore an holy use thereof. To the impure and unbelieving many things, as plowing, apparel, conjugal cohabitation, &c. are in themselves lawful, yet nothing is pure to them, but their consciences are defiled in the use thereof, Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 24. 4. whether the promise give right to such and such blessings, or no, or whether ever the blessing of the blessings be pleaded for in prayer, or no, men may have a lawful use of their meat and sleep, &c but such have the holy use, or everything is sanctified to such by the word and prayer, which improve the same for that end, 1 Tim. 4. 5. for so he giveth meat to them which fear him, as mindful of his covenant, Psal. 111. 5. and so he giveth his beloved sleep, Psal. 127. 2.

The eighth and last thing premised is, that the Apostle in the Argument which he useth here to confirm that of such yokefellows, being thus sanctified to, or by the believing parties, he changeth the person, from the third to the second: as concerning and nearly touching the body of the Church collectively; especially such as were parents and had children. The case might originally respect some few: yea, but he argueth about it not thus: Else their children were unclean, &c. but else your children were unclean, but now are they holy, as extending it to all the children of the Church, and to the children of the members of it, whether the parents were both fathers and mothers of the Church, as it was the case of many, or whether the fathers or mothers only were in the Church, which was the case of some.

SECT. III.

ANd now to ascend the Watch-Tower. Albeit Gigantine Casuists have done worthily, yet let a dwarf on their shoulders mention what roaving fancies he discovers to miss, and what explication he observeth to hold a right and straight course, and to weather, and directly to fall in with, and come up to the point of divine truth, circumscribed in the clause mentioned, [Else your children were unclean, but now they are holy.]

And here, but barely to name explications of the words, unclean, and holy, to which our opposites stick not: As when holy is used as opposed to corporally unclean by actual lusts; as 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Thess. 4. 4. or holy, as actually holy for office, Numb 16. 7. or holy, for a person borne without sin, and so not inherently unclean: So only the Child Jesus, was not unclean, but holy, Act. 3. Prov. 20. Job 23. Albeit, grosser Anabaptists some of them have not doubted to affirm this of other children also; or holy for one personally holy, or truly gracious and godly, we contend not to determine of all believers children, that they are thus. Albeit, we are charitable in our thoughts and hopes this way, of this or that particular child: or holy, for persons elected or saved: we do not positively affirm this neither of all them considered together: Albeit we hope the best of the particular children presented to us: and yet we judge that a most unsound and uncharitable speech of I. S. in his book against Infants-Baptism, p. 3. That Infants in respect of their nonage are neither subjects of election, nor subjects capable of glory; Contrary to that Rom. 9. 10, 11, 12. Isaiah 65. 20. some believers Infants die Infants: will any say, they are all damned? God forbid. Yea, but if supposed to be saved, then to be glorified, unless some Limbus Infantum be imagined, which is neither the place of glory, nor of damnation. And if supposed to come to glory, they are capable subjects of it, unless God order any to glory, whom he fitteth not for it. If supposed to be said, then also elected, and so subjects of election, or persons in whom election is partly subjected; unless it be supposed either that some reprobates, or persons not elected, nor capable of being elected are saved, or that there is some middle state betwixt Jacob have I loved before he had done good, & Esau have I hated or rejected before he had done actually evil. Contrary to Rom. 9. And supposing that such Infants dying Infants, are elected and glorified, it must be concluded, that as Infants, they were subjects of election, and are capable of glory, unless any will fondly imagine that God in choosing them eyed them as other persons then ever they lived to become, or glorified other persons, then ever they were in glorifying of them; for dying Infants they never came to be other then Infants.

Nor by holy, is meant ceremonially holy; of which holiness the Apostle speaketh, as is evident by the mention of the instrumental means of sprinkling of bulls and goats blood, Heb. 9. 13. which Mr. B. would seem to draw as if intended of outward holiness now visible to the Church, when it's evidently spoken of that branch of Jewish ceremonial holiness now abrogated.

Nor by holy, is meant here persons which possibly may be converted; but this is but a may be in respect of all such children: whereas the Apostle saith peremptorily, they are, not they may be holy.

Nor by holy, is meant persons that may be religiously educated, as I do not remember such use of the word holy in Scripture: however, it is not here the thing intended; for the Apostle positively saith, they are, not, they may be holy; whereas many believers babes never live to be holy by holy education.

Others expound it thus, in reference to that inhibited separation, verse 12, 13. that if you stay together, the children will be counted legitimate, but if you part, they will be accounted bastards. This is far-fetched, nor de jure, in cases of lawful divorce for adultery, ought the children begot of the divorced Wife in lawful wedlock before her adulterous pranks, and divorce for it, be counted bastards.

SECT. IV.

BUt there are three other Expositions of this clause, which are more usually urged, and pleaded by opposites to Infants federal holiness.

First, some make this clause [ Else your children, &c. ] to be a reason enforcing that inhibition, verse 12, 13. and not of the sanctifying of the infidel spouse in the other. Thus, if you divorce your yokefellows, you must put away your children also, as they did, Ezra 10. 44. And Hen. Den maketh the meaning of your children are holy, to be the same with the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified, scil. They are not to be put away. Whereas the immediate connection of this clause to that passage, verse. 14. in way of arguing; and not to verse. 12, 13. showeth it to be a reason of the former, not of the other in verse. 12, 13. The case of putting away came in question, but as a supposed remedy of pollution of conscience by conjugal communion: the unlawfulness of which remedy, being so expressly mentioned, verse. 12. 13. and confirmed by four reasons, verse. 14, 15, 16, 17. there needed no more weight put there. But since the fear of pollution of conscience, did occasion that case, verse. 12, 13. and that fear is so fully taken off in the first of the 4 reasons against such putting away mentioned in the former part of the 14 verse. meet it was to strengthen that reason in especial: which so directly met with the bottom scruple, as it was in this very clause, Else, &c. but now, &c. And to imagine this to be the Apostles inference: If you put away husbands or wives, you must put away children too, &c. supposeth an Apostle to reason impertinently and unsoundly, since in the case of divorce of spouses, it doth not necessarily follow, that the children begotten of them be also put away.

For 1. even in lawful divorces for adultery, no word of the enjoining children's being put away, Matth. 19. & Chap. 5. nor was it so practiced: the husband need not own his wives bastard indeed, as his other children, but must own those begotten of his own wife before her divorce, Deut. 21. 15, 16, 17. compared with Chap. 24. 1.

2. The children lawfully begot, partaking of the believing parent as well as Pagan; Reason will plead as strongly with nature, and more strongly with grace in the divorcing party, putting away the other when desirous to abide, verse 12, 13. that the children are rather to be detained by the believing party, as suppose the father, &c. for higher and holier ends, then by putting them away to hazard their own children's souls welfare.

3. If there had been any weight in their fear of pollution, by retaining the infidel yoke-fellow, yet no color of pretence of pollution of conscience, by retaining their little ones; whom they might better season with their own Christianism, then fear being leavened by their paganism, or the like. There needed not therefore any such supposed remedy of pollution, by removing their children also. As for that parallelling of that, Ezra 10 44. with this case, it is very unsuitable; That was a case of persons enchurched having an express prohibition to the contrary, not to join with such, as persons betwixt whom and themselves, there was a partition wall yet doing it. This is a case of persons, all of one sort Pagan, when first married, and under no such prohibition; only after they were married one party embraceth the faith: now to make the intervening of grace as a sole occasion of such breakings of families in pieces were sad and scandalous: yet to suppose Pagans to be under such a prohibition, as the Jews to match with Pagans, had been to make them wholly prohibited marriage at all.

2. Others expound it only of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children in reference to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the spouses, some, as I. S. consider the believing spouse, as such, in both effects of the spouse being sanctified unto them, and the children's being holy, or lawful producing, Tit. 1. 15. To the pure all things are pure, or lawful use, as he expounds it. Others of whom Beza speaketh in his notes upon 1 Cor. 7. extend it to the children of both parents Infidel: that they are not spurious, but legitimate, which he refuteth from the supposition of the Apostle. For wherefore, saith Beza, should he discourse of bastards, or of both spouses Infidel? which makes me the more wonder at Beza as quoted by some for matrimonial sanctity, as here understood, if taken of civil sanctity or lawfulness, Beza professedly disclaims it, for saith he, the Apostle discourseth not of civil policy, but touching conscience. And I grant, saith he, that the marriage of Infidels is civilly lawful: It's not fornication before God. But what is this to Paul's scope, discoursing touching conscience? and Beza professedly argueth against any supposal, that because the believing party is not mentioned, Vers. 14. yet that therefore not understood in the present case as such, as some expound this place, which yield that he speaketh of persons, one a believer, the other infidel, but say, that in this case, he considers not the person as a believer, but as any other lawful man or wife. This Beza by Argument refuteth. C. B. he seemeth to propend to this later exposition, that the Apostle considers them not here, as one a believer, the other not, but merely as husband and wife.

As for the conjecture of I. S. it hath already appeared, that, Tit. 1. 15. intends more then a bare lawful use, common to all Infidels, as the opposition showeth. [But to the unbelieving is nothing pure when yet many things are lawful. And so here, when the Apostle speaks of persons as such, one whereof is a believer, in, and to whom the other is sanctified, he intends more then a bare lawful husband or wife to them; and for their children also more then civilly legitimate. And it were too absurd in an Apostle, to lay that for a cause of legitimacy which is not: But God's ordinance rather, not faith, Pagans marriages being as lawful as Christians. And it were absurd to reason: That unless one be a believer, the children are bastards, when the children of each man and wife, Pagan or Christian, are as Adam and Eve, which herein were radically considered in reference to all such like couples, such whose children are a seed of God, or of his institution, in general approbation, as Mal. 2. 15. truly proveth. This was unheard of doctrine, Heb. 13. 14. and tended rather to destruction in all families, where such doctrine should come, then to peace. And if there had been any ground of scruple in these cases of the Corinthians considered only as man and wife, what need they trouble Apostles with such civil cases? or what hath Christ and his Disciples; as such, to do in civil matters? Luk. 12. 2 Tim. 2. The Apostles would not be cumbered with Table-service, Act. 6. 4. much less with the civil law intricacies.

And whereas Mal. 2. 15. is urged as a proof by some; it proveth that which was not questioned, scil. legitimacy of children of any lawful man and wife, but disproveth such a Tenet, that unless the couples be one or both Inchurched believers as were these, 1 Cor. 7. 14. their children are not a seed of God, a legitimate seed. In that God eyed all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, as conjugally united in the same common reference, as of duties in common, of love, care, &c. in the husband and subjection in the wife, and fidelity in both; so in this fruit of such lawful conjugal fellowship, legitimacy of children; wherein both parties, as lawful man and wife, have equal share, without any such peculiar believing Covenant and Church respect, as any Instrumental cause thereof, whereas the Apostle speaketh of a case of holiness of children, arising from some peculiar consideration of someone parent and not the other, or if of both, yet not of both in that common way of mere civil lawfulness of matrimony, but with peculiar reference to an instrumental cause of an higher nature.

And so we come to the other opinion, to which answer is made, in the sixth and seventh considerations before mentioned: as the Apostle speaks of Inchurched parents, at least one of them, so he considereth them at least (as) Ecclesiastical believers, visibly in Covenant with God & his people, and holding forth faith in God, and in his Covenant, (as) believing brethren and sisters, and not barely as lawful man and wife, as the context and proofs formerly urged declare. But let us hear the reasons, why meant of them as man and wife, and not as believers in the case propounded.

Obj. 1.

When the Infidel party is spoken of, he is named, and so is not the believing party, but is barely mentioned under the common name of man or wife; therefore, so to be considered in the case there spoken to.

An.

This hath been formerly answered. That as much is expressed in that case, Vers. 16. man and wife only named, but it were absurd to reason, that therefore in that case there mentioned, they are considered as man and wife, not as believing: nor in that concealing of the word believing, in the mention of the believing party, is it said, the wife or husband is sanctified, in, or to, or by, the unbelieving party, as if they as such, had an influence in this sanctifiednesse of the other spouse, but still the phrase is rather thus, the unbelieving husband is sanctified in, or to, or by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband, evidently pointing out the wife or husband, as the subject of that sanctifiednesse, which in the other is an effect, and applied to them as the object.

Obj. 2.

The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [hath been sanctified] in the preterperfect tense twice repeated, therefore probably relating to their estate, when both were unbelievers.

Ans.

He repeateth the word twice, as being to speak of the unbelieving parties, in some couples the husband, in others the wife: as sanctified in, unto, or by the other parties believing: for, as such, the wife or husband, to, or by whom the Infidel party is sanctified, are considered, (as before proved) now, in the preter-perfect tense, such were so sanctified, not whilst both unbelievers: since not then an unbeliever sanctified to a wife believing, but in reference to past time, since their coming to the faith, and to the Church-estate, which was some good space of time as in which many had sundry children.

Obj. 3.

The same word is used in 1 Tim. 4. 5. concerning the creatures, being lawful to use: that therefore is the sense here.

Ans.

If that had meant only lawfulness of use, for the way there mentioned, as in some other Scriptures some such use of the Greek word here used, may be found; yet it's not therefore consequent, that here, as it is circumstantiated, it must be so meant likewise. But as for the place in Timothy, the confirmation it yields to this text, is rather for us then against us; since intending a way of the creatures becoming not barely lawful to use, as it is to others, which makes no improvement of the word of Covenant as well as command in prayer, but of a way of a holy use to such as take that holy course for that end. And even so it is here, of which more anon. As much is mentioned in another phrase to like purpose, Tit. 1. 15. but the opposition to unbelieving persons showeth, that albeit many things are lawful to them, yet is nothing pure, as it is to the Saints, namely in a preter-natural way holy to their use.

Obj. 4.

But this is most pertinent to the Apostles scope, of encouraging to abide together.

Ans.

The Apostles scope is not to speak to a case of civil lawfulness of such abode, then indeed it had been lawful to have spoken in that sense: but to a case of persons troubled in conscience about pollution, even by a communion which out of doubt was amongst all, and so to them civilly lawful, Heb. 13. 4. This therefore were but to beat the air to tell them for satisfaction to their troubled conscience, of a matter of which they never doubted: and of which, if never so well assured by what they knew, now or before, yet still their wound is not healed, but might bleed and fester for all that, in as much as many things lawful, in respect of civil use amongst men, yet are not always such things, by the use whereof the Saints may not be in conscience polluted, as in the case of divorce of old tolerated.

Obj. 5.

He speaketh of things not as contingent, and possibly never likely to be, but of things certain in order to effects necessarily following, and so of civil lawfulness of spouses, a certain effect of the ordinance of marriage.

Ans.

And so is the sanctifiednesse of a lawful spouse as certain a sequel in reference to the other, making improvement of the word of God's covenant as well as commandment by faith in prayer, 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5.

Repl.

Yea, but it's not so certain a sequel, that the holiness of children should follow from that spiritual condition and consideration of the parent, as it's necessary it should, if the Apostles reasoning hold good from the cause to the effect: since, then it must necessarily follow, or else he reasons impertinently: nor will it reach the trouble of such, which never had, nor it may be through age or other natural inability might never have children: or how could their faith sanctify their conjugal communion in reference to children?

Answ.

The Apostle reasons from cause to effect, ex natura rei, and not barely, ex natura eventus rei. It doth not follow that such a cause is not in its nature a cause of such an effect, or that one may not pertinently reason from the cause to the effect, because that sometimes a second cause may be suspended in its full operation, either by the first over-ruling cause, or by secondary impediments.

But to come to the matter propounded. We will suppose it meant of matrimony, which as God's ordinance is a certain cause as of legitimacy of the husband to marriage use, so of the children begotten in, and by marriage fellowship. This you will say will satisfy all sides. But will it indeed? Is it certain, all married people should have children? Is it not a very contingent effect? how can you reason from cause to effect rationally? Are not many married persons past having of children by each other? or naturally disabled from generation? what satisfaction is it to such persons, to tell them of an effect so unlikely, and naturally so unpossible? All will answer here, yea, but in the nature of the ordinance, it is such a cause tending by God's appointment to such an effect: and ex hypothesi, supposing the object to be qualified with that effect of legitimacy, scil. children actually begotten by marriage fellowship, then the effect is not contingent, but always followeth. And all married persons may be encouraged to their condition, in that the ordinance hath not influence alone upon the spouses in reference to their marriage-fellowship, but upon such children as God pleaseth to bestow upon married persons, for that both became lawful, and not unlawful. As much say I in this case. That a faithful man in covenant with God and his Saints, he by improvement of God's word, &c. hath this certain to him, and for his encouragement, whether he stand in relation to a spouse only, and have yet no children, yet he hath a sanctified use of his spouse: or if God make his spouse fruitful, he hath a sanctified use of her, yet further in a reference to any child by her, to which he stands in relation as a parent; That as another effect of the covenant improved, and of faith also therein, he hath this privilege of a Federall and Ecclesiastical condition of his child, and this is a comfortable encouragement to all such persons, that there is such an influence of the word of God improved by faith, that as marriage-use is sanctified by it: so children begotten in marriage are Ecclesiastically and Federally holy; when the Apostle saith, All things are pure to the pure, Tit. 1. and every creature is sanctified by the word and prayer, 1 Tim. 4. he doth not thereby weaken or falsify the ground-work from cause to effect, or weaken their comfort thence; because it may be said, it is very contingent, yea impossible, that one believer should have all things or creatures, &c. but it sufficeth ex hypothesi, what ever he hath more or less, its pure to him: And if he have anything more, which he had not, that then it becomes actually pure to him, so in this case: Therefore the Apostle doth not reason thus, else you should have no children, but supposing you have children, it would follow they were else unclean, but now they are holy.

Obj. 6.

But he speaks of an holiness incident to an unbeliever, remaining an unbeliever, and therefore of a civil holiness?

Ans.

When the Apostle saith, everything is sanctified by the word, &c. 1 Tim. 4. and Tit. 1. 15. All things are pure to the pure, will any say that he speaks of a purity merely civil and natural in reference unto the pure? say an Indian servant, yea say a beast, to whom this purity is attributed, remain Heathen or irrational, in themselves, and are civilly pure only to the unbelieving, yet they are in a more peculiar and spiritual respect said to be pure to the pure, else why is there put such a distinction between them therein, Tit. 1. 15? It is in a peculiar way and sense that the creatures 1 Tim. 4. and the Infidel spouse, 1 Cor. 7. are sanctified to the faithful.

Obj. 7.

Yea, but he speaks of an unbeliever, as a joint cause of the children's holiness, therefore that is but civil holiness or legitimacy.

Ans.

He is a joint cause of the child properly: but of the child thus privileged, he is not any proper cause, as an unbeliever, but as an unbeliever sanctified to his believing spouse.

3. I. S. hath some further expression tending to the same end, that the children are holy to use, as are other creatures to the Saints, and concludeth, that the holiness of the parent, and child is the same in nature, scil. the holiness of the creature, in a natural, not in any spiritual respect. That is, they are made lawful to use, as before he spake when he shown in what sense the husband was sanctified, scil. made lawful to use, or as others say, as C. B. doth; That children in this Text are not holy, with any holiness distinct from Idolaters, as appeareth in the repetition of the word sanctified, and that holiness, he afterwards saith, it is civil holiness.

Ans.

Albeit this hath been in substance objected before, and answered, yet let me give a distinct answer to it.

1. Then, I deny that the same word used touching the parents, is repeated in mention of the children, if we speak Grammatically. Yea, but they are of the same root, one the verb, the other the noun. And what then? is there no difference in the use of the words? non sequitur. Aquinas is right in that: touching the meaning of words saith he, non tam attendendum est, à quo, quam ad quid. We must not so much heed the root whence they are derived, as the use to which in common speeches they are applied. Sanctified in, or to a person, is one thing, and holy is another. Afflictions, persecutions, yea the falls of the Saints are sanctified to them, but they are not holy. It's Paul's wont when intending that use of the word sanctified either expressly or implicitly, to mention to whose use the person or thing is sanctified: As here, twice in this verse, • sanctified to the husband, and to the wife, so Tit. 1. 15. To the pure, all things are pure, and 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5. mentioning prayer, he noteth out God's suppliants, &c. to whom the creatures are sanctified. But here is no mention to whose use the children are holy: yea in that holy for civil use, they are holy to the infidel parent as well as to the believer, he may make a lawful use of his child: yet being unbelieving, the child is not sanctified to his use, as Tit. 1. 15. showeth.

2. Suppose it of an holy or sanctified use of the children strictly taken, as incommunicable to others then to Saints for use: yet why rather your children holy, then others, then other Pagans children? since to the members of Corinth, the Pagan Cities children might be said holy for use, and they might make a holy use of them many ways in prayer, &c. Yea, why not instancing as well as any other creature, as holy, thus, as well as the children of the members of Corinth Church?

Obj.

It was more suitable to instance in children, being to prove, that the Infidel parents were thus sanctified in their believing parents.

Ans.

Yea, but if that be the question, it is not one particular instance like it would prove the same: unless an induction of more particulars: that the husband is thus sanctified: for so are the children, so are such and such things, &c. therefore so is the Infidel husband, or wife to the believing party.

SECT. V.

HAving thus removed and cleared such mistakes in the expounding this Text, we come now to what I conceive to take up the full meaning of what is said of these children of the body of the Corinthian -Church-members, that they are holy. Some take it of Federall holiness, some of Ecclesiastical and Church-holiness: I would exclude neither: It being spoken of the children of parents in such sort in the Covenant of Grace, as it is invested with Church-Covenant also, explicit or implicit, and in the same respect the children are Federally holy, as the Covenant of Grace is clothed with Church-Covenant in a Political visible Church-way.

And thus I conceive of the Apostles inference and argument [else your children were unclean, but now they are holy] Scilicet, That unless your Interest in the Covenant of Grace, which you hold forth, and your faith therein, which you in a Church-way profess, have so much influence upon your yokefellows, as to sanctify them in, and to, your conjugal use: But that there be invaliditie and privation of influence thereof, in that your conjugal relation; then must you be as well to seek of any validity thereof, in another relation also: scil. in your parental relation to your children: even there also, shall the covenant, and faith have no influence unto such an effect of holiness of your children. If they produce not such an effect in the former, by which yet the Infidel party have no personal privilege, how will they produce the later, by which children have according to you an unquestioned personal privilege, that they are holy? he that will question, or cast off the force of such instruments influences in one thing, he by the same distemper, will cast the same off in another. Yea, if it be groundedly and really for that the Covenant of Grace which believers lay hold of together with their faith therein, have no efficacy in one condition, or relation, it is as well true in another, only reserving the diversity of influences, as diversely elicited or expressed. If they are not effectual to produce something peculiar to believers in a conjugal relation differing from all Pagan spouses, they will neither produce anything peculiar to them in a parental relation to their children. But as your spouses shall be to you as all other pagan spouses, in common to each other: merely lawful to use, so your children, with, and to you shall be in your parental relation, but as pagan children are unclean or profane, which to all were absurd: But now, rather they are holy; namely, Federally, and not as other Pagans children, profane. Now, when I mention in this exposition the Covenant, as in part having some influence in both relations, as well as faith, I do it, as not daring to sever faith from the word of faith, which even giveth strength to faith it self: And besides, God having made a Covenant with Abraham, and with his spiritual seed in their Generations, as well as with the Jews: And that in such sort also, as with respect to Church estate, and as invested with Church-Covenant, hence it is, that the [mere] Infidelity of a Pagan spouse abiding Pagan when the other comes to the faith, shall not hinder the course and force of God's Covenant to In-Churched believers seed, witness the example both of the son of Moses, Exod. 4. 24. &c. and of Eunice, Act. 16. 1, 2, 3. even many personal sins of the Saints hinder it not, much less do other personal sins evacuate the same.

Hence, so long as this Covenant-Interest holdeth in force, that either it be not rejected by the parents, as it was by those Jews Rom. 11. 20. or that they be not justly, for covenant breaches despoiled of Church benefit by it by some Church-censure, so long the covenant is Ecclesiastically of force to the children's federal & Church-estate. So in the case of those Idolatrous Church-members, being not discovenanted, and discharged by God's hand, or by Ecclesiastical authority, their children were federal, and Church-seed, the Churches children borne by her unto God, Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21, 23. compared. That holy Covenant produceth that respect of holy persons, Dan. 8. 24. compared with 11. 28. 30. 32. Hence the Covenant and Church-estate of Covenant and In-churched parents, is firstly the parents privilege, and so to be considered. Hence also I conclude then that the little ones of visible believing and In-churched parents, such as these mentioned in the Text were, 1 Cor. 1. 1, 2. with 1. and 14. they are Federally and Ecclesiastically holy. In this sense the word holy is frequently used, yea, of many persons, which were neither inherently holy, nor imputatively holy in a strict sense, no nor so much outwardly holy in point of lively expressions of personal holiness, yet are called holy, scil. Ecclesiastically, and in external respect to the Covenant, and that not a Covenant of works, for that calleth no sinners holy, nor by any mere ceremonial holiness, but by virtue of Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. with Ezra 9. 2. They are called the holy seed, and the same phrase in the same Covenant and Church respect, is in Scripture frequently used, with respect to such Infants, the holy people destroyed by Antiochus, Dan. 8. 24. were the Jewish children as well as grown persons. The children were a part, and a special part, of that chosen, beloved, and people redeemed from Egypt, which were called holy. Hence both Deut. 14. 2. and 26. 18, 19. and 28. 2. 9. speaking of the whole people as holy: it is in the phrases, thou, thee, loved and established. Thee, that thou mayst be an holy people, &c. Adoption belongeth to the little ones as did the promises, as well as to the rest of Paul's kindred, Rom. 9. 4. They were children of the Church, and borne to God, as husband to the Covenant Church, Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21. 23. compared with Jer. 2. 2. & 3. 1. and Esa. 54. 4, 5. nor was this as I intimated a ceremonial matter, no more then either Abraham's Covenant was with some which oppose us confess did belong in special sort to the Jews, and that Covenant was the very Covenant of Grace, and therefore that did by this grant in special wise belong to them, nor was it more ceremonial, then was that, Deut. 30. 6. 11, 12, 13, 14. which the Apostle maketh the very doctrine of faith, which they preached, as by comparing that with Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. we shall God willing declare. This was not as the ceremonies against them, but for the good of them and theirs, and avowed by the Apostles after Christ's ascension, Act. 2. 38, 39. of which afterwards. And as 1 Pet. 2. 9. which Interpreters agree relateth to Exod. 19. 6. spoken of them not as an invisible Church, but visible, such as had officers over them, which the invisible Church, as such hath not. For supposing a company with Church-officers, they are now not an invisible but visible C •… us, see, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. and 4. 10, 11. he calleth them elected; such they were to the judgment of charity and in respect of visibility; so that visible Church of Babylon, he calleth it elected, 1 Pet. 5. 13. yet were there in that visible Church as in others, some tares, and vessels of dishonor. Some things mentioned in Peter, of their obedience, exercise of faith, &c. are not actually appliable to Infants, yet that hinders not, but that Infants are intended, in that Inchurched part of the 10. Tribes, as Calvin and Ames think, in reference to James 1. 1. and Hos. 1. 10. or in that In-churched part of the Gentiles, as Oecumenius, Aretius, &c. think, since in Exod. 19. 6. to which this place is to be referred, this condition of that Covenant-privilege, scil. Actually and personally to keep God's Covenant and to obey his voice indeed, Exod. 19. 5. was appliable only to the grown part, yet the Infant part were in that account of an holy people, &c. and as much may be conceived of 1 Pet. 2. 9.

SECT. VI.

AGainst what is usually brought from 1 Cor. 7. 14. That is objected, that children of parents, not sanctified by faith, in their matrimonial fellowship, as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar, Jepthah of Gilead, and many others, were within the Covenant both of saving grace, and Church-privilege. Therefore faith sanctifying of the use of the marriage bed, is not such a cause of sanctifying of the children Federally and Ecclesiastically, so as that unless that be, the children are unclean in that respect.

Ans.

This objection may seem to make a fair flourish against such as give the Apostles meaning, as only such. But me it hurts not, who make the main spring of the holiness of the children, not to be the sanctifying of the unbelieving yoke-fellow to the believing, but the grace of the Covenant to the believer, and his seed; even the sanctification of the believing yoke-fellow springeth from the grace of the Covenant, sanctifying believers seed, by virtue whereof, the infidelity of the yoke-fellow, becomes no overpowering let thereunto, and so in part by virtue of that Covenant, as well as faith in it, such a yoke-fellow is sanctified so far forth, nor is the Apostles influence from the cause to the effect of that communion, but rather from a like effect of the Covenant and faith in another relation of a believer, as a parent to children, unto that in that relation of an yoke-fellow: that if the influence of the Covenant and faith be wholly denied in the one, it may well be wholly denied in the other, and that he makes account was an absurdity in the sight of all.

Concerning the assertion, that Bastards were Interested in the Covenant of saving grace, I will not now dispute it, but reason ex suppositis. That Covenant interest of those bastard-Infants, it was not from the parents faith sanctifying of that communion: Whence was it? It could not be from any actual faith of the babes, they had it not; it was surely from the force of Abraham's Covenant, at least as invested with Church-Covenant, from which the parents being not cut off by God's hand, nor cast out by the Churches power; their Covenant relation still stood so far in force, that is, they were interested externally therein and so their seed with them: and thus in foro Ecclesiae, the force of the Covenant took off even that impediment according to that position of the objectors; and how much more doth the same force of the Covenant take off any impediment of a Pagan parents infidelity, in the Texts case of lawful conjugal followship, so that such children of a Gentile Corinthian Church-members, have an interest at least external in the saving Covenant of Grace and Church-privilege.

Obj.

Whether the parents believe or not, the children may be in the Covenant, and regenerate, therefore that's no cause thereof.

Ans.

We speak not of the inherent holiness of the child, as regenerate, that is, immediately from God, but of holiness Federall and Ecclesiastical, which may be appliable to persons unregenerate, as Psal. 50. 5. 16. 17. Of which more afterwards. The parents visibly believing and Inchurched, are instrumental causes of that holiness of their children, yea whether believers in verity, or only visibility. It sufficeth thereunto, nor are little ones thus in Covenant with God and his Church, without either the visibility of faith in the parents past or present: personal holiness consisteth not with living in known sins, but Federall holiness may, Ezek. 16.

Obj.

The Text is a reason of the question, which was not about Federall holiness, but living together.

Ans.

The former part of the Text is a reason of that, and none pleads for the Infidel spouses Federall holiness, but the latter part is a confirmation of that reason from another ground. And Mr. B. knoweth in proof of conclusions, we take divers mediums.

Obj.

Yea, but if the child be Federally holy, then the Infidel wife is holy, with covenant sanctification?

Ans.

It followeth not. The word sanctified in and to another, and being holy, differ and signify different things, as before said.

Obj.

If Federally holy, then Abraham's seed, and then they have faith, Gal. 3.

Ans.

We shall in due place I hope prove, that they are Abraham's seed without actual personal faith of their own, and so as Abraham's seed federally holy.

Obj.

The Apostle speaks of an outward holiness common to reprobates also, Heb. 9. 15. and not of holiness known to the Church, for which persons ought to be baptized, and it's either inward holiness which the Church deals not with, or outward, of which Baptism is not a sign.

Ans.

Outward holiness, scil. that which is visible to the Church, is sealed in Baptism. The Church deals not with inward holiness, therefore with outward, unless there is an holiness which is neither invisible nor visible, Hebr. 9. is of Ceremonial holiness; This of Federall and Church-holiness, known to the Church, and holiness visible or known to the Church is common to Reprobates, unless any will say the Churches judgment errs not, and confound visibility, and infallibility.

CHAP. II. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Act. 1. 38, 39.

ANother Scripture confirming the Doctrine of Federall holiness of children of In-churched parents, as approved and held forth by the Apostles, is that Act. 2. 38, 39 where Peter directing his speech chiefly to the Jews, verse. 22. and 36. saith, the promise is to you and to your children: not, was to you, &c. as intending any legal blessing, but, a promise then in force after Christ's ascension, to effect some chief promised blessing; [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] used to signify the free promise, or Covenant of Grace, to which they had visible right.

SECT. II.

And in this particular Mr. B. jumpeth with some others mentioned: as he did in that, that this was spoken to comfort guilty consciences cast down, as well in regard of that bloody wish against their children, as in respect of other bloody acts against Christ. In these different apprehensions it's hard to reconcile persons, either to others of their judgment, or else to themselves.

SECT. III.

COme we then to the first opinion, touching the words. First, the promise is to you, that is, it is fulfilled to you, accordingly as made to Abraham, for sending of Christ, &c. here wants Scripture proof, to make this sense of the promise is to you, ( i. e. ) is fulfilled to you, nor yet doth that in Act. 3. 25, 26. ye are the children of the promise, &c. prove this sense. Secondly, it is sending of Christ, or of Christ sent. But let it be considered. 1. That the Apostle doth not say, the p • omise was to you, as in reference to the time of making it to the fathers, with respect unto them, or in reference to Christ, who was not now to come, but already come, as the Apostle proveth, from ver. 3. to 37. nor is it the use of the Scripture, when mentioning promises as fulfilled, to express it thus in the present tense: the promise is to you, or to such and such, but rather to annex some expression that way, which evinceth the same, for which let Rom. 15. 8. 1 Joh. 2. 25. Eph. 3. 6. Nehe. 9. 8. 23. 2 Chron. 6. 15. 1 King. 8. 56. Act. 2. 16, 17. 33. and 13. 32, 33. Josh. 21. 45. and 23. 14. Matth. 1. 22, 23. and 21. 4. Luk. 1. 54, 55. 68, 69. and Psal. 111. 9. Rom. 11. 26, 27. be considered. 2. They knew already to their cost, that Christ indeed was sent amongst them, and to be that Jesus or Savior of his people from their sins, Act. 22. 36, 37. compared with Matth. 1. 21. And this was cold comfort to them, to tell them of that which wounded them, unless there be withal some promise annexed, and supposed in his being come. The promise merely of Christ's coming could not comfort them, unless also in and by Christ come in the flesh, there be some promise made to them, touching the removal of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them. 3. The blessing principally propounded to them, for their reviving, healing, succor, and support, it was not Christ's sending, nor his being sent, but remission of sins, verse. 38. wherefore unless the Apostle argue impertinently, this may not be excluded, but must be one principal thing intended. 4. It is that promise to which Baptism the seal is annexed, now the seal is ever to the Covenant, which is not barely to Christ's being sent in the flesh, but to the benefits contained in promises by his coming. The third thing they say, it is to those of the dispersion, those of the ten Tribes, as others have expressed it, and why not also of the Gentiles as well? since spoken indefinitely of all that were afar of; which the Scripture expressly applieth to the Gentiles, Ephes. 2. 11, 12. Suppose those other Jews were as the Gentiles, not a people actually in Covenant with God, so much as externally, as being long divorced from God, and his Covenant, and Church-liberties, yet the Gentiles in the main of their outlawry condition, were as one with them. Yea, but the conversion of the Gentiles was not yet revealed, till Act. 10. in that vision. What? had not Christ before this Sermon of Peters declared his mind to all his Apostles touching the discipling, and In-churching of the Gentiles? only they knew not whether it might be by joining them first by way of addition, as proselytes to the Jews, rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches. 4. It's affirmed, that

What? is it to as many as the Lord shall call, or convert or cause to repent? and yet is it, that they may be turned from their iniquity? is it to persons called, and yet also to uncalled persons? is it to them, that they may be called, yet the persons to whom the promise is, are as many as are supposed to be called? how can these two be right? yea it's said, it is to them all, upon condition that they be called, and yet also, that it is to them, that they may be called. Why, if it be to them, that by Christ they may be called, then is that promise to persons as yet uncalled, and their calling is an effect following their interest in that promise as a cause, and not preceding their interest in the promise as a condition. As touching this, whether the sole condition of this being of the promise to them, &c. we shall examine that anon, God willing.

SECT. IV.

AS for Hen. Dens exposition, of children, here not to be those after the flesh, but spirit, even believers, I cannot see how it's pertinent to the cause propounded touching the children mentioned, Act 2. he doth not intend it thus, your children, ( i. e. ) Abraham's children: for Abraham is considered rather by him as a pattern, having the precedentiall copy of the Covenant mentioned. And it had been incongruous to have said; It is to your children, that is, to Abraham's children: Abraham's children, were not all their children, nor were their children alone all the children which Abraham had: and besides Hen. Den confesseth it is to comfort them concerning their own children, against whom they had wished that curse, Matth. 27. 25. now taking it then of their children, how will Hen. Den. make these Jews, whom he cannot but eye at this present, when these words, Act. 2. 39. were applied to them, to be such spiritual fathers to any children of theirs, or sustain the relation of such fathers at that instant unto such children; themselves not being yet such relates, as believing fathers, nor having such correlata, as children after the spirit? nor was Abraham's charter less then what here avowed by the Apostle, scil. that the promise even of remission of sins, did belong to the Jews, and to their children in respect of external right and administration, and no more is pleaded for: and so much is to Gentile believers in their generations; of which more elsewhere. Nor will C. B 's exposition of children hold, as if here taken for men, because in some other Scriptures so used; he saith, that to the farther scruple of the Jews, about their wish, of Christ's blood on their children, Peter answereth, The promise is to you and to your children: What were their children grown to be men in two months space, since they made that cursed wish? Or had they no children but such as were men grown? or if they had, did they intend that curse of blood to be on their grown children, and not as well on their babes? on their children indefinitely? To like purpose is A. R 's conceit, that by children are meant their grown children, according to that in Joel, your sons and your daughters: but as hath been intimated, this plaster is too narrow for their wounds rising from the guilt of blood wished upon all their children, including, and not excluding their babes. Nor will the conceit of I. S. and some others hold: that by children are meant allegorically such as imitate, and walk in their footsteps of faith and repentance, &c. for which end Scriptures are urged, where fathers are taken for such as are patterns to others, and children for such as imitate them.

But 1. Is it the use of Scriptures to propound comforts to such kind of persons by allegories?

2. If it be supposed, that the natural children are excluded, and only allegorical children understood, there needed no such circumlocution. But it might have been plainly thus, The promise is to you, and to your children, even to such as are afar off, as many as God shall call: whereas he speaketh distinctly of all three; it is to you, and to your children, and to such as are afar off, as many as God shall call.

3. These convinced Jews at present could not be such fatherly precedents to others that should be called to follow their instant faith, and repentance, which as yet they acted not, nor doth Peter say, the promise is or belongs to you, for you have repented, and consequently believed; for that is rather mentioned, as exerted, after many words besides, ver. 40, 41. But repent and be baptized, de futuro, for the promise in praesenti is to you, scil. in respect of external right.

4. It would rather have discouraged then encouraged; stumbled, then satisfied them, for Peter thus to bid them to their loss. All the Jews, as visibly in Covenant with God, were in some sense fathers to the Gentile Church-members, 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. All our fathers, scil. of you of this Church of Corinth and of me Paul, and yet withal these were fathers too, from Abraham's time downward, to convey Abraham's covenant, and its privileges to their own natural seed, Rom. 9. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Deut. 29. 1. 14, 15. 29. and 30. 6.

SECT. V.

NOr will C. B 's apprehension of the phrase, the promise is to you, &c. ( i. e. ) not the promise but the proffer of the promise, hold consonant to himself, or to the truth, for he grants that promise to be to those that were pricked in heart, but no more then to them afar off, &c. as many as God shall call; nor know I what Scripture he builds upon for such an exposition of the phrase [the promise is to you] when it is offered to you. Albeit others speak as much in effect, when they say, the promise made to Abraham of sending Christ, and now fulfilled, is to them. But deal ingenuously, is that all which in Act. 3. 25. 26. is understood, by that, [ye are the children of the Covenant made with the fathers, &c.] ( i. e. ) God hath fulfilled the promise made to the fathers, concerning Christ's coming, whom now he offereth to you? Why are the Jews only such children, and not the Gentiles, all kindreds as well, albeit Christ was first sent to them? For verse. 25. all kindreds of the earth are mentioned, as those that should be blessed in Abraham's seed. Yea, do not such as so speak, affirm before, that this promise of sending Christ, was to them, their children, and those afar off? which notion Paul, Ephes. 2. 11, 12. applies to the Gentiles. They are the children of the Prophets, Act. 3. and he doth not say thus, and of the fathers, with whom the Covenant is made, as if it were meant in respect of bare natural relation, but, and of the Covenant made with the fathers, to show, that it's meant of Church, and federal interest in them, as Covenant fathers, and dispensers: yea, to show, that the Covenant was as seed, by virtue whereof, they considered as federally and ecclesiastically privileged, did spring. I had thought that these parallel phrases, that [children of the Covenant] of grace, mentioned, Act. 3. 25. and [children of the promise] Gal. 4. 28. was not merely applied to either Jews or Galatians, because Christ according to the promise of God to Abraham, &c. came into the world; that blessing might be offered to them, through him the promised seed. But because they had a visible interest in the promise of blessing by him, and therefore both Jews and Galatians were so styled; sure I am, Paul's phrase of the Jews, Rom. 9. 4. To whom belongs the adoption and the promises, comprehending Gen. 17. 7. Jer. 31. 33, 34. holdeth forth no bare offer thereof, but at least an external interest therein. And C. B. who maketh the promise to be the offer of it to them, their children and those afar off, as many as the Lord shall call, will not easily reconcile himself to others of his mind, denying that the Scripture hath to do with children that way, in that they understand not. And how then is the offer of the promise at present [the promise is] to your children] unto those children, many of which were but Infants? Besides, those afar off from them, as were the Gentiles, how was the promise to them then in the offer thereof, when as yet it was not offered to them, until afterwards, that the Jews came to reject the same, Act. 13. 46, 47. unless in respect of some few sprinklings and first fruits, which yet was after this also, Act. 8. 10. Or, if he do stretch it to the future, with others, scil. that it is to them upon that limitation that they be called, namely effectually; surely he will not say, that the promise, i. e. the mere offer thereof is to believers. Now, to come to that wherein A. R. and Hen. Den, and others do center, scil. That it was no otherwise to the Jews, then to those afar off, and so, and no otherwise to their children, or (as A. R. phraseth it) it was equally to all three sorts, scil. when they believe, then they are in the Covenant, &c. But why are all made equal herein? Act. 3. 25, 26. even as it is expounded by our opposites, will give the Jews the priority, the Text is express, and to you first, &c. all are not then equal therein. The Gentiles come not in, but by occasion of the Jews casting out, and then they considered as in Olive or Church-estate, partake of no other Church fatness, for substance, then did their predecessors the Jews, Rom. 11. 12. 15. 17. no other kingdom for the nature of it, and in the essentials of the external right, and administration of the royal Covenant to the Gentile successor, then was to the Jewish predecessor, Matth. 8. 11. 12. and 21. 43. In a sense then, the Jews are preferred and not made equal, albeit in another respect of essential sameness of Covenant privileges, we have now proved and yielded them to be equal, yet so, as it maketh against A. R. and others, more of which anon.

SE • T. VI.

BUt A. R. I suppose forgets himself, when he maketh the sole condition of the promise, to be equally to Jew and Gentile, scil. believing, meaning saving-believing. For he expounds this Text, Act. 2. 38, 39. to be the promise mentioned in Joel 2. of pouring out the extraordinary gifts of the spirit upon them. Now doth A. R. suppose the same reason of pouring out such gifts on the Gentiles to be called to the worlds end, as was in those first times of planting the Gospel? or would he have all believers now expect such extraordinary gifts, as having according to his exposition, this place and promise for it? I suppose not, why then doth he make them all equal? And if effectual calling be the only condition of obtaining these promised gifts, those that cast out devils in Christ's name, &c. might have had something more to say they plead, Matth. 7. 31. But why doth any speak so exclusively, when express mention is made of remission of sins, Act. 2. 38. in confirmation also whereof, the promise is partly occasioned, verse. 39. And for further discovery of this mistaken exposition, let it be considered. 1 That the very confessed occasion of this here spoken to these heart-pierced Jews, was the guilt of heinous sins, and of that cursed wish, Matth. 27. 25. They were not troubled for want of such extraordinary gifts, and to tell them of such gifts, was both impertinent and unsatisfactory, and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick souls, to promise them such gifts, which they might have, and yet die in their sins, Matth. 7. 23. 2 As the main thing propounded, Act. 2. scil. of remission of sins, is not so much as named, Joel 2. so neither is that in Joel set down in this order, I will pour out my spirit upon you, and upon your children; or thus, you and your sons and daughters (only) shall prophesy. 3. The subjects instanced in Joel 2. are not reducible to the notions, as here mentioned, [you and your children] your sons and daughters might fall under the notion of you and your children, but not your old men and servants. It were absurd to explain your children, that is, your old men, as if they were these hearers children. And thus much to that wherein A. R. is singular.

SECT. VII.

AS for that wherein he joineth with the rest, that the children are put in the same skale with those afar off, &c. The promise is to them all upon condition of effectual calling: True it is, that the phrase, The promise (is) to you, and (is) to your children, and (is) to those afar off, &c. is the same; but non sequitur, that ergo it is to them all alike, and in the same sense. It is at present to them all, that is evident by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the present tense, but not alike to all. The notion of the other as persons afar off, intimateth that these Jews and their children were not all accounted afar off too, scil. strangers from actual external interests in the Covenants of promise and commonwealth of Israel, or the visible political Church, Ephes. 2. 11, 12, 13. but rather nigh in that sense, and yet the promise is to them afar off intentionally and quoad deum, even whilst afar off and uncalled; but to the other the Jews and their children, the promise is to them actually, and quoad hominem. To all Paul's kindred, Infants or elder Jews, belonged the adoption and the promises indefinitely, Rom. 9. 1, 2, 3, 4. nor is it unusual in Scripture to express covenant grace, made over as in present, to divers persons, some whereof are future and to come, others are in present existence and view, Deut. 29. 14, 15. neither with you do I make this Covenant, but with him which standeth here this day, scil. the Jew and Proselyte, and the little ones present, and with him, that is not here this day, scil. with the persons unborne, coming of you, or of the Proselyte. The phrase is alike to them, which were actually existent in Church estate and human being, and to others which were not so, with both do I (at present) make my Covenant, &c. In the one it is verified actually, and quoad homines, in the other intentionally, and quoad deum. And this promise here mentioned, Act. 2. 38, 39. containing in it remission of sins, and so the righteousness of faith, on which faith pitcheth, Rom. 4. 7, 8. with 11. what was it other, then that which by circumcision was visibly sealed unto them and their children, by God's own appointment? Circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it, a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self, and not merely in a personal respect to Abraham, as applied by his faith to his justification. And albeit believers came with Abraham to have the saving experience of it, Rom. 4. 7, 8. 11, 12. yet to the rest, Circumcision was a Covenant, or a Sacramental sign or seal of God's Covenant, Act. 7. Gen. 17. even of that his Covenant mentioned, verse. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed, which containeth that promise of justification, Jer. 31. 33, 34. Nor will it suffice to say, that Covenant was a mixed Covenant. It held forth temporal things indeed, but by virtue of a Covenant of Grace, Psal. 111. 5. as doth the promise now, 1 Tim. 4. 8. but it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof as to all, albeit in the internal operation, as to some. The promises are to them all, Rom. 9. 4. sci. in the former sense, and yet ver. 8. some only are the children of the promise, and the choice seed in that general Covenant, scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the Covenant upon them, verse. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort, amongst persons in Church-estate: unless any will say, that there are none in the Covenant, as well as in Christ the Vine, John 15. 2. externally only, which I suppose will not be affirmed. And in this sense Peter speaking to these Jews before they had actually repented or believed, verse. 38. with 40, 41. saith, the promise of remission of sins is, or belongeth to you, scil. in the external right and administration of it, the Apostle calls upon them to repent, and be baptized, not because then the promise should be theirs, but because the promise was theirs already, in the sense mentioned, repent and be baptized: for the promise is to you, or belongs to you: as Rom. 9. 4. hath it. Both baptizing and repenting are joined as duties unto which, upon this Covenant ground they are called, and not as conditions of their coming by external right in the promise, none will say of the one branch, that be baptized was a condition propounded by Peter to them of their coming to right in the promise; since baptism as a Covenant Seal, presupposeth a Covenant right; yet is the duty of being baptized, as well as of repenting, alike urged on the same ground upon the Jews. Yea but Peter having exhorted them to repent, &c. would not have baptized them, unless they had repented: therefore it was not their Covenant-right, which he looked at. Admit he would not, yet that doth not make void, either their Covenant, or Church-right thereto: because being adultmembers under offense, and admonished thereof by Peter: they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church, or Covenant-right, have been debarred that seal. If one of our members be under offense, and the Elders admonish him to repent thereof, and he doth not, he is debarred the seal of the Lord's Supper, and his children of Baptism the while; not that he is not a Church-member, and so hath Church-right as well as covenant-right thereto; but in that this intervening obstinacy doth suspend his [ jus in re ] albeit otherwise considered he had [ jus ad rem: ] so in the case of these offensive members of that Jewish Church, which was a true visible Church, and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord; which maketh way for answer to A. K. that if they were then in Covenant, they were then in the Church of the Gospel; if he mean it, of being internally in the Covenant, it is not that we plead for: it of being externally, or quoad homines, we have proved, they were so in Covenant and Church estate also; as being yet in the Olive and kingdom of God, and not cast out, until their unbelief, or total, and final rejection of the Covenant, as ratified in Jesus of Nazareth as that promised Messiah, Rom. 11. 20. to which the Jews had not as yet come, and this Church was a Gospel Church visibly interested in the Covenant of Grace, the subject of the Gospel, and the same essentially with that Gospel, or Christian Church; unless, whilst the Jewish Church stood, any will say, there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world, but a legal Church: for there was no other visible Church, then that of the Jews: that then something further was required by Peter, of the Adult-Jews, to actual participation of baptism, and it was not because their Church of which they were members, was no true visible Evangelical Church: since it was God's only visible Church, in the time of Christ's incarnation, of which he lived and died a member: and none will say, he was no member of any Evangelical Church, but of a legal; nor was it because the seal of Baptism was not administrable, in, or by, or to that Church of the Jews: for it's evident that the Commission of Baptism was first given by God, to John the Baptist, in reference to that Church of the Jews, as a seal of their membership therein; the same God that told him, who should Baptize with the holy Ghost, he sent him to Baptize, John 1. 33. the Pharisees themselves could not deny Johns baptism to be from heavens authority, Matth. 21. 25, 26. and Baptism being a Church-Ordinance, to be in ordinary dispensation or administered only in and by a Church of Christ, that baptism was at that time the Jewish Church-Ordinance, so far forth, there was no other floor, wherein all sorts which John baptized, whether they proved chaffy hypocrites, or solid grain, upright ones, were in his and Christ's time interested, Matth. 3. 11. 12. this was then, the only floor, or visible Church of Christ, (for in the visible Church is no chaff) [his] floor; he shall purge [his] floor. Into this Church fellowship also did Christ's own Disciples by that new way of initiation, visibly seal persons, which were the reformed part of that Jewish Church, continuing still their relation to those officers of the Jewish Church, and their fellowship in the Church-Ordinances, then dispensed, and not separating from the same: either gathering into distinct Churches, or calling to them other ordinary Church-officers; which yet were not actually given by Christ, until upon his ascension, Ephes. 4. 8. 11, 12, &c. but the reason rather was partly because (as was said) they were under such offense: and partly because albeit their Church were a true Evangelical Church, yet it was not so pure and perfect, but had many gross mixtures both of mere ceremonial administrations, which were now to be laid aside, and of most palpably and openly corrupt, and rotten members: and partly because it was now requisite, not only to acknowledge the promised Messiah of Abraham's loins, to be he alone, which by his blood should come, actually, as well as virtually, to ratify the Covenant of grace, visibly made with them, as they did in receiving the seal of Circumcision, but that they own the Lord Jesus, who was crucified by, and among them, as he which a lone did thus: which amongst other testimonies Baptism witneseth, therefore more was now required of the adult-Jews, then formerly; which yet was not required of their unripe Children: even as when we are to receive members of other visible Churches, into complete fellowship of all Church privileges, and ordinances with us: we require some satisfaction of the grown persons, to testify their repentance of their former Church-sins, and personal scandals, therein committed, and their willing subjection unto the government, and worship and doctrine of Christ, as administered amongst us; not because we question the truth of their Church-estate elsewhere, but, because those Churches, albeit true, yet very corrupt, and themselves then scandalous; and withal being desirous, not to be with us barely, as transient members, by virtue of Communion of Churches, but being to be of us, as fixed members, we rest not in their former Church engagements; but require of such, some new engagements, in reference to us; and yet we require not this of their children, which are not sui juris, nor capable of giving personal satisfaction, but admit them to the initiatory seal of baptism with: us so was it with them, Acts the second, being to be incorporated into a purer company, exhibiting the Ordinances of Christ in a more perfect evangelical way. Nor must that needs follow, which A. K. saith, that because it's said, they were added to the Church, that therefore they were not of the Church before, but after Peter spake those words, Vers. 39. the promise is to you, &c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized, as after that mentioned, of their receiving the word gladly, and yet will our opposites conclude, that therefore they were not of the Church, nor in the Covenant before they were baptized, but came into that estate by baptism? if Baptism were the form of the Church, or that which they so much urge wholly failed; that a person must be first discipled and so in Covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized.

Nor is that cogent, which is urged against the Children's right in the promise and unto Baptism, that they should be so privileged, when they came to be effectually called, and to be turned from their sins, as if this were quoad homines, their only rule of judging of persons visible interest in the Covenant of grace, or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof: or at least the only way of having such a visible interest in the visible Churches Court. For besides that it was not so of old, in applying of circumcision, as God's appointed seal of the parties visible Covenant estate and right: even with us also, it is not the rule in Foro Ecclesiae: for then none are by the Church to be by rule admitted to baptism, but such as are effectually called: and then, John which knew, that the most of them which he baptized, would be as chaff in the floor, he kept not rule, in baptizing of them. Or if calling be taken for external inviting, in the word preached, and offer of Christ, that I suppose will not be pleaded: for then every hearer should be forthwith baptized, albeit an Indian or Black a more; but calling as taken in reference to baptizing unto remission of sins, seemeth to be rather calling into visible Covenant, and Church-estate: unto which some, whose was the promise intentionally, yet were afar off from that estate actually at present, but when called to it, they were then to be baptized. And yet further to evince, that the little ones of these Jews, not then capable of actual repenting, were not in defect of that repentance, excluded from the promise mentioned Act. 2. 38, 39. Consider,

1. Such a supposed exclusion of their babes, as here intended, or implied by that speech of the Apostle [to as many as God shall call] had been, to lay an occasion, and addition of more cumbers and trouble to the darkened disquieted spirits of his hearers, then to clear and ease them, supposing as is undeniably evident, that their wish against their poor children, pressed them sore, as well as other guilt. It was all along thitherto, a received truth, that God was a God to their seed externally, by virtue of Abraham's Covenant they were his adopted Children, Ezek. 16. 21. and the Churches children, which she bare to the Lord, verse. 20. See Deut. 29. 29. and it was evident, by God's own appointment of Circumcision, to be the initiatory seal not to a blank but to his Covenant of being a God to them, whilst babes, and before circumcised in heart, so as actually to repent, Deut. 30. 6. this their babes had external right unto, whilst these their parents were unconvinced or unwrought upon, remaining uncut off by censures from the Church; as of old, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. is mentioned of those Idolaters. Now if not so when their Parents are wrought upon by Peters Sermon, as the parents were thus far losers, by Christ and his Gospel, and the efficacy thereof, losing that precious parental privilege which they had before this of their children's federal interest, and privilege of Abraham's Covenant, so also their children are losers too, by their parents coming so far on to Christ; coming now thus to be excluded their former Covenant right, and neither Parents, nor children, to have any Covenant right, and privilege in lieu thereof. How such doctrine might well stumble, and trouble such Parents, let any sober and judicious mind judge; to be sure they have laid a load of guilt, and given a deadly wound unto their poor babes, by that curse of theirs; now if they are as Pagan strangers from the Covenant, then is there no hope, in reference to ordinary, and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life, Ephes. 2. 11, 12, 13. Yea but they might repent: True, if they lived to years, but they may more likely die in Infancy: and what then? why Christ was according to promise unto Abraham sent, &c. True, but what is that to our babes if not interested in his Covenant or testament, in regard whereof alone, he is a mediator to any? Heb. 9. or what ordinary means of sanctifying and justifying our babes, or saving efficacy upon them, if not by and through the word of Covenant? Ephes. 5. 25, 26. Rom. 9. 6. Yea but the promise is to them in Christ; True, but you tell us it is with this only limitation, that they be effectually called, and turned from their sins, of which our Infants in ordinary course are not capable. Guilt there is in an ordinary and revealed way conveyed to our babes, but no revealed and ordinary way is left by this doctrine visibly to confirm us that it may be taken off, so that their bleeding wound is unstanched.

2. The Apostles which as yet preached not, for the abolishing even of Mosaical rites, would much less at that time, so publicly hold forth, implicitly at least, the exclusion of the Jews babes, from Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. And verily the Apostles which so long after, were so tender of the better and more pliable part of the Jews, that they would have Paul to take off that aspersion, as if he should as yet lay a necessity upon the Jews, not to circumcise their children, Acts 21. 20. 22, 23, 24. would much less give such manifest and just offense to them, as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes, from right in that Covenant of Abraham it self, whereof Circumcision was a visible seal; as the places quoted in Gen. 17. 11. 13. and Acts 7. 8. declare.

3. If Peter should intend by that clause, such an exclusion at present, of the Jews babes from that external interest in the Covenant of grace, it were to be cross to Paul's doctrine, Rom. 15. 8. who makes it Christ's end not to evacuate, undermine, or abolish by his coming [the promises] indefinitely made to the fathers, whether in Gen. 17. 7. or Deut. 30 6. or the like, as respecting parents or children, but to confirm the same, Ibid.

But some will yield the case as verified in those Jewish children, as being never before denied to be visibly in Abraham's Covenant: but what is this to our children's federal interest in the days of the Gospel?

An.

Yes it's very much. 1 It proveth that by the Apostles since Christ's ascension, this tenent of the children of visible members of the Church are visibly interested in the Covenant of grace is of divine authority, and is no human invention. 2. These Jews are eyed by the Apostles, as persons to partake of privileges of a Church of Christians, as was baptism; and therefore what extent of federal right & privilege is granted by the Apostles to them, and theirs in that way, is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way. 3. To suppose God by Apostolical ratification, to allow to children of Jewish parents coming on to Christ, &c. a larger privilege then to Gentile parents, as came on to Christ, &c. is to make God a respecter of persons. 4. The force of the words seem to carry it, that the same promise which was to those Jews actually in Church and Covenant estate, was intentionally to those afar off which were strangers actually from a like estate, whether those of the ten tribes, or rather those of the Gentiles, and should be actually to them, when they came to be called actually into the fellowship of that Covenant and Church estate. Now what promise was that? Verily a promise, which carried with it a partial reference unto their children: The promise is to you, and to your children: And the same is unto them afar off, whom God shall call, scil. in reference to their children also.

CHAP. III. Sect. I. The Explication of Gen. 17. 7, &c.

ANother Scripture holding forth the former doctrine of the Federall holiness of such children is Gen. 17. 7. a place that in these later days, hath been through men's distempers like Isaac's well, an Esek for contention about the waters in it. Touching which, and so the whole doctrine of Federall holiness propounded, let us make use of a few distinctions, and then set down some few conclusions, and withal take off what is brought to the contrary. The Covenant of grace is considered either nakedly, or as invested with a visible political Church-covenant, if not explicit, yet implicit. We are to consider this place, Gen. 17. not so much in the former, as in the later sense; God making of it with reference to the Church, which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac, verse. 18, 19, 20, 21. albeit at present it be to be contained in Abraham's own family, whence also he ordaineth an initiatory seal, and way of restipulation, to which they submitting together, as one selected body, collectively, and as members thereof, distributively, they did implicitly make confession and promise to God, and bind themselves in a nearer religious tie one unto another. Hence often renewed, Deut. 29. 2 Chro. 15. and 30. and 34. Nehem. 10. Ezek. 16. 8.

Again, that Covenant of grace is considered either in it self, or in its administration; to which purpose circumcision is called the Covenant, partly, because it was the sign and seal of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17. 11, 12, 13. Partly too, because it was the Covenant of grace in the administration of it, Jer. 13. 11. and Isaiah 24. 5. and Zach. 11. 10. hath reference to the Covenant of grace both as invested with Church-covenant, and in respect of Church-administration thereof.

Concerning persons being in covenant, some are said to be in the covenant intentionally, so children of the Church, which are yet unborne, Deut. 29. 15. so those afar off, the promise was to them at that time, Acts 2. 39. so the Jews also which yet were to come in, were in Paul's time holy Federally, Rom. 11. 15, 16. or actually, so were the Jews holy which were not cut off in Paul's time, Ibid. so Deut. 29. 14. we attend rather to the later then the former in this discourse.

Persons actually in covenant, are either internally and savingly in covenant, as are all true believers, and their children which belong to God's election: and as were many of those included in that phrase, Rom. 11. 16. and as were Isaac and Jacob, which were not only children of the promise, intentionally, before they were borne, Rom. 9. 9, 10, 11. but actually, as soon as borne; God revealing his mind of covenant-grace in such sort, as never reversing the same, after they were actually borne, hence that Gal. 4. 23. 28. compared, albeit many of the Galatians were but such, in point of visibility, as appeareth. Or they are such as are only externally in the covenant, thus even Ishmael was, for circumcision was even to him also God's covenant or visible seal thereof. This distinction is the Apostles, Rom. 9. 4. he speaks of some to whom the promises belonged, scil. only externally, and of others to whom they belonged, in respect of the saving efficacy thereof, Vers. 6, 7, 8.

Such as are externally in covenant are either such as are so upon their own personal right merely, as many proselytes, Exod. 12. 44, 45. Deut. 29. 10, 11. even those Gibeonites: so were the souls in Abraham's house which he gained to his religion, according to Ainsworth, Gen. 12. 5. such as he had commanded to fear God, Gen. 19. 19. as appears by their free submission to that ridiculous painful ordinance to flesh and blood, Genesis 17. 27. Or such as withal are externally in Covenant, so considered as invested with Church-covenant, in their parents right: as the Jews and Proselytes Children, Deut. 29. 10, 11. God accepting the actual owning of his Covenant by the grown part, and parents instead of the children also. So of all collectively is that spoken, not only that God that day avouched them to be his people, Deut. 26. 18. both parents and children, as also Deut. 30. 16. and 29. but thou hast avouched the Lord to be thy God, Vers. 17. thou collective Israel, yet it was acted but by the grown part in their own, & in their children's stead. Abraham's seed is either taken for the head and principal as was Christ, and so rather intended, Gen. 12. 3. and 22. 18. or for the head and body together even Christ mystical, so Gen. 22. 15. Thy seed shall possess the gates of thine enemies, and so Gal. 3. 16. Jew and Gentile but one seed with Christ the head of the Church. Again, Abraham's seed is either taken collectively, or distributively; collectively, either his seed by propagation, or proportion. In the former sense the Jews in their generations, were the seed mentioned, Gen. 17. 7. that is, parents and children, for they are seed in their generations: seed by proportion, were the Proselytes of old in their generations, and visible enchurched believers in their generations, scil. parents and children together. And both again are considered specifically, or individually: specifically, so some of that sort of parents and grown persons and some of that sort of children are as well internally and savingly in the covenant as externally: albeit many individual persons of both sorts are only externally; thus, Deut. 29. 14. with [him] that is here and with [him] that is not here: him, not them, as noting a collection; yea a certain species, or sort of persons grown or babes, and of babes borne or unborne: according to a different respect of God's making his covenant with them. So in Gen. 17. to thy seed indefinitely, God absolutely covenanting thus, as Vers. 7. with them in their species and sorts: conditionally in respect of the individual persons of each sort. Or more briefly, the seed of Abraham, are either his choice seed in special, or his Church seed indefinitely, we consider herein the later and not so much the former.

SECT II.

1. COnclusion,

that Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. was a Covenant of grace, and the same in nature, with that Covenant of grace now held forth to us. Neither of the branches of this conclusion I think are denied by the more judicious of our opposites, albebeit both have been by some of the more vulgar sort, making that covenant in Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of works, &c. that it was a Covenant of grace, may appear by the quality of the persons, betwixt whom the covenant is made, scil. not God as a Creator, & men as innocent, as in that covenant of works made with Adam, but God as gracious, justifying ungodly persons in the sense of the Law, or such as cannot become legally godly, perfect in themselves or workers, covenanting with such like non-workers, Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. s • il. God and Abraham, yea God and Isaac, yea God and the spiritual seed of Abraham to whom with him the promises indefinitely were made, and so this also, Gal. 3. 16. 2 By the matter promised on God's part, scil. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed, holding forth more then any legal covenant, as 1. to tender and give to them his ordinances according as they should be capable of them, as their peculiar privilege by right of Covenant; hence these two coupled, Lev. 26. 11, 12. Rev. 21. 3. I will be a God to them, I will set my tabernacle amongst them; hence any without these or any external right to them, are according to men said to be without God in the world, Eph. 2. 11, 12, 13. 2 That he will dwell amongst them, and manifest his special presence with and in his Ordinances, and providences among them; hence being a God to any and God's dwelling with them, are coupled together, Exod. 29. 45. Lev. 26. 11, 12 Rev. 21. 3. 3 That he will tender them deliverances as their federal right, and be really forward to give such deliverances from all sorts of miseries, and from the causes of the same; yea actually to work such deliverances, so far as is meet, and suitable to their present conditions: hence God, his being a God to any, and his removing sad mournful thoughts from any, are joined; Revel. 21. 4. see Levite. 26. 41. 42. 45. Deliverances from common providences are common to all, even Pagans; but not such as spring from the virtue of the Covenant, Zach. 9. 11. 4 so as to give to such an external covenant right at least; as to temporal blessings; hence giving Canaan, and his being a God to them joined, Gen. 17. 5. 7. 8. see Psal. 111. 5. so to spiritual mercies, as justification, Jer. 31. 33. 51. Adoption 2 Cor. 6. 16. 18. also owning after death, Exod. 3. 6. compared with Luke 20. 37, 38. and glory after all: hence as to the former, so to this, is joined, God his being a God to any, Heb. 11. 6. All this is included as by virtue of God's covenant offered to such as he is a God to, yea and as that which according to men, and as men are in charity to judge, is with all the visible right of such. Albeit, the former two senses suffice, to the visible administration of the covenant, as their right; in that God doth hold forth that he is a God to such in covenant, to whom he giveth his ordinances, and with whom he vouchsafeth his presence therein as their external covenant right. 3. By the condition propounded and promised to adult Abraham, with whom God was now in this solemn wise to enter into this Covenant, not with him alone but with his, scil. the exercise of faith, and Evangelical uprightness or perfection; Walk before me and be upright or perfect, Vers. 2. And I will make my Covenant between me and thee, Vers. 4. as for me, behold my covenant is with thee, &c. this is my part of the covenant, that was thine, and Vers. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, &c. Now that the same covenant is to us since Christ's ascension, appears by the former: in that it being the covenant of grace, it is an everlasting covenant: hence Gen. 17. 3. and Heb. 13. 20. hence too, when God would express the matter of his Covenant, since Christ's incarnation, he useth and annexeth the old phrase, and form of promise; I will be a God to such or such, 2 Corin. 6. 18. Heb. 8. 10. Jer. 31. 1. spoken in reference to our times: So when speaking of the Jews and their children, which hereafter are to come into Church estate actually he useth the same phrase, Ezek. 37. 25. 27. compared. Hence the same language in mentioning new Jerusalem's condition & privilege, I will be a God to them, I will set my tabernacle among them, Revel. 21. 3. The Covenant then of the Gospel, hath outward privileges of God's tabernacle annexed, as well as Abraham's Covenant, yea in that it's the same with it. By this which hath been said, it appears how short and unsafe the speech of Mr. B. is, who in answer to the argument from Gen. 17. saith

I confess I have met with such a notion in Cameron de triplo foedere, Thes. 20. distinguishing of faedus gratiae promissum et promulgatum, or sancitum, proving it by Gen. 3. 12. 15. But with reverence to so worthy a man be it spoken; I cannot readily subscribe to his notion, and proof thereof; in that the covenant made with Abraham, is called both by the name of promises made to him, Vers. 16. and the covenant confirmed before of God in Christ, that mediator of the new covenant, Heb. 12. 24. 430. years before the Law; which exactly considered referreth us to Gen. 12. 3. so that though God said, Jerem. 31. Not I have, but I will make such a covenant, this proveth not, that it was first made good, or verified, in Heb. 8. 10. &c. For it was confirmed in Christ long before, saith Paul, Gal. 3. In respect of the virtue and efficacy of Christ's blood, in which it was ratified; else neither Abraham nor Isaac had been saved, see Heb. 13. 20. and Revel. 13. 8. albeit actually and fully accomplished afterwards, he had not made it, in so many words expressly, as Jer. 31. noteth, but in substance he had both, Gen. 12. 3. and 7. 7. and Deut. 30. 6, &c. those particulars in Jer. 31. being branches: 1. Of being blessed in Christ. 2. Of God his being a God unto them. 3. Of circumcising their hearts to love him, &c. He had not made that covenant in that way in Sinai, upon their coming out of Egypt, which is there hinted, Jer. 31. 32. but that he made no more Evangelical a covenant, then at Sinai before or after with the Jews, it follows not: not according to the covenant made with your fathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt; not according to it, scil. for external dispensations with thunder and lightnings, and in the former of the ten words, &c. but he saith not, that it should not be according to that Covenant with Abraham, for the matter which, or sorts of persons, to which it was dispensed, or as if he had made no covenant of grace with them before their coming out of Egypt, in Abraham's covenant, &c. or that the covenant made with Abraham, was not the covenant of grace, which was made with him above four hundred years before that time Jeremiah speaks of, Gal. 3. 16. Exod. 19. 1, 2, 3. 20. 1, &c. and 12. 2. 6. 40, 41. and Gen. 15. 13. and 21. 9. and 12. 3, 4. compared together. A. R. is also too presumptuously bold with Christ, that faithful and true witness, when not content to vent his own unsound notions, but he will needs father them upon Christ himself and bring him in as speaking thus to the Jews, from John 8. But how dareth A. R. to father such unsound things upon your faithful Prophet of the Church, as these are; first, that by that your flesh is meant, him, or Christ who was to come of their flesh; whereas the context speaketh thus of all and every male in their generations, stranger or o • her, borne in their house or bought with money amongst them; yet this should be his covenant in their flesh: that is Christ, who was to come of their flesh even of Ishmael and Esau and of the strangers of other countries; will Christ own this as his doctrine at the last day? Yea restrain it: of your flesh, that is of you Jews of all the Tribes, when yet Christ came of the tribe of Judah only: Would Christ speak so heterodoxly? Secondly, that there were three distinct covenants, besides that covenant of nature made with Adam in innocence, and so four covenants, besides that with all the creatures, Gen. 9. and besides these there are three distinct covenants here mentioned; first, that of Circumcision, secondly, that superadded of the Law, thirdly, that everlasting covenant unto which Circumcision was but a sign, will this doctrine be owned by Christ? Nay do not these sayings cross each other? scil. That the covenant of circumcision was to be an everlasting covenant in their flesh Christ: and yet it was not that covenant. The Text saith, for my covenant shall be in your flesh, &c. that is, as here Christ is said to affirm the covenant of circumcision: This covenant then of circumcision being in their flesh, scil. Christ: it seemeth there is some other covenant ratified in Christ then that which is the covenant of grace; even this covenant of circumcision, which this Pseudo-Christus affirmeth to be another covenant distinct from the everlasting covenant, scil. the covenant of grace. I dare not see the Lord Jesus Christ thus abused. Thirdly, that was plainly to be seen, that circumcision was to them a Covenant, and yet but a sign of another covenant, scil. that of grace. As if these two expressions were as wide as a covenant, which circumcision it self was, and a sign of another covenant; when everyone that hath read catecheticall doctrine will say, that when in one verse it's said of circumcision in their flesh, that it was his Covenant in their flesh: it is a usual Metonymy in speaking of Sacraments to call the outward sacramental sign and seal, by the name of the thing signified and sealed. As the cup is called the testament of Christ's blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. that is, the visible sign or seal of it. The bread is called Christ's body, ver. 24. So in mentioning that extraordinary sacrament, the rock is called Christ, 1 Cor. 10. and here in Gen. 17. 11. Circumcision is called a token or sacramental sign of the covenant, in Rom. 4. 11. The seal of the righteousness of faith, where the Scripture speaketh plainly, and explicitly. Yet here A. R. will have Christ himself to hold forth other doctrine then is usual in speaking of Sacraments. Fourthly, that God made with Abraham and those Jews another Covenant distinct from that everlasting covenant, scil. that covenant of circumcision. And yet also made with Abraham and his spiritual seed that other everlasting covenant, of which the circumcision of Jews was a sign; as if God at one and the same time made with one and the same person Abraham two distinct covenants, one which was not the everlasting covenant or covenant of grace, namely the covenant of circumcision, as 'tis called; and the other which was that everlasting covenant it self: And likewise that circumcision was given by God who said it shall be a sign to them, to be a sign of a covenant made, not between God and them that by his appointment were thus circumcised, but of a covenant made betwixt God and others: when the letter of the Text is thus, Gen. 17. 11. It shall be a token of the covenant between me and you. What covenant was that? was it that Vers. 10. where it's said, This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee? nay, that was a duty and condition of the covenant rather, which they were to keep or observe, as it follows: this is my covenant, every manchild amongst you shall be circumcised, Vers. 11. ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh: So then circumcision is but a branch of the covenant or a condition of the covenant on their part, which in the sacramental nature of it is a sign, not of that mentioned which was their duty in being circumcised, and so circumcising their flesh, Vers. 11. should be a sign of being circumcised, Vers. 10. which were absurd; But rather it is a sign of the covenant of God, even that covenant mentioned Vers. 7. scil. of God's becoming a God to them: which is essentially the very everlasting covenant of grace. And whereas A. R. his Pseudo-Christus saith, that circumcision in their flesh was to be an everlasting covenant in their flesh, and yet to be but a sign of that everlasting Covenant, &c. grounding upon that Vers. 13. my covenant in your flesh shall be for an everlasting covenant: As if it should mean, that that eternal covenant was not made with them that had that sign of the covenant at the present, but yet it was to be made with others, when yet the same phrase used in mentioning the sign is used in expressing the form of the covenant it self, Vers. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in faedus seculi, unto or for a covenant of perpetuity, to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee. Here the phrase for an everlasting covenant evidently noteth, not any future covenant, which is not here held forth, but the qualification rather of that covenant, which God saith he will establish at present with Abraham and his seed; for having mentioned the covenants, he expresseth the qualifications of the covenant it self, that it is of no temporary but of an everlasting nature. And then setteth down the matter of his Covenant thus made with him and his seed, scil. that he will be a God to them, and that verse. 13. is but a Sacramental phrasing of the same thing.

SECT. III.

Conclu. 2.

THat the covenant of grace in Gen. 17. is to be considered as invested with Church-covenant, and therefore mention is made of this covenant as to be kept by them, verse. 9. which is further expressed in one particular thereof, verse. 10. Not as if this were all which God required of Abraham and of his seed, but because this was the first initiating condition, and that which did as an initiatory sacramental sign, in a more peculiar way, incorporate him and them into one instituted Church-body at present, which should more fully be carried on for after time in Isaac's time, ver. 19. 21. and 21. 12. Besides, this made them further capable afterwards of partaking of other Church ordinances. Hence also if others desired to partake of that Church ordinance of the passover, albeit they might be otherwise godly, yet they might not be admitted to the same, unless by circumcision initiated into their Church body, Exod. 12. 44. 48. Hence when the Scripture would speak of the Jewish Church, it sets them forth by that name, those of the circumcision, Act. 11. 2. Rom. 15. 8. and 3. 30. Gal. 2. 17. But verily in requiring circumcision many other duties lay upon them virtually. As first, the knowledge of their own undone estate by nature: as being persons whose blood not of one member of their body alone, but even of their whole man, the life of body and soul might in justice be required of them, and this not so much in regard of actual sins of their own, as in regard also of Adams sin derived to them by propagation; if they had no more guilt then that they deserved to die. Secondly also, knowledge of their extreme need of Christ, whose blood as the blood of the principal seed of Abraham, was to be shed in fullness of time, and by virtue whereof that covenant was at present ratified, Gal. 3. 4. 17. Hence also faith was required of them to apply that benefit of Christ and his blood, Rom. 3. 30. Those of the Jewish Church had faith required of them to justification, as well as the baptized Gentiles; all duties and branches and acts of repentance and mortification, were therein required also, of persons admitted to the seal of circumcision; hence such exhortations thereon grounded, Deut. 10. 16. All inward acts and branches of renovation and sanctification were therein also involved as that which they were bound to endeavor and attain, Rom. 2. 29. And all outward obedience of faith to the Law as a rule of life, was therein also required. Whence that, Rom. 2. 25. The profitable use of circumcision is to keep the Law, the righteousness of it: What, as that whereby they should be justified? No verily, God gave it not to them for that end, but such a keeping thereof as the godly gentiles, who being not circumcised but baptized, it shall be all one as if they had been externally circumcised, Rom. 2. 26, 27, 28.

SECT. IV.

Conclu. 3.

THat there is a bare external being in the covenant of grace of persons who possibly never shall be saved. Hence the promise is said to belong to those Jews, Rom. 9. 4. on whom yet the word took no saving effect, verse. 6. hence by opposition to the Gentiles they were those which were not strangers to the Church, but of it. They were not strangers to the covenant of promise, but in the same, Ephes. 2. 11, 12. hence God saith he maketh his covenant with them all; Deut. 29. 10, 12, 13, 14, 15. speaking there of that solemn renuall of the covenant of grace, as Deut. 30. 6. 10. 12, 13, 14. compared with Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. evinceth. So Ezek. 16. 8. he made a Covenant with that Church and people, many whereof proved very base, as that Chapter showeth. Now this was a covenant of grace, albeit invested with Church-covenant, as appears in that verse. 60. that God for that his covenant sake considered as his, will deal so graciously with them after all their provocations, as verse. 62, 63. Albeit, he did not thus properly for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed: scil. Thy covenant, the Churches covenant abstractively considered verse. 61. see more Ezek. 36. from verse. 17. to the Chapters end. There is an external being in the covenant of grace, as there is an external being in Christ, John 15. 2. and partaking of Christ, hence that of Heb. 13. 14. An external belonging to Christ: hence those Jewish refusers to believe in Christ, yet called his own, John 1. 11. As there is an external being called, Matth. 22. 14. an external being sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, Heb. 10. 29. an external being purged from sin, 2 Pet. 1. 9. an external being purchased by Christ, 2 Pet. 2. 1. an external Saintship, Deut. 33. 3. And therefore both are joined, being Saints, and making a Covenant with God, Psal. 50. 5. and such as had God's covenant made with them to glory of, verse 16. yet what persons many of them were that Psalm doth declare. There are those invisible Churches which are as Isaac was, children of the promise, Gal. 3. 28. children of the Gospel Church, verse 31. and 26. this must be verified in all the members of the Galatian Churches, unto whom Paul wrote that Epistle, Gal. 1. 2. for he spake this of them all; Jerusalem which is the mother of us [all] verse 26, 27, 28. compared: They then were all such either effectually and savingly: And then there were some particular visible Churches in which were no hypocrites. Contrary to the very scope of the parable of the Tares, and Net, and Virgins, and Wedding, and variety of vessels in the Church visible as an house of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. compared with 2 Tim. 2. 20. Yea then there should be a possibility that such as are savingly interested in the covenant of grace should end in the flesh, Gal. 3. 3. suffer many things in vain, verse 4. have Apostolical labor bestowed on them in vain, Gal. 4. 11. fall from grace, and have no profit to salvation by Christ, Gal. 5. 2. 4. for if there were not a possibility of some such members and cases to be found in the Galatian Churches; why doth the Apostle speak such things as there are mentioned? but there is no possibility of fatal seducing the elect one, savingly interested in the covenant and Church. 2 Tim. 2. 16. 19, 20. 1 John 2. 19. Matth. 24. 24. So then it must needs follow that according to God, some were such indeed, but externally and according to men all were children of the promise. In which sense the promise of grace and glory may be to one as ones legacy, or portion externally, and according to men, of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short, Heb. 4. 1. 4. When Antipaedobaptists admit any to the seals of Church and covenant fellowship, is it not possible that some false brethren may creep in unawares, Jude 4. some wolves enter in, and of their own selves some turn seducers? Act. 20. 29, 30. can it be otherwise but that in visible Churches with us or them, there will be some unapproved ones to God? 1 Cor. 11. 18, 19. yet you admit them to the fellowship of covenant, but without ground, unless to them they are in covenant. Will you ordinarily put seals to blanks? and the seal must follow the covenant, Gen. 17. 7. 9, 10, 11. 13. Acts 2. 38, 39. 1 Cor. 11. 25. You will surely say, they appeared to us, to be in the covenant of grace; we judged them to be in it: else we had not admitted them. So then according to yourselves, persons may be externally and quoad homines in the Covenant of grace, which are not savingly so; I plead for no more; we are then thus far agreed; I yield no more advantage to Arminius, nor undermine perseverance in grace, nor the Polemicall doctrine of our choice Divines more then you do, nor then Ames, Chamier, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and then your own Tertullian, as you count him, doth; who in his book De Anima, Chap. 21, 22. urgeth that Text, 1 Cor. 7. 14. for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed, as the rest which I have named: to whom Pareus, Peter Martyr, Bucer, Melanchthon, Mr. Philpot, besides many others might be added, who pleading for Infants baptism, urge it from their interest in the Covenant. As many of the ancients, Cyprian, Gregory, Nazianzen, Jerome, Augustine and others which plead for Paedobaptism from the argument of circumcision, must need implicitly, if not expressly, maintain Infants Covenant estate, to which the baptism of the one as the circumcision of the other was ex natura rei, a sacramental sign, Gen. 17. 11. And yet they held not, that all such were infallibly saved, and therefore must maintain with me, an external inbeing of some in covenant which possibly may never be saved.

But leaving human authorities to return to Scripture proof of this third conclusion; let our opposites consider of God's breaking that gracious Covenant which he had made with his people of old, which was as his staff of beauty, Zach. 11: 10, whether it can be verified of a legal covenant of works and not rather of his covenant of grace in respect at least of the external administration thereof amongst them, as verse 9. and their external right in that his covenant. And whence else is there any supposal of some interested in that same covenant of God wherein the upright are faithful, stable, and perminent, but others are false, treacherous, and apostatising? Psal. 44. 17. Dan. 11. 30, 31, 32, 33. If they were never in this holy covenant, how came they to forsake it, to deal falsely in it? or was this Covenant wherein they together with those true believers were interested in communion, other then the covenant of grace? If it were not that from Zion, was it that from mount Sinai, which are the Apostles membra dividentia of the covenant, Gal. 4. 24. If so, then believers, which as believers must necessarily be in the free covenant of life and grace, yet also at the same time are under a contrary covenant of bondage and death and curse; if this covenant in which they were with true believers were a covenant of grace, as is evident, then were hypocrites externally in it, for internally and efficaciously they were not; and whence else were they charged with breaking the everlasting covenant, cat • exochen, if they were never in that bond; And if in it, it was but externally, else had they never so fatally broken this covenant which is thus plainly described by the old periphrasis of Abraham's covenant, Gen. 17. 7. 13. and whence also are some charged with not believing the faith or engaged truth, the covenant of God, Rom. 7. 3. if it were not plighted with them? which notwithstanding took saving effect only in the elect and in the believing: Nor will any say that it was other then the covenant of grace which took such effect, Rom. 9. 6. And what need that preoccupation of the Apostle, when speaking before of the promise indefinitely, as belonging even to those refuse Jews, he saith: not that the word of God took none effect, scil. in the persons to whom it belonged: As if his meaning were thus, to prevent all objection, I yield that many to whom the word of God's gracious covenant did externally belong, never got any saving good by it, as appeareth by their sad case at present, verse 1, 2, 3. but yet this will not follow, that God's covenant had none effect at all, namely in others which were savingly interested therein. And the reason he giveth is added, for they are not all Israel which are of Israel: as if he would say, they are indeed Israelites; or of called, covenant, in-churched Israel, verse 4. and 6. compared, but they are not all elected Israel; so then, that the word of covenant taketh not savingly in such like persons, it is neither in that they were not in that covenant externally; for the promise belonged to them, verse 4. nor that the word of God's covenant is not per se efficacious; since it doth take effect in as many as are the choice seed, principally intended in that Covenant; but here rather is the secret ground of it: They are not, nor never were elected of God, and such as in his secret counsel he intended and ordained to extend eternal mercy to: for had they been of that number they could never (according to the objection included) have so fallen as to reject and cast off so irrecoverably the revealed grace and mercy of God's covenant as ratified in Christ, Rom. 15. 8. Acts 4. 45, 46, 47, 48. and Rom. 11. 20. and 9. 31, 32, 33. 1 Pet. 2. 7, 8. compared: This here said may serve for answer to Mr. B. his distinction of the Covenant of grace and an outward Covenant, &c. they are not two distinct covenants, but the covenant of grace made with the elect in respect of their saving interest in that, I will be a God to them; the same is made with others, in respect both of visible interest, and the visible administration of it; nor is Gen. 17. 10. a proof of an outward covenant, distinct from the covenant of grace, verse 7. but it is the covenant or conditional part and duty of the same covenant on their parts. As God had before told Abraham what was his part of the covenant, both more personally respecting Abraham, verse 4, 5, 6. As for me, or my part: behold my Covenant is with thee, and more parentally and radically in respect to him considered with his seed, verse 7, 8. So verse 9. he telleth Abraham, what is his and his seeds part of the covenant, thou shalt keep my covenant and thy seed &c. If Abraham demand, What is that his and his seeds part? It is answered verse 10. &c.

From the same principle may sundry objections of I. S. against the truth in question be answered; as, that there is but one way of entering into covenant, scil. by a true and lively faith. The contrary whereof here appears in that persons may be said to be in covenant with God in respect of external right which never came to believe actually nor savingly. Of like nature is that; the promise being yea and amen in Christ, 2 Cor. 1. 20. such as have not true faith in him, as Infants &c. have not, they cannot be interested in the covenant, to which purpose also, Gal. 3. 9. 27. 29. is brought; now taking that of saving faith, we see others may be called the children of God, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. 23. Rom. 9. 4. yea children of the promise, Acts 3. 25. Gal. 4. 28. then such as do attain to saving faith, as before was cleared. Of the like nature is that, that we by our doctrine do set up another way of salvation then by regeneration; which is a mere non sequitur, since unregenerate persons may be in covenant with God, on whom the word never taketh effect, Rom. 9. 4. and 6. compared, and no other is our doctrine; we disclaim that conclusion, that all that are externally in covenant attain salvation; nor doth that sequel of universal redemption follow from our doctrine of Federall holiness since we maintain no other but that whatever such are quoad homines counted redeemed of the Lord, and sometimes so styled, as that visible Church of Ephesus is said to be purchased by the blood of Christ, Acts 20. 28, &c. yet in that and other visible Churches many prove otherwise, even rent-members, verse 29, 30. so 2 Pet. 2. 1. If these had not been externally in Covenant, they had not been in the Churches. And albeit they were so, yet the effect proved they were not internally of the number of redeemed ones. Hitherto that Dilemma being reduced may receive answer. That according to our doctrine believers children being in the covenant of grace: that covenant is made with them, either conditionally or absolutely; if conditionally, then either on condition of faith, or works. Not of works, none will affirm that, then of faith: and that is nugatory to say this Covenant is to believers seed, if believers; to which branch we answer, the Covenant is theirs externally, and quoad homines: considered as invested with Church-covenant, and in reference to Covenant Ordinances, whereof they are capable, as of old they were of Circumcision, and are now of baptism.

Thus it's theirs at present, in respect of the visible faith and interest of the parent or parents in the Covenant, and for the future, it's theirs in the further grace of the Covenant, upon condition of their believing if they live to years of discretion: If absolutely, then God either keeps it, and so all the seed of believers should be saved, which is false, or he doth not keep what he absolutely covenanted, which to affirm were blasphemy. We answer, God may be said absolutely to covenant with believers seed, collectively and specifically considered; and yet all the Individual children not saved. It is absolutely made, and made good, that that sort of persons shall be and are saved by virtue of God's Covenant, for some of them are infallibly saved: The Covenant is to the indefinite collective seed or children, in respect of the internal saving interest: else none of them dying Infants should be saved. Supposing they are the Israel of God, a part of the elect seed, yet the means of saving effect in and upon them is the word of Covenant, Rom. 9. 6. It's thorough the effectual word and engaged truth of God that that part of the Church are savingly purged, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. The Covenant is to the individual seed, all and each of them in respect of external interest, and yet many of them not saved, nor yet is God's faithfulness impeached or impaired, nor need the faith of believers be shaken, if this or that child should prove, live and die wicked, the force of the Covenant is not to be measured by the fatal miscarrying of many of Abraham's Church seed. To be sure it taketh in some of his Church-seed, as the Apostle reasoneth, Rom. 9. 4. 6. compared, Whether our doctrine herein or the adversaries which deny any interest at all to any believers Infants in the Covenant, be more uncomfortable, let the world judge. And therefore to affirm with Paul, if taken in the strict of elect ones, and of sincere believers, that they only are Abraham's choice seed, yet it's no other then Gospel to affirm as much as we have done of others: ye they also are Abraham's Church seed.

SE • T. V.

4.

A Fourth Conclusion is, that the Church in dispensing an enjoined Initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace, looketh unto visibility of interest in the Covenant to guide her in the application thereof. Nor is it the saving interest of the persons in view which is her rule by which she is therein to proceed. The matter to be dispensed is not an Initiatory seal of the Covenant before it be commanded, as before Circumcision or baptism be commanded: but supposing that de facto they are commanded, the rule of judging of the jus of persons propounded to the Church, with desire of her admission by her officers, to the fellowship of the initiatory seal of the Covenant; it is not the internal and saving state of the party, or parties, but the visibility of covenant right and estate; saving right, consisting in God's electing act which is a very secret: in saving interest in Christ and his death: in saving influences and operations of his spirit and the like, all which incur not to outward discerning, nor can be infallibly known by man being things per se invisible to others, John 3. 8. John the Baptist did and might lawfully baptize those multitudes, albeit in the general he knew that many, yea most of them would prove false and frothy, Matth. 3. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. It sufficeth that albeit he were persuaded in the general, that many were unworthy members of that floor, and Church of Christ amongst them all; yet they having appearances of a better estate, and he not being able to say in the particular persons presented to baptism, which of them notwithstanding would prove chaffie and vile, he baptized them. Albeit we may think in the general that to be sure in all visible Churches there will be some vessels of dishonor sometimes, and yet Ministers which are the Churches, as well as Christ's servants, they are not therefore to refuse, to dispense Church-Ordinances; since they are in the face of the Church, such utensils, as the Lord may have and hath need of. Hence the Apostles which as extraordinary persons, knew the guile of persons secret from the Church, witness that act against Ananias and Sapphira, Act. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. to 11. Yet in administering the Church-seal of Baptism they refused not Ananias and Sapphira, no nor Simon Magus, Act. 8. nor thousands of others of the Jews, amongst whom, how many proved false, let Acts 2. 41. and 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. compared, 21. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. 28. 30, 31. 36. and 22. 20. 22. and 23. 12, 13. witness. Nor could the Apostles imagine otherwise in the general, but many of them would prove such. Yea Christ himself, who by his divine knowledge, knew Judas to be a devil, John 6. 70, 71. and 13. 18. yet he ministered to him that Supper; whether the Paschal Lamb or the Lord's Supper, Verse 1. 2. 26. and 21. compared with Luke 22. 19, 20, 21. I determine not; one of them it appears it was; Austin and others think Judas was admitted to the Lord's Supper, and that he did partake of the bread of the Lord, albeit, not of the Lord that spiritual bread: so thinks Mr. Cartwright from that connection, Luke 23. 19, 20, 21. but if admitted by Christ to the Passover which Christ administered to him formerly, and at that time, it sufficeth to our purpose. Christ ministering as man, dealeth with Judas in his ministration of the Sacrament as man, and as Judas was according to man, and to the rest of that family to which he then in special sort ministered. Ishmael God discovered by a divine revelation to Abraham, Esau to Rebekah, not to be God's elect seed of the Covenant; yet Abraham and Isaac as Prophets and Priests at that time to the Church in their families, circumcise them; extraordinary cases brake not ordinary rules. If Peter kill bodily any persons, or Phinehas or Elias; It's not a warrant for Ministers to be executioners, or orderers of civil justice: It's the Magistrate is to do that by ordinary rule. Rom. 13. If Ananias a private Disciple by extraordinary call in a vision, baptize Paul, yet it's no cross to that ordinary rule of ministering baptism only by preaching ministers, Matth. 28. 19, 20. So here in extraordinary cases persons to be admitted to the seals of the old or New Testament, may be discovered to be false hearted as was Ishmael, Esau and Judas: yet that hinders not, but being in facie Ecclesiae visibly interested in the Covenant, the seals are to be administered unto them. The Church in Abraham and Isaac's house had not that revealed to them touching Ishmael and Esau; as neither the family of Christ knew that of Judas: therefore as to them they had visible right to those seals, so were they administered to them. A Minister may see much good or evil in persons which are to partake of the seals: yet if this be not as well visible to the Church, as to himself, he cannot of himself admit or reject them regularly; he is not the Church, but acteth in admission & rejections to or from the fellowship of Church-Ordinances such as the seals are, by and with their consent. A person Ecclesiastically holy is admittable, and he may not refuse them upon his own private surmises. It were to breed confusions in Churches, and lay foundations of enthusiasms. The ordinary Elders of that visible Church of Ephesus must feed the Church in the dispensation of the word or seals occasionally. Albeit, many admitted to that fellowship, many among themselves will prove Apostates, Acts 20. 28, 29, 30. If particular persons saving interest in God's promise and Covenant of grace were the rule, it were either to necessitate ministers to come under guilt of sin or Anomie, breach of rule or for avoiding of that, which they must needs do with such breach of rule, never to administer any Church-ordinances; since they sometimes shall break that rule in administering the same to hypocrites, and albeit they do sometimes administer them to elect ones, yet not being able to know that secret infallibly, they observe not that rule in faith, but doubtingly, and so can have little comfort of any such of their administrations.

If this therefore be not the rule of Church administration of the Initiatory enjoined seal of the Covenant; then the other of visibility of interest is that which we must go by therein. Which may suffice for answer to what A. R. suggested to the contrary. And I say, visibility of the parties interest in the Covenant, I say not mere visibility of faith or repentance. The Initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of man's faith, or repentance or obedience, but of God's Covenant rather; the seal is to the covenant, even Abraham's Circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousness; but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant; yea to the Covenant it self or promise, which he had believed unto righteousness; hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. The righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise, verse 8. and it's called the word of faith: hence albeit Abraham must walk before God, who is now about to enlarge the Covenant to his, as well as to make it to him, in a Church reference, Gen. 17. 1. &c. yet the Initiatory seal in his as well as in their flesh is God's Covenant, verse 13. or a Sacramental sign firstly and expressly of God's Covenant, Verse 11. and 7. compared; albeit, it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned. Hence Act. 2. 38, 39. the seal of baptism is put to the promise, as the choice matter and foundation in view, and as that was a ground of repentance it self. Repent and be baptized, for the promise is to you: Not, for you have repented, as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism, but the promise rather: and when we speak of visibility of Covenant right, as such a rule to go by, we exclude not the lowest and least degree of visibility, since degrees do not vary the species of anything; if we propound a higher degree where shall we stay and pitch? Why not a higher degree as well as that? we must look to it, that not the least of God's Covenant little ones be left out unfolded in the Church visible. We were better seem to be remiss in respect of Church care of 99. which are but seemingly just ones, then neglect any, and leave out any which possibly is savingly as well as seemingly of the flock of the covenant Church; the least of God's visible family or Church must have their portion as of the family; if Ministers be faithful in their office; the least visible measure of grace must occasion our judgment of charity to judge them gracious, so the least degree of visibility of covenant right may challenge the like charity; not in word and in tongue but in deed and act of expression, We put a difference betwixt those in Heb. 6. 4. and Infants in degrees of visibility of this right, but in the nature of the visibility we say they are all one, all are visibly in covenant, albeit that visibility in point of degree be not in all equal. God putteth a difference in point of degree of faith in justified persons, but in his act of justifying of persons he puts no difference, the least spark in Flax is enough that way: For if it were more it would flame as well as make a smoke, and yet if but so much it's not slighted by the Lord. I might apply the same in point of degrees of visibility of Covenant right, in reference to the Churches act of approbation; It's a higher degree indeed of visibility of interest in the Covenant to make personal profession and confession of faith in the Covenant, as it is in Adultis, then to have only the visible testimony of God in his word of Covenant expressing his mind of grace, touching the seed of Abraham to be a God to them. And to add the •… •… sible testimony of his providence, that these children are of th •… race and parentage▪ to which also Abraham and other enchurched parents, by visible owning of the covenant in the Latitude upon the terms of it, and as now Christian Parents do make profession of their parental faith in the Covenant as made to them and their children, and this profession of theirs may not be (possibly) sincere, yet it's visibly a federal confession, and such an avouching of God to be their Covenant God as taketh in their children, as that did, Deut. 26. 17. and that Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, &c. And this is to the Church a degree of their children's visibility of covenant right and Church right; albeit, not so high as the former, and not varying the species of visibility, it sufficeth, not to vary the species of Church admission to fellowship of the initiatory Church-seal. Judgment of charity reacheth further then to judge of persons estates by their own personal words or works: Charity believeth all things in way of testimony if they give any testimony; as that of God who testifieth more absolutely for that species of believers children, that they are such as he doth covenant to be a God to them. And the parents testify als • for them in the profession of their faith in that covenant of God for their seed. The Churches also own them as visibly such, leaving secrets to God; which particular Infant is not the elect seed principally intended; here charity as it believeth all things witnessed, so it hopeth all things of the particular persons which are themselves dumb, but are included in the testimony of others mouths opened for them, nothing being of counter-force to the contrary touching this point of visibility of their covenant and Church interest. And I the more wonder that any which confess that it's not to be denied, that God would have Infants of believers in some sense to be accounted his, to belong to his Church and family, and not to the devils, as true in facie ecclesi •… visibles, &c. yet do oppose us in this particular now in question.

SECT. VI.

Conclus. 5.

THat Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the head in that respect, which prove unsound, as well as in other respects, he is considered as head of the visible Church, wherein are none but elect ones: And when Gal. 3. 16. it's said, to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ, were the promises made, it's not meant of Christ personal, as if the promises, as that of pardon of sin, &c. were made to Christ personally considered: or the promises were first made to Abraham and unto Christ personal, as the Text hath it.

Promises were made to Abraham and to his seed Christ. Nay Christ personally considered is rather Abraham's seed, not to, but in which the promises are confirmed, Gal. 3. 17. with 16. But rather of Christ with his body the Church, whether of Gentiles or Jews, Gal. 3. 14. which though many personally yet make but one seed, and not many seeds, being all one in Christ the head of the Church, Verse 16. 28. compared, like as Gen. 3. 15. the seed of Eve, is Christ with his members in and with him, So 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. the name of Christ is not ascribed to the head the Lord Jesus without his body the Church: or to the Church of Jews and Gentiles without him the head, but collectively considered. Quaeritur, whether this in Gal. 3. and 1 Cor. 12. be spoken of the visible or invisible Church. I answer, to me it seems that the places admit of the consideration of the Church as visible. First, in that the Apostle speaketh of all the Galatian Church-members as well as others, as one in Christ, Gal. 3. 28. Now were all those members elected, will any say? I suppose not, yet all are one in Christ their head. Secondly, in that he speaks of them all as Sacramentally one with Christ in baptism, Gal. 3. 27, 28. compared, so 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. Now albeit, the spirit be the cause of the internal and saving union with Christ, in all which are united: As Ecclesiastically all the Corinthian members were judged to be; yet indeed and in truth there were many of them not approved to God, 1 Cor. 11. 18, 19. compared. But in both places the Apostle considering them as a baptized Caecus: intimateth the consideration thereof as a visible, and not as an invisible Church: Baptism being the seal committed to the visible Church by her officers to be dispensed, and not to the invisible Church which hath no Officers in it, as such. And baptism being by the Church administered to persons as visible, and not as invisible members of the Church. Thirdly, in that Christ hath head-like influences into the officers and members, many whereof are not savingly joined to him. Fourthly, in that it is the Church wherein he hath set diversity of Church-officers, which are not set in the invisible, but visible Church: that Church being not invisible but visible where Church-officers are set and chosen, and act. From this consideration it followeth, that albeit a man's own personal faith uniteth him to Christ, in respect of saving and invisible union, yet the profession and confession of faith before and in a visible Church, in reference to visible communion therewith, this doth unite a person to Christ as head of the visible Church; whether the party be sincere or no. Hence also a Parent, making profession of faith in the covenant of grace, as invested with Church-covenant in reference to his children it doth unite them also to Christ, as head of the visible Church so far, as to give right to solemn imitation of them, into the fellowship of the Church in circumcision as of old, or baptism as now. Parents acts in this case being in the face of the vi •… ble Church, their children's acts, as the places quoted, Deut. 26. 17, 18. and 29. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, 16, 17 declared. Whence contrariwise, the parents neglect of ci • cumcision of a babe, not capable of personal neglect, was c • unted the child's neglect, the uncircumcised manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised [that soul shall be cut off • rom his people [He] hath broken my covenant. And as in other cases the Lord Christ who required personal faith in grown ones to their cure, yet in case of children is contented, that their parents believe on their behalf, John 4. Mark 9. from verse 12. to 18. so Matth. 15. 22. to 29. so is it in the case of this external Church benefit. Albeit, the just only live an effectual life of grace, and attain the virtue of the seal by their own faith, yet that hindereth not, but a child may attain, as it were a Church-life, and partake of the visible interest and use of that initiating Church-seal, by his parents covenant and Church faith, or that faith which is such to the Church. Nor yet do we hereby establish (as some say) a meriting faith, no more then we make visibility of personal faith, to merit personal right to baptism, &c. But rather the parents professing to apply the covenant as made to him and his, there doth result a parental as well as a personal right. Such weight there is in the covenant applied, as by virtue of the covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant thus professedly applied, there doth arise such a union, as of the parent, so of the child ( quoad homines ) unto Christ, as head of the visible Church. And look as the covenant laid hold upon, by the lively faith of gracious parents, as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed, yea albeit dying young, as sundry of those elect ones of Abraham's race did, Rom. 9. 6. yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant children. Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant fathers sake, as such, Rom. 11. 28. and hence made as a ground of their return, verse 15, 16. So is there such validity in the covenant invested with Church-covenant, albeit but unworthily ofttimes held forth by the parents, which doth beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God, and to his spouse the visible Church; whence that respect of children of God and his Church, by virtue of that Espousall covenant, Ezek. 16. 8. Even in the children of Idolatrous members, verse 20, 21. 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so clothed. Albeit many unworthy members are girt up in it, to hold them and theirs in external Church-communion, Jer. 13. 11. until either that Church be divorced from God, or the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure, of such a Church-covenant privilege. This consideration with the former mentioned in that first conclusion, may also satisfy M. B. that our doctrine touching Infants covenant and Church-right to baptism doth not necessarily produce, either that absurdity of a state of grace and remission of sins before calling, or of birth grace (as J. I. hath it) conveyed from parent to child: understanding it of grace absolute and grace in them and not of grace upon them, or relative grace. And if of grace upon them, yet if understanding what he saith as meant of justification and saving adoption, and not of external adoption and covenant administration, the former they convey not, as neither doth a free Denison his personal gifts of wisdom, &c. the later he may; not as a man barely, but with this reduplication, considered as a parent in covenant and Church and spiritual city estate; for so by virtue of the covenant he is in, together with the professed parental application and challenge of it, as to him and his, he may convey such an external right formerly mentioned. Nor is that absurdity ours, that we make such visible members of Christ's church before calling, for if he mean it of effectual calling; he, if invisible Church fellowship will come under that absurdity too; unless he could wholly exclude hypocrites from visible Churches, or suppose such a Church where neither are nor can come any false brethren. If he intendeth it of external calling, so visible believers and in churched parents Infants, are with and in their parents call, to the external fellowship of Church-covenant, implicitly called with them. As before they were a far off together from covenant and Church, so now are they made nigh together th • s far. Of the like nature is that imaginary absurdity, of entailing grace to generation not to regeneration or of upholding a national Church; he knows we in New-England which hold the one, yet do not maintain the other in the usual sense of a national Church. And this which hath been here said also may answer that of I. S. that Infants have not union with Christ, as not having faith, and therefore may not have any communion in Church-ordinances; if he intend it of saving faith, his sequel is weak, since many which do not savingly believe are in respect of their in-being in the visible Church, to which also Christ is head, in Christ as the head of that body, in which they are visible members, whence also that John 15. 2. But to speak to the proposition it self, I say Infants without actual faith, are of Christ's body the Church, of which more afterwards, and so in Christ as the head of the visible Church. Their parents professed application of the covenant with reference to them, as well as to themselves, they are together with themselves Ecclesiastically one with Christ as the head of the visible Church.

SECT. VII.

Conclus. 6.

THat the body of the Jewish Church to old was under the covenant of grace, as invested with Church covenant, in respect of external interest therein. It was not (as some say) that they only had a covenant of grace among them, which was made to some choice ones among them, but that which was made with and dispensed to the body of the Jews, was a covenant of works and not of grace; for the contrary appeareth, 1. In that the covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in reference to their whole seed at least in respect of external and ecclesiastical right, as before we proved. And hence God appointed them all to receive the visible seal thereof, see Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. and 26. 3, 4, 5. and 28. 12, 13, 14. either then these covenant fathers receiving the covenant in reference to their children, had a contrary covenant of life and death, grace and works, made with them, and so at one and the same time were externally under the blessing and curse of God, and so were not one root to their seed, nor first fruits of one sort; but as their branches and lump in the body of them, are supposed to have the covenant of works dispensed to them, so are they to them as a legal root and first-fruits of that sort: yet sundry of the branches being elect ones, to them they are an Evangelical root, and first-fruits of another sort, contrary to that letter of the Text, Rom. 11. 16. or if not both, then either receiving a covenant of works alone, in reference to them all elected, or not: or it must be granted, that they received the covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all.

2. The very substance of the covenant made and enjoined to be sealed upon all the children of those fathers, Acts 7. 8. with Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. was (as hath been proved) not a Legal but an Evangelical covenant. It was not, Do this and live, or else be accursed, Gal. 3. 10, 11, 12. but I will be a God to thy seed, not to Isaac of Abraham alone; nor to Jacob of Isaac alone, in that Church-right and way, but to thy seed in their generations. It was their covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God, or Ordinances as their privilege, yea and his presence therein. Hence that Exod. 40. 34, 35. 38. and Num. 6. 6. 9. and Levite. 9. 14. hence that filling of their Temple with smoke, with the glory of God, 1 King. 8. 10, 11. so Isa. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. hence that same testifying of the presence of God in the Churches, after Christ's ascension, in a way of mercy to his people, and for their sakes in a way of justic • against his and their enemies, Revel. 15. 8. Hence the frequent answers made to them, and for them by Oracle from God's mercy-seat, Exod. 23. 21, 22. see Deut. 4. 7. Christ himself went with them whither soever they went, 1 Cor. 10. 4. whence they are said to tempt him, verse 9. see Exod. 33. 15, 16. besides those extraordinary Sacraments in which they shared as spiritual things, 1 Cor. 1, 2, 3, 4. only those fathers so partaking of them, which to Egyptians, and beasts were not of that nature. It was their covenant-right to have such deliverances flowing thence, as that from Egypt, Exod. 6. 7. albeit afterward too God continued in other respects as well as that, their covenant God, Exod. 29. 45, 46. Levite. 26. 11, 12. so in and after that Babylonish deliverance, Ier. 24. 7. which deliverances of theirs, were not of any common nature to other people, but by virtue of Christ the Anointing, the Mediator (virtually) of that cove •… Isa. 10. 27. see Ier. 24. 7. and 15. 17, 18, 19, 20. see more Deut. 29. with 30. 6. Acts 2. 38, 39. hence that, Rom. 3. 29, 30. see Heb. 4. 1, 2. Acts 3. 25. Rom. 9. 4. not meaning the Law or two Tables of it, but distinguishing those promises from the other; nor was Canaan all which God promised them, as some have said. For,

First, it was promised them as an everlasting possession, when yet many, even the best of them, never enjoyed it constantly, if at all, Heb. 11. 9, 10. Num. 20. 12. the promise of Canaan was ratified in Christ, as are other temporal blessings to us now, 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22. hence Christ's said to drive out their enemies thence from them, Exod. 23. 20, 21. hence called Immanuels land, Isaiah 8. 8. hence sundry of them excluded thence for that Gospel sin of unbelief, Heb. 3. last compared with Chap. 42. Hence God promised to be a God to them, and as one branch thereof, instanceth in giving them Canaan, Gen. 17. 7. 8. yet to show that was not all he promised, he again addeth after that; And I will be a God to them. Hence those expectations of faith beyond the same, Heb. 11. 9, 10. Ps. 142. 5.

Secondly, the Proselyted strangers were to have Abraham's covenant sealed to them and theirs by Circumcision, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, • 0, 11, 12, 13. yet they might not have lots there, nor keep them, •… t return them at the Jubilee, Josh. 13. 6. Numb. 36. 2. and •… .53.

Thirdly, Christ was the mediator of that covenant of Abraham made with them and so held out to them all, witness their sacrifices expiatory, and propitiatory, enjoined the whole congregation in case of sin, Levite. 4. 13. unto 22. witness the two Goats, one for a sin offering for the whole congregation, and the other the scape goat, over which all the sins of the children of Israel, were confessed by the Priests, and then it was in a typical way to carry away all their sins, into a place far remote, Levite. 16. 15, 21, 22, &c. what this did externally signify, none is ignorant which knows the Scriptures. And albeit all made not effectual use of it by saving faith, yet God herein testified what a covenant they were under, even that of grace confirmed in Christ, and to what they had according to men external right. Hence the high Priest in type of Christ, bare the names of the 12. Tribes, and made intercession and atonement for them upon the like ground. Adam, with whom that covenant of works was made, had no such sacrifices, Gal. 3. 16, 17. the Apostle speaking of the promises to Abraham, not excluding this, Gen. 17. albeit more especially relating to Gen. 12. 2. 31. saith not, they were [to be confirmed] in Christ, as if not at all ratified in Christ to them of old: but saith the covenant [was confirmed] long before the Law in Christ, so as that could not disannul the validity of it, and Acts 3. 25. they are said to be children of the Gospel promise, Gen. 12. 3 hence Luke 1. 54, 55. 67, 68. unto the 76 Verse, and Christ as a Minister, not of circumcising, for he neither circumcised, nor baptized personally, John 4. 1. but of the circumcision, that is the Jewish Church and people, Gal. 2. 7. he came actually and personally to confirm those promises made to the fathers, as Gen. 17, 7, 8. which he had before virtually confirmed, Gal. 3. 16, 17. And which is observable, the Apostle, Rom. 15. 9, 10, 11, 12. brings in four reasons, to prove the receiving in of the Gentiles to the fellowship of the covenant and Gospel, as that which was opposed much, but to confirm that of the Jewish covenant estate, verse 8. he brings no further reason, then that, taken from one end of Christ's coming in the flesh: as if to deny the former were to question the later. And how can it be imagined that such an Evangelical covenant as that, Gen. 17. 7. made with reference to them, should be made without respect to Christ, in whom salvation was really exhibited to the elect among them, Acts 4. 10. 1 Pet. 23, 24 with Isa. 40. 8. Psal. 115 8. to 16. and 111. 3, 4 & 44. 17, 18. 22 with Rom. 8. 36 Heb. 11. per totum. Johns converts were but turned to the wisdom or faith of their righteous fathers, Luk. 1. 17 and to the rest externally ministered in the visible seals and types thereof; to show, it was their visible covenant and Church-right also, if they had hearts to improve it, and that they should answer dearly for rejecting their own mercy if despisers, &c. as they afterwards did, Rom. 11. 20. hitherto was their injunction of the brazen Serpent, and their looking upon it, Numb. 21. 7, 8, 9, 10. with John 3. 14, 15.

Fourthly, the covenant of works holds out no pardon or mercy to transgressors, as did this covenant made and dispensed to the Jews, Gen. 17. 7. as before we shown, so Acts 2. 38, 39.

Fifthly, the covenant of works required not either faith in Christ or repentance, those Gospel duties Mac. 1. but perfect personal obedience, much less did it offer grace enabling to repent, but this their covenant did both require and offer the same, Deut. Chap. 30. Verse 6. as I. S. confesseth, see more Acts Chap. 3. Verse 25, 26.

Sixthly, No salvation at all to any, by acceptance of the terms of the covenant of works, nor possibility of it, Gal. 3. 10. but h • re was rest and salvation in the word to them dispensed, if they had hearts to have improved it, else none had ever been saved by it, contrary to Heb. 11. yea chap. 12. 1, 2. they are mad • our patterns and leaders that way, that was Gospel, even glad tidings of salvation by Christ to come, which was dispensed to them; albeit it were not Gospel strictly taken for the revelation of Christ as actually incarnates and personally ratifying the same, Rom. 1. 16, 17. Revel. 14. 6. Heb. 4. 2. compared with 2 Tim. 1. 10. and 1 Pet. 1. 10.

Seventhly, all the Jews best and worst, had the same dispensers of the covenant, as their Ministers in whom they were all interested, and by whom they were ministerially urged, with their covenant-right in common, Exod. 19. 5, 6. and 24. 7, 8. with Heb. 9. 15, 16, 17. 20. Psal. 50. 5. 16. and 44. 17. Isa. 24. 1. Ier. 31. 37. and 33. 25, 26. Ezek. 16. 8. 59. 60. 62. Zach. 9. 11.

Eighthly, the covenant of works was made with all men without distinction in Adam, but this covenant was a peculiar covenant, made with the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as before was shown.

N •… thly, the cause of the Jews not profiting by the Gospel so ministered to them as their privilege was, not their not doing, (which is the defect of the condition of the legal covenant) but their not believing, or want of the condition of the Evangelical covenant, H • b. 4. 2 And lest any should say: yea true, the Gospel was preached to them, as it is or may be to Indians with us, which have not so much as external right in it; I say, they were cast off from their Evangelical covenant privileges, not for not doing, but for not believing, hence cut out of their root, and cast off from the privilege of their first fruits Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not as begetting, and natural fathers: for they are still their children thus, even the worst of them, John 8. 37. but from them as covenant spiritual fathers, Rom. 11. 20. And observe that he speaketh, that if the worst part of the Jews, as if they accepted interest in the proper object of faith, scil. the covenant, not of works but of grace, out of which they are broken by their Gospel sin of unbelief.

Tenthly, the refuse Jews thus cut and cast off, I demand from what they are cast, and into what estate they are now put? to the former, none will say they are cut out and cast off from a visible right, or estate of a covenant of works, and the dispensation thereof: that were well for them, if so: So then their former privileged estate for their covenant fathers, from which they were cast by reason of unbelief, was not barely a ceremonial yoke, the which our opposites urge as grievous to them all and a privilege rather to bend thereof: Nor the bare subservient covenant at Mount Sinai, (as Cameron calleth it.) For first, the branch privilege which they had in reference to those covenant fathers, as such was long before Moses or his fathers were borne, and that is that to which Rom. 11. 15, 16. 28. speaks to, as even our opposites will confess. Secondly, according to Camerons grounds de Triplici faedere, Thes. 68. many things are in that subservient covenant, which was 430. years after the promise to Abraham, Gen. 12, &c. which are not appliable to that covenant, Gen. 17. 7. as that: that convinced of sin and cleared divine justice: but that covenant of grace tendered pardon, &c. And so did that covenant, I will be a God to thy seed, as before: that showeth duty, but not grace to perform, as doth the covenant of grace: yea and as did that, Gen. 17. 7. as before, yea, and as did that covenant made with all Israel. After and besides that covenant in Horeb, Deut. 29. 1, 2. with 30. 6. that had the stipulation of Do and live, not so in the covenant of grace, Gen. 17. no nor in that, Deut. 30. 6. see Gen. 12. 3. with Gal. 3. 8. That was a carnal Symbol of the Jewish Church (comparatively) but that in Gen. 17. and Deut. 30. 6. more spiritual; that shown sin and misery, but this happiness in remission of sins, as well as misery without it, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. 11. 13. of that was Moses, of this was Christ, Mediator, Gal. 3. 16, 17. Rom. 15. 8. Hence those of the first borne of that Hebrew Church of old, Heb. 12. 23. privileged in the blood and Mediator, verse 14. That Covenant was imbondaging, not so that in Gen. 17. 7. we now inheriting the same by faith in him, not bondage in or by it, nor sorrow, but comfort, see 2 Sam. 23. 4, 5. that showeth the way of worship, but this grace to act it as before, so Gen. 17. so Deut. 30. 6. that was against us, yea but this was for us, Gen. 17. 7. as is evident, and so was for them, whence the same subjects in that Deut. 30. 6. Even parents and children; That held out Temporalls, yea but this Eternalls, Gen. 17. 7. with Heb. 11. 16. Matth. 22. 31. hence Abraham's bosom is heaven, opposed to hell, Luke 16. 22, 23. Hence heavens glory, is sitting down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in God's kingdom, Luke 13. 25. 16. 27. Yea all our opposites contend for the rigor and burdensomnesse of Sinai's covenant, no such sore punishment of Jewish unbelief to be rid of that: nay they count it their glory at this day to retain it and be zealous for it, but as was said they were discarded a former right and privilege and cast into a contrary estate. I enlarge here to clear mistakes.

11. The better part of the Jews which abode in their covenant estate from which they were not broken off, Rom. 11. 7. 17. 20. they changed not their estate in the substantials of it, but abode therein unbroken off. Now I demand, was this their privilege estate in which they abode, an estate of a covenant of works; or at best was it an estate of a subservient Sinai covenant, as Cameron phraseth it, the condition whereof was no other according to him, then do and live, or else die, which if so, was in effect as the covenant of works strictly taken, I suppose none will affirm that: verily then what ever ceremonial veils were super-addded in Moses days, yet that could not invalidate Abraham's covenant, in which they with the rest of their fellow-members then cast out, were interested in common; albeit these had a more peculiar benefit thereby, which the other fell short of by that unbelief.

12. The Gospelled Gentiles stood in that very condition by faith, and came into the very same kingdom estate, for the nature or essentials of it, out of which the worser part of the Jews, were broken and cast, they were gaffed in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the place, or room of those broken branches: as Beza hath it, Rom. 11. 17. see verse. 19, 20. Matth. 8. 11, 12. and 21. 43. but such Gentiles are not in such a preternaturall way, Rom. 11. 24. brought under a bare covenant of works, or at most under Sinai covenant considered in the legal part of it: but into a state of the covenant of grace, and the external right and privilege thereof. Therefore in the essentials of that covenant estate the same. Lastly, God remembered the worst of them for good, when in the worst estate by sin, and made it as I may say frequently a motive to himself, to show them this and that especial favor, even the respect to his covenant with them, and with their fathers in their stead. If this covenant made with them had been as Adams or Sinai's covenant, in the legal part of it, a covenant of mere doing, and living by it, or else perishing, &c. that being minded by God, would have called for justice against them in their just destruction, and have urged God, even for respect to his justice, to have then cut off all such Idolatrous Apostates. But verily, in that it was a covenant prevailing for mercy and grace, rather to be freely extended to them, albeit so unworthy, what was it other, then that free covenant of God's grace, which when they failed of their part of the covenant in all Ecclesiastical respects, Ezek. 16. 8. 59. 6, &c. yet God will out of respect to his own part of the covenant made with them, show them favor? verse. 60. 62, 63. so Ezek. 36. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. and 31, &c. And mark what the phrase is, speaking to that church-body, of which Ezek. 16. 67. 8, 9, &c. he saith, I will remember my covenant made with [thee:] not with this or that particular Jew: but with them all in an Ecclesiastical way, and in respect of external right: albeit some only had the saving benefit thereof, as being the select covenanters mainly intended. So Isaiah 48. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. God considers that people as Iron sinewed, and refusing to hear, &c. Yet for his own name or covenanted grace and truth and honors sake, he saith, he will extend such and such patience and mercy to them, verse 9, 10, 11. Against this are objected.

SECT. 8. Objections against the Jews covenant-state removed.

1. Object.

They were the children of the flesh, not of God, and of his promise, Rom. 9. 7, 8.

Answ.

If we take children of God, for such as were savingly regenerate and adopted, or children of the promise, for such as were of the elect seed, in whom the promise took saving effect: So it's true only of some of the Jews, John 1. 12, 13. Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. &c. But if you take it of the Church-seed of the promise, and such as were externally adopted of God, and instated in the covenant of grace, as invested also with Church-covenant: so they were children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ, Acts 3. 25, 26. and had the promises indefinitely, as Deut. 30. 6. Jer. 31. 37. Gen. 17. 7, &c. belonging to them, Rom. 9. 4. and were children of God, Christ's own, &c. even the worst of them, John 1. 12. Deut. 32. 19, 20. Isa. 1. 2. and 43. 6. Ezek. 16. 20, 21. 23. Matth. 15. 26. Christ's chickens, Matth. 23. end; not God's children merely by creation, as neither were that Church-seed of old, called the sons of God for that, Gen. 6. 1, 2. in opposition to the daughters of men, or of those without the Church: For so all were of God, Mal. 2. 10. Heb. 12. 9. nor yet by regeneration, and saving adoption such: but by external filliation, and adoption. The argument then is a dicto secundum quid. They are not children of the promise, or of God, savingly and in respect of the effect of the promise, and of their covenant and Church estate to salvation, therefore not at all children of God or of his promise, which followeth not.

2 Object.

They were children only after the flesh, and of the Sinai -covenant, John 8. Gal. 4. now Abraham's spiritual seed only are in the covenant of grace, Rom. 9.

Answ.

If children after the flesh be taken properly, so even Isaac and Jacob were such. They had Abraham to their father, as well as the Jews. If taken exclusively, as if no more but children of the flesh, we have already proved, in what sense they were children of God, and of his free covenant. If children of the flesh allegorically, so I deny that the Apostles intent, Gal. 4. is to compare the state of the Jews from Abraham's time downward, to Ishmael's of Hagar, as neither were they as Ishmael of Hagar the bondwoman, but of Sarah the freewoman, even as Isaac was, Esa. 51. 1, 2. Hebr. 11. 11, 12. Esa. 10. 22. 23. So neither doth the Apostle consider them, in reference to their first covenant estate in Abraham, but to their degenerate estate into a legal frame and way, scil. as adhering to the moral Law, delivered in mount Sinai, not as a rule of holy life, as there it was propounded and intended; but as the substance of the covenant of works, so as to look for life by it, in which way God never intended it to his covenant people. And likewise considering them, as abusing the ceremonial law, not as given of God at Sinai, to represent the Messiah, before his coming in the flesh, as one, in whose blood virtually they might, and ought to have looked for life and grace, and by it to be led to him, when come in the flesh, as he, in whom all those shadows were fulfilled and so to cease; but they abusing both moral and ceremonial Law, so as to seek to be justified, after Christ's coming thereby, and not by Christ, and persecuting such as held forth the contrary, in this allegorical sense, not Jerusalem, or the Church of old, but Jerusalem which then was, when Paul wrote this, long after Christ's time; As might be shown by comparing Gal. 1. 17. 18. and 2. 1. with other Scriptures. This Jerusalem which then was, and her children, Jerusalem which now is and her children, and verse 29. and so it is now, not so was it of old, verse 29. Those which did as Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. and 11. 20. which were enemies to the Gospel-church, v. 21. 1 Thes. 2. 14, 15, 16. These which would be under the Law, in that sense, not under Christ, Gal. 4. 21. to 26. These were the persons here intended. Yea, it's evident, that he considereth not the Jew-Church of old, as in covenant with God, but that Allegorical Jerusalem, in that he applieth this to all Legalists, whether Jews or Gentiles. Those of Galatian Churches which are and will be of that strain, they were such children also, Gal. 4. 21. Tell me, saith Paul to them, [ye] that desire to be under the Law, &c. where he applieth that further, verse 2, 3, 4, &c. whence also that, Gal. 5. 2, 3, 4, &c. In a word, it's one thing to be under the moral or ceremonial Law, as a tutor, another thing to be under it as a parent, both the Church-seed of Abraham, and his choice elect seed, were all in common under the Law in the former sense, and so to the outward face of reason, and comparatively, they were as servants, Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. scil. not so free from veils and manifold ceremonious burdens and services. They were a royal nation, under a Princely covenant and estate, Exod. 19. 5, 6. They were then children, yea and heirs as to Canaan, so to greater things also: in respect of external right, Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3. But yet as Princes children at school, or as great men's sons, at a kind of service. Thus they were under the Law as a Tutor. ibid. but under it as a parent and mother, v. 23, 24, &c. scil. such as were only of the Sinai covenant in the legal part of it, and were to inherit by virtue thereof, or no way. Thus those Jews, as of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob considered as covenant-fathers, they were of other manner of seed, scil. such like as Gen. 17. 7 and Deut. 36, &c. and were externally instated to another manner of inheritance.

3 Object.

They were under the old and first covenant, which was formerly, &c. and not under the new, or in the covenant of grace.

Answ.

Even that Sinai covenant could not disanuall that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham, as being much later then it, Gal. 4. 16, 17. That was upon their coming out of Egypt, Jer. 31. 32. This above 400. years before it. The covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in reference to their Church seed, was in the essentials of it, the same with that dispensed to us now, and as to them before Abraham, an everlasting covenant and Gospel, Heb. 13. 20. Rev. 14. 6. The Lord, as others which are wise and not variable, made but one testament, or covenant, or will of grace, yet he caused it to be writ in divers characters, & some more legible and perspicuous. The royal charter and grant was and is the same, but renewed: so that the phrases [new and old] import not, new, in nature and substance, but in accidents and qualities, or new, that is, renewed. As the same grace in nature, it is said to be new or renewed every morning, Lam. 3. 22, 23. so the commandment of love, the same in nature, both old from the beginning, & yet also new, • John 2. 7, 8. so, the new way, Heb. 10. 20. yet the old way too, Heb. 13. 8. 20. Christ is not two ways but one way, John 14. 6. so new heavens and earth, scil. refined: new churches, yet the same essentially with those of old, as we sometimes call garments new, which are but old ones new trimmed. When the covenant is said to be new and old, it is not divisio generis in species, but subjecti in adjuncta: So the phrases [first, and second] Heb. 9. note that two testaments specifically different, but numerically, as the first and second person in the Trinity are called first and second, yet are not two God's essentially, but one. Besides, it's called a first and second testament, scil. in order of succession. So, the former is said to be faulty comparatively, not absolutely. In a word, in way and manner of dispensation, that was different from the covenant now dispensed, in respect of ceremony of administration, not in the essentials. And this which hath been said, may take off divers empty scruples, which may make against God's covenant of old, with the Jews, as if not of any force to our purpose.

4 Object.

It was not the same covenant made with them, as with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Answ.

It was a covenant made forever, and the same with that unto Abraham, and with that oath unto Isaac; and it was that which God remembered, for their good, and so an Evangelical covenant; yea, it was a sovereign commanding word of grace, and certain. Therefore said to be commanded. For which see, Psal. 105. 8, 9, 10. And of the phrase of commandment, taken for the promise, see Psal. 119. 54. 66. 92, 93. 96. and Psal. 94. 19. and 133. 3. meaning of the Law of faith or of the promife, Rom. 3. 27. which is mighty to effect, notwithstanding other lets, Rom. 3. 3. True, you will say, in respect of Canaan promised, there was such a covenant with them, Psal. 105. 11.

Answ.

That covenant was of another nature, then merely such: else, not lasting in such sort to 1000. generations, verse 8. whereas Matthew noteth but 42. generations from Adam to Christ.

5 Object.

It was a national covenant, say some, Ergo, a covenant of works.

Answ.

It followeth not ex natura rei; for that Gospel covenant, Gal. 3. 8. was of a national nature, Gen. 12. 2, 3. being a promise to Abraham, to make a nation of him; and not excluding a Church respect of that nation, yet did not God make two contrary covenants of works and grace with him; nor if it had been a covenant of works, which was made with that nation, as it had not held them so long together by the strength of it, Ier. 13. 11. so neither durst any have pleaded it in the revolted estate of that Church, as he did Ier. 14. 19, 20, 21.

6 Object.

It threatened and executed corporal punishments, as well as rewards.

Answ.

And so doth the Gospel also, John 3. 18. 36. Mark 16. 15, 16. 2 Thes. 1. 8. Rev. 11. 3, 4, 5, 6. Hebr. 2. 1, 2, 3. 1 Cor. 11. 29. 1 Tim. 4. 8, &c.

7 Object.

That admitted of a fleshly seed, and such as proved carnal, this only of a spiritual seed, and such as believe.

Answ.

That, as invested with Church covenant, admitted none but a Church-seed, and Church-members, to the fellowship of the covenant externally dispensed: And so much, and no more is done, if rightly done now. Again, if the Author take fleshly seed, for s •… h as came of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; so in admitting all, it must needs admit the elect seed of Abaham also, unless any deny, that there were any such of that Church. Contrary to Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8, &c. And so it did not admit only of such as proved carnal, but as well of believers also. If he take it in an allegorical sense, as Gal. 4. so also it admitted of others, then such. And on the other side the covenant now, as invested with Church-covenant, and so most authoritatively administered; it admitteth, as of children, which come of good parents, so of carnal hypocrites, yea of fleshly legalists, which defy ordinances, and rest in, and trust unto them, and to their Church, and family, and closet duties, &c. the Galatian Churches had such legalists, Gal. 4. 21, 22, 23. Many are called into covenant fellowship, which are not chosen, Mat. 22. 13.

8 Object.

That was in the flesh, this in the heart.

Answ.

Was that only in the flesh? was not the word of Covenant as well in their heart? as Moses judging ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel, Deut. 29. 10, 11, &c. with 30. 11, 12, 13, 14. so Isa. 51. 7. God's covenant now, is to write his Law in our hearts, Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this, I will be your God? whence all is closed up in that phrase, ibid. or was not this first made to the Jews after their return from captivity more expressly, Ier. 31. as before more implicitly, Gen. 17. Yea, but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them. Suppose he did not: that is the execution of the covenant, as for the very berith, or covenant it self; it is the promise hereof dispense to them, and this they had, both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30. 6. To circumcise the heart to love God, is to imprint gracious dispositions; to promise the same to them is to covenant to imprint it, and so he did covenant with them and theirs, ibid. Besides, is not God's covenant now also Sacramentally on our bodies too, and in many no further? which are only baptized with water, but their souls filthy and chaffie, Matth. 3. 11, 12. which have barely the washing of the flesh, not the heart. Answer, as some call it, 1 Pet. 3. 21.

9 Object.

That was in their Generations, Gen. 7. not so now.

Answ.

As that was to Abraham and Isaac's seed in their generations, till they actually became obstinate, perversely rejecting the covenant-grace and Christ, so it is now, Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. As In-churched Cain, who was of Adams house-Church, was then together with his, and not till then, rejected, Gen. 4. 15, 16. compared with Gen. 6. 1, 2. where his posterity are called daughters of men, as contra-distinct from the children of God, or of the Church. Then also, and not till then, was Ishmael, together with his rejected, scil. when he mocked at both the head Christ, and the body the Church, in Isaac, in whose race it was promised, the covenant should be confirmed, and by them carried on, see Gen. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. compared with 21. 9, 10, 11, 12. and Gal. 4. And then, and not till then, was Esau, with his rejected, Hebr. 12. 15, 16, 17.

10 Object.

That was a conditional covenant, this an absolute. That had a commandment, as the instrumental means, or cause of interest in the Covenant, and that required only a male of eight days old, to interest them in the covenant of their fathers, and for that end to be circumcised, &c. but now, not so.

Answ.

If the intent of the objectors be to exclude all conditions, surely now the Gospel requireth faith and repentance, and so it did then. To external interest personal faith was not required, witness that, Deut. 29. and 30. 6. But to effectual interest, it was in adultis, Heb. 4. 2. But it's false to say the commandment gave right to covenant-interest, since covenant-right was first premised and declared, to be the ground of that commanded service, of the initiatory seal, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, &c. Thou shalt therefore keep my covenant. He doth not say you must be, or are circumcised, and therefore will be your God: But I will be a God to thee and thy seed, therefore thou and they shall be circumcised; the nature of a seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed. Again, that also is of like truth, which is said, that it required only a male of eight days old. The promise being made indefinitely to the seed, whether male or female, and not to the eighth day old seed, but to the seed, albeit but a day old, else, what had become of them, if they died then, in respect of that ordinary covenant means of their good? Rom. 9. 6.

11 Object.

That promised temporal things to both seeds, as Canaan; this spiritual.

Answ.

Was not Canaan typical to both seeds, as you call them? Else, why were any condemned for their unbelief? Heb. 3. last, and 4. 1, 2. compared. Or were temporal things all that was promised, in this [I will be your God?] or was hearts circumcision promised them, Deut. 30. a temporal thing? or doth not the Gospel now promise, and exhibit temporal things also? 1 Cor. 3. 21, 22. 1 Tim. 4. 8.

12 Object.

With the Jews, the Church and the State were the same, but not so now.

Answ.

God never confounded Church and civil state, either then or now. Who dare make God the author of confusion, which is the God of Order? He then kept them several, paling in the civil state with the judicialls, with which the Church as such, dealt not, but as civil cases came under a Church-consideration. She had her ceremonialls and moralls to regulate her Kings and Princes, Priests, Levites, and Elders, had their proper work, and moved only in their own spheres. The Elders of the assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically, without interruption from civil officers, or intruding upon civil offices, as such, Josh. 9. and 16. 1. 2. Act. 14. Luke 4. the matters of the King and of the Lord, were carefully bounded and sundered, 2 Chron. 17. 11.

And because I. S. maketh many of these objections, let us see whether what himself affirmeth, will not necessarily confirm much of what we have said, and undermine many things, which he and others of his mind do hold.

First then, there was a covenant of grace, which only requireth faith and repentance, made with Abraham's seed in general, and so with the body of the Jews, Infants and all, as being then particulars of that seed of Abraham in general: God anexing circumcision in token thereof as his mind touching them whilst Infants, visibly to confirm the same to them whether they proved elect or reprobate, Gen. 17. 11. Secondly, then the Initiatory seal of the covenant of grace, was not always of present actual grace in the party sealed, but unto future grace, and with condition of future actings of faith and repentance: Albeit, not then able practically and personally to restipulate otherwise then passively, and in their parents. It being confessed to be a seal on both seeds of God's being a God to them, &c. And putting the people circumcised in mind, scil. afterwards of the covenant, and to perform the conditions of it, of faith, and repentance &c. 3 Then circumcision sealed spiritual things, even that covenant [I will be a God to them] and so fulfill my promises to them: such like as Luke 1. 72, 73, 74. In token whereof circumcision was annexed to confirm the same. And surely it confirming a promise of such mercies as Luke 1. 72, &c. it did confirm very spiritual things to them, and so not temporal things only, as Canaan, &c. as sundry have affirmed. Also, then circumcision, engaging the circumcised persons to believe as Abraham did, and to be in heart circumcised, &c. as I. S. cited that place for that purpose, Rom. 2. 25. to the end: He else-where contradicteth himself, affirming that faith in the blessed seed, was not required either in Abraham or others to be circumcised. If it engaged them to his faith, then he and adult proselytes stood prae-engaged to the same faith. Likewise Infants, albeit not actually believing at present, yet that seal was on them virtually, as a present engagement to after faith &c. Nor doth this accord with what I. S. elsewhere affirmeth, that circumcision required, not the second birth but first. Since, it engaging to the hearts circumcision, this could not be without a second birth supposed. This which hath been said, accordeth with much of that which we speak, touching baptism, that it sealeth the covenant indefinitely to all sorts, and that it sealeth on Infants present federal Grace, and unto future grace: likewise unto grown ones, it sealeth personal grace less principally, covenant grace principally.

From what hath been said in this sixth proposition it appears, that the Infants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's loins, were as well as their covenant and Church-seed as any others; hence the covenant runs in the indefinite notion of seed, and the same seed to which Canaan was to be given for an outward inheritance, whereof children were heirs as well as parents; hence upon that ground of God's being a covenant-God to them, was the injunction of their being sealed by Circumcision, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, &c. hence in that way is the Covenant of grace renewed to all Israel in the terms of you and your seed, Deut. 30. 6. I have been the larger in this matter of God's covenant with the Jews as conceiving the contrary opinion to have been a great ground both of Anabaptism and Familism.

SECT. IX. The Children's Covenant estate in Gospel.

Conclus. 7.

THat the Covenant interest, at least external and ecclesiastical, of Infants of enchurched believers, is Gospel as well as such covenant interest of grown persons. Now because Antipaedobaptists, or rather Anabaptists wholly deny the Covenant-right of Infants of believers; let us here also addesome particulars for further clearing of this proposition. But first let us consider of that place, Deut. 30. 6. 11, 12, 13, 14. compared with Rom. 10. 6. 7. 8. the matter of the promise, scil. inward power of grace, enabling to love the Lord entirely, to purge away and mortify heart sins, and showeth it was a very Gospel promise like that, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. of writing the Law of grace in the heart: now this was made to the seed or children of these Church-members assembled, as Chap. 29. 14, 15. here is not any evasion as is usual in mentioning Abraham's seed, to say he meant their Allegorical and their spiritual seed, &c. this people to whom this was made being not so spiritual themselves. Nor was it some bare tender, but it was in way of special Covenant and oath on God's part, as Deut. 29. 14, 15. showeth, nay it was of a sovereign nature, to bring about what God in his secret counsel intended, hence called a commandment, Deut. 30. 11. like that Psal. 105. 8. the covenant and the commanded word were one; and lest any doubt should arise, how this should be ratified and made good, Moses prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen in whom this covenant was virtually ratified, verse. 12, 13. all which the Apostle further explaineth: when to set forth the way of God's free Covenant grace in Christ without works, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. calling it the righteousness of faith or Covenant of grace in Christ, which justifying faith is to improve the righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise: say not, who shall, &c. where was this spoken, but in Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14. That commandment or covenant was not far off, that any should say, who, &c. but it was nigh them, &c. and that commandment which was not far off, verse. 11. that any need speak as verse 12, 13. who shall ascend, &c. was the same word, which was nigh them in their mouth and heart, verse. 14. this the Apostle expounds to be the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. 6. and word of faith, verse 8. or covenant and promise of grace in Christ descending into the grave, noting his humiliation, ascending into heaven, noting his exaltation, verse 6, 7. which faith was to believe, and that very doctrine of faith, was that which the Apostles preached: as Paul saith, this is the word of faith which [we] preach, this then, albeit called in Deut. 30. a commandment, yet was it a covenant, and that not of works, nor a bare subservient covenant, but the very Gospel covenant ratified in Christ, the very object of faith, and that which the Apostle preached; now what this commandment or Covenant was, that circumstance noteth, Deut. 30. 11. this commandment or covenant which I have commanded this day: for Moses had that day propounded it in a Church-way, and as a mutual covenant betwixt them and God, as well as God and them, the parents stipulating therein in behalf of themselves and children; and so in reference to them also, a conditional covenant made that day in the plains of Moab, Deut. 29. 1. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 29. and 30. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. so that the places compared evidently prove, 1. That the covenant interest of enchurched stipulating parents children is Gospel. And secondly, that the Apostles preached this doctrine. Thirdly, that believers are to eye the Covenant in such a latitude, as to their children with them by faith? Fourthly, that the essentials of the Covenant of grace, in the latitude of the extent thereof to covenant parents with their children, held forth in the Old Testament, was delivered and held forth as valid to the faith of the Saints in the new, and after Christ's incarnation. This second and fourth particular here mentioned might be further confirmed both by rule, in that it being proved to be Gospel by the places now compared, it must needs be, that the Apostles preached the same; being enjoined to preach the Gospel, Mark 16. unless they either disobeyed Christ's charge; or hid some part of God's Evangelical mind from his people; contrary to Rom. 10. 15. 18. and Acts 20. 27. 2 In that also Peter being to call upon his hearers to repent, and consequently to believe, he propounds the word of their faith in such a Latitude as with reference to their children, Acts 2. 38, 39. The like doctrine doth Paul hold forth to the Saints at Rome, and enchurched believers there touching such children, Rom. 5. 14, 15. even touching the abounding of the graces of Christ to them. And the like virtually also is held forth by him, Rom. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19. as elsewhere is proved, and so 1 Cor. 7. 14.

First then, that which believers, as such, have, do and ought to believe as a branch of the covenant of grace, that is Gospel; but this is of that nature, ergo. The major needs no proof: the former Texts also clearing the same: the minor, de jure, it's evident: they ought to believe the whole Covenant made with them, as is evident, faith must be as large as it's object, the Covenant is the word of faith. A believer in the exercise of faith should as well have respect to the whole covenant, as in the exercise of the obedience of faith; respect the whole word of commandment, he doth not else believe rightly which doth not desire and endeavor this: this therefore being one branch of God's Covenant, to believers as believing and enchurched, as these Scriptures compared show they ought to believe this, which respecteth their seed, as well as that which respecting themselves if they believe aright. God in making a covenant, in a Church reference especially, as was that with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. he taketh in their seed or children as joint covenanters. Hence the phrase of seed in their generations: taking in parents generating and children begotten, as those in and by whom Churches are likely to be continued; whence God, when to speak in reference to the Church seed, as well as to the choice elect seed of Isaccs line in which the visible, and not merely the invisible Church was to be continued, he saith, he will establish his covenant with Isaac, not with Ishmael; Ishmael was Abraham's seed too, and therefore externally in the covenant, and therefore sealed; but God knowing that Ishmael would reject this, he warneth Abraham of it a little before, that it might not trouble him afterwards: It is not to be with him in his generations: for that cause, Gen. 17. 18. compared with Gen. 21. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. but with Isaac in his generations; God not opposing therein Isaac to his Church-seed, but to Ishmael, who by rejecting the covenant will and did come, he and his to be cast out; hence when God speaketh in reference to our times after Christ's incarnation when a woman compassed a man, Jer. 31. 22. he saith, he will be a God, not to the families in Judah or Israel merely, but to those throughout the earth. It's the old phrase in Abraham's covenant expounded and enlarged: I will be a God to thee and to thy seed, in their generations. He saith not barely, to thee and to thy seed in regeneration, but, in their generations. Now in that Abraham's seed were to be gentile believers also, in their generations: in Jeremy it is, I will be a God to the families of all the earth, scil. where the Gospel shall take so far place to bring on the parent or parents to him and to his Church; not but that it may fall out, that in a believers family, some may come to hate their parents, as Matth. 10. for Religion, yet ordinarily it should be and is otherwise; and God speaketh of things as they ordinarily come to pass: extraordinary cases break not square here. Yet even in that case too it followeth not but that the children were externally in covenant and Church estate when very children: But apostatising when grown up, they prove the desperatest enemies to the Gospel, even to persecute their own parents. So it may be the wife may remain a Pagan, and so an enemy. But usually the Gospel when it cometh seasoneth the wife as well as the husband, and so servants as well as masters. Hence such frequent mention in holy story, when speaking of persons which had families to whom the Apostles came, that their families were Gospelled as well as themselves; witness that of Cornelius, Stephanus, Crispus, and the Jailor, &c. And even Anabaptists deny it not to be verified in all the adult persons of the families mentioned usually: then by their own confession wives and servants were usually others at present, at least then Pagans, or persecutors, which sufficeth to for answer Hen. Dens objection, touching the desparitie of yokefellows or masters and servants. It was usually otherwise, and God speaks of things as they usually prove: extraordinary occurrence cross not such a rule, hence that testimony of the Angel to Cornelius, Acts 11. He shall speak words unto thee whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved, verse 14▪ And so Paul's phrase runs in that notion, Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shall be saved, and thy house, Acts 16. 31. so Christ's testimony is to like purpose, This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he also is become a son of Abraham; where by the coming of salvation to the house, he doth not mean the bare coming of Christ, who is called the salvation, Luke 2. 30. to the material house of Zachaeus, as if that were such a notable privilege of Zacchaeus as a believer; since Christ went to many other houses then such as were the believing sons of Abraham, Luke 14. 1. and 7. 36. 39. and yet no such singular note upon the same as here. Nor by salvation come to his house is meant the coming of salvation to himself: as if he and his house were all one: nor do I know any parallel Scripture speaking in such language, that when the scope and intent is to mention the coming of such or such a mercy to such a person, that phrase is used to denote the same; that such or such a mercy is come to his house. What need such a circumlocution? If so intended, the word might more plainly have been set down, this day is salvation come to this Publican, this person, this man, or the like, inasmuch as he also is become a son of Abraham: And what though the Greek word be used in Acts 2. 45. and 4. 35. for secundum according as, yet not for quatenus or in quantum: forasmuch as; the Texts and sense thereof are clear, that it noteth proportion of such administration, not merely the cause or reason thereof. Or if it be supposed to imply the cause or reason thereof, it's evident it noteth the proportion also, they gave to everyone as, or according as the needed, scil. proprortionably to their need: It being regular as to give to the needy, so to give them according to the measure of their present necessity. But how that sense will here be fitly applicable I see not, to say that salvation is come to his house or to him according as he is a believer, but rather as our translators render it, it's to be taken as a reason of the former, salvation is come to this house forasmuch as he is a son of Abraham. Yea, but will it not then follow that one man's faith saveth others as well as himself? No verily. Paul when he spake so to the Jailor, If thou believest thou shalt be saved and thy house, Acts 16. 31. he speaks more likely to such a purpose, as it may seem; yet verily he intended not any such doctrine, of others being actually saved only by his faith; but that he embracing the covenant of grace in Christ, and by faith laying hold of the same, his whole house, even wife or servants and all (as it is usual) shall fare the better, and come in the Gospels way: but if he have children which are the continuers and upholders of the house in especial, there is a more direct Covenant-line, and therefore ordinary means of salvation runs unto them by virtue of Abraham's Covenant, and so if he believe, not barely in the Lord Jesus, without reference to the promise, but as held out in the promise of ratifying of the promise, or covenant of grace, in this sense his house, Synecdochically, shall be saved, and brought within this covenant road and ordinary mean of salvation. None ordinarily can be saved but in such a way. It's the word of covenant which must instrumentally be effectual thereto, that is God's order, Rom. 9. 6. and Ephes. 5. 25, 26. and so in the ease of Zacchaeus; whence that periphrasis of his being a believer, that he was become a son of Abraham, and so an heir of Abraham's covenant, Gen. 17. 7. Nor is this sense of salvation, for covenant means of salvation, or the covenant and promise it self unusual in Scripture. The salvation which Christ and his Apostles preached, and those, Heb. 2. 3. neglected, was not barely salvation itself, but the promises holding the same forth, for Acts 28. 28. the salvation to be sent and heard by the gentiles was the promises, and covenant and Gospel holding the same forth, this was that mercy, and riches, and salvation also which came to the Gentiles, as rejected by the Jews, Rom. 11. 11, 12, 17. 19 30. Verses compared. So Isaiah 51. 6. 8. God's salvation is his promise, or covenant on which their salvation did depend, Calvin in locum. 2 Sam. 23. 5. David speaking of his house or posterity, which albeit it were not so orient then, yet God had made a covenant with him, scil in reference to his house ordered in all things and sure; And this, scil. this covenant with me and my house, is all my salvation, and all my desire, albeit he maketh my house not to grow or flourish in such sort: this covenant then was his salvation, objective causaliter or Instrumentaliter. Albeit a parents faith be not a principal cause, yet it may be an occasional means to stave off destruction from and to further the salvation of their children; hence the faith of Moses parents preserved him in the waters, when a babe, Heb. 11. 23. hence that typical sprinkling of the houses, representing the preservation of the first born, from other manner of destruction then merely bodily: yet Moses his faith with other believing Israelites, as verse 27. 25. compared showeth, had a great stroke therein. And the like in that typical passage of theirs with their children through the red Sea, verse 28. As much might be said of that case of the beleeling Ninevites, Jon. 3. and 4. So in that typical saving of Noah's house by Noah's faith, Heb. 11. 7. But to return to the houses mentioned, shall it then be yielded, that such benefit should come as was before spoken of, to adult servants of the house, &c. & is here no reference to the poor babes by reason of their tender age? hath the merciful God revealed no ordinary help for them? They are excluded from that actual rejoicing and believing Jaylours house, Acts 16. whence Anabaptists do therefore exclude them from the baptized house of the Jailor; and why not as well exclude them by reason of want of actual faith, from the saved house of the Jailor? verse. 31. which I suppose they will not do. Nay, why not rather so? since it's peremptorily said, He that believeth not shall be damned; and, Without faith it is impossible to please God, Mark 16. and Heb. 11. when it's nowhere said that, without faith it's impossible to be baptized; or, he that believeth not shall never be baptized. Surely the Apostle adding that as an encouragement to the troubled Jailor to believe, because of the saving of his house in such sort at least as we mentioned, it had been little encouragement to suppose an outward way and mean of the good of his very servants by occasion thereof, and no such mean at all thereby to his own children. For the Apostle speaketh as supposing even that also: children being most usually supposed to be included in that notion of the house: and if he had none, yet the Apostles speech reacheth them as if he had them. Some will say, the children might be elected and that might comfort him: or they might be included amongst the redeemed by Christ. Yea, but these are all secrets, here is nothing visibly to comfort him, in respect of any instrumental means of their good; as was intimated in the case of the servants. And they are revealed, not secret things which believers as such must look to in respect of their children, Deut. 29. Nor is it expressly said that the Jaylours house believed before they were baptized, but afterwards; and suppose they did so before, yet it followeth not that what is applicable to the adult persons in the house, scil. that joy of faith, must exclude the children of the house from baptism, whereof they were capable; no more then when it's said, Deut. 12. 7. that they and their households were to eat before the Lord and to rejoice in all they put their hands to, &c. because therefore their little children could not so actually express joy in what they put their hand unto, therefore they were none of the household which did eat before the Lord. Anabaptists would not like this arguing: which urge the joint communion of the Jewish children in all sorts of Church ordinances. Suppose a man's household, men, women and children, all diseased and cured at the Bath, and afterwards the household expresseth their joy for it by leaping and dancing for joy; and it be said, such a man, he and all his were washed at such a Bath, and he and his whole household afterwards even danced for joy: None will say, that because his little ones could not so leap for joy, and are excluded from the notion of the [whole household] in this latter, therefore they were not in the account of [all his] in the former. Who will say that Jacob carried not the little children in his family to Bethel, from that imminent danger to his house, because that the household at Bethel are said to be such which had their strange gods, but upon his motion they put them away, which is not applicable to little ones, Gen. 34. 30. with Chap. 35. 1, 2, 3, 4. Sure I am it's most usual in Scripture in mentioning this and that as done in or to the house, when speaking of such things which are applicable to Infants, to intend them therein, albeit not expressed, as Gen. 30. 30. and 45. 11. 18. with 19. Exod. 1. 1. 1 Sam. 27. 3. Prov. 31. 15. Luke 12. 42. It would be too much to cite the many Scriptures which speak this; nay the Scripture ofttimes in such things under the notion of house intendeth, if not only, yet chiefly the children in it, as 1 Sam. 20. 15. and 2 Sam. 9. 9. 1 King. 17. 12, 13. 15. compared, Psal. 127. 1. 3. Prov. 12. 7. Isaiah 31. 2. Hos. 1. 4. Hab. 2. 9, 10. 1 Tim. 3. 4, 5. and 5. 4. 8. compared, also verse 14. 2 Tim. 1. 16. And sometimes again when some parts of the family are expressly instanced in, and children not withal mentioned: yet they are included and intended, as Gen. 14. 16. And there is more reason to conceive the same in cases of this nature; since the children are the ordinary instruments as to perpetuate and continue and hold up the house in natural and civil respects, so in religious and Church respects also; they are builders of the house both ways, as the Hebrew radix [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] from whence the word used for sons and daughters cometh, doth signify; whence also that phrase of God's building the women houses, Exodus 1. 21. Yea the covenant expressions of seed, and seed in their generations, do more directly reach them, as such; then either wives or servants as such, Gen. 17. 7. Deut. 30. 6. Isaiah 59. 20, 21. compared with Rom. 11. 26, 27. Isaiah 65. 23. Thus much for further clearing of that, so much questioned by some, how children are included in that notion of house and families, and if so the covenant made, Jerem. 31. 1. in reference to these times, reacheth them as instated, at least externally and Ecclesiastically therein: as much appears too from Ezek. 16. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. that live-making covenant and not that killing letter and ministration of condemnation which was again and again made to the fathers long before, yet was it made with reference to those Jews, in Ezekiel's time; for in those covenanting fathers of old, he said to that Jerusalem then, Live: as in the same fathers he had said to the Israelites of old, Live: the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob, did God both swear to other Jew fathers of families, and bound himself to perform to those of their loins in Micah's days long after, Mica. 7. 20. neither was it other then the covenant of grace, thus engaged: even such a covenant wherein pardon of sins and subduing iniquities, &c. was, at least externally, made over to them, and therefore pleaded there for that end, verse. 18, 19. that covenant which God made in Bethel, Gen. 35. 9. to 16. he spake it not barely to, but with them, or covenanted it with them, in Hoseahs time which were of the posterity of Jacob, Hos. 12. 4. God found him in Bethel and there he spake [with us.] As much might be said of that, 2 Sam. 23. 4, 5. the covenant was made with David the father: yet in reference to his house or children, whence it was that his faith, as a believing father of his family, was the evidence of things not seen. He believeth that whatever his house be at present, yet it shall excel in grace, both of God's fear and justice, Vers. 3. as in the glory of government, &c. nor was this other then a covenant of grace here mentioned, since it had not else been to him as all his desire and salvation; whence it was that in saddest times this covenant was pleaded by the Prophets, in behalf of David's posterity, Psal. 89. verse. 38, 39. 49. 50. see more, verse. 20. 28. and so on: if the parents and the children both may thus act forth, and must in the covenant so made, it's a sign parents and children were jointly interested therein. And so I come to instance as well in such as de facto have done so, as to show, de jure they should do it; to let pass David's example here, the instance of our grandmother Eve is past exception: her son Cain being discovenanted and discharged he and his, and Abel slain, she believed the promise of God, Gen. 3. 15. at first made to her: and when infant Seth was borne, she believed that God had for his covenant sake looked on her in that covenant babe: and therefore as soon as borne, she calls his name Seth: for saith she God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel whom Cain slew, Gen. 4. 25. she spake not thus, in reference to him, as a mere natural babe borne of her as a sinful woman, but as of a Covenant and Church seed, therefore comparing him to Abel, not to Cain: and calls him by such a name as signified her faith touching the Covenant estate of this babe, even whilst a very babe; nor did she fail in her faith therein as appears by the sequel, verse. 26. whence the Church seed continued in his loins, externally at least, albeit much degenerating, as that distinction of sons of God and daughters of men doth show, Gen. 6. 1, 2. And as Eve believed this way, so did Lamech, Gen. 5. 28, 29. as soon as Noah was borne, he from saith in that promise of God, Gen. 3. 15. gave the babe that name of Noah; believed that that child should be a root, as it were, to the Church, albeit that corrupt world were to be destroyed. Another example of the Saints faith touching their children's federal estate, see in Psal. 102. 25, 26, 27. with Heb. 1. 10, 11, 12. which referred unto Christ as in whom they pleaded, and expected this touching their children. And it's evident, that those Saints did express their faith in Christ, touching their children and seeds being established before him, nor did they exercise their faith touching the vanishing temporal good of their children barely, verse 25, 26. but in reference to enduring mercies of Christ to them, lasting when heaven and earth should dissolve. Now did they take the rise of this their faith from possibilities of election or redemption without foothold from the covenant? verily no, they ought not to ground their faith on anything but God his revealed will touching themselves or theirs, Deut. 29. 29. the Covenant and promise, is that which faith in its acts of believing, doth build, and rest upon, and faith, albeit it must go as far, yet no further that way then the word of faith, Rom. 10. 8. secrets of possibilities of election, and redemption of the children would not, might not, have caused in them, such a conclusive apprehension of faith, but the revealed covenant, and testament, and will of God's grace in Christ, election and redemption, though things which faith believeth, yet not grounds in themselves considered without reference to the covenant revealed of any man's faith touching himself or others, as being secrets; It's not the election of faith, but the word of faith, nor belief of election as such: for as such it's a secre • act of God: hid within himself; but the belief of the truth, or revealed promise. Another argument of the federal interest of believers Infants to be Gospel, and therefore of perpetual validity, now as well as at any time, may be, in that it was held forth as Gospel in the beginning of the world, and so will be in the purer times of the Gospel, towards the very end of the world, and therefore it's Gospel to us now. The consequence is evident, both from the everlastingness of the Gospel, and covenant of grace, of which this was, and will be made a branch, which covenant of grace is Gospel, Heb. 13. 20. Revel. 14. 6. and from the essential sameness, and oneness of the covenant of grace from the beginning of the world to the end: for so far forth as anything partaketh of everlastingness, it partaketh so far of immutability. Now the covenant is not in nature the same, if the covenant, the confederate persons are not specifically the same, the covenant in the nature of it supposing God as one party, and such or such a sort of persons as other parties betwixt whom that covenant is drawn, and made; if it were supposable that there were not the same God covenanting with man, or not the same sorts of persons, specifically accepted of by God into terms of covenant grace with him, the covenant were not in nature the same. Albeit it be not shut up in families, as of old in Adams, Seth’s, Enoshes, Kenans, Mahaleels, Jareds, Enochs, Methuselahs, Lamechs, Noah's, &c. or in the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, in respect of Church interest in, and administration of it, but enlarged to all the families of Gospeld persons, yet if the persons admitted to covenant, be not specifically the same, even that sort of inadult, as well as adult persons, whether male or female, bond or free, then is not the covenant in nature the same. Now to prove the proposition in both its branches; and first that it was held forth as Gospel, that the species of the Infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace, Gen. 3. 15. showeth. Adam and Eve were eyed by God, as a seminal visible Church, by whom, as well the Church, as the world was to be built up, and God, that he might especially glorify his grace, even in the weakest, mentioneth Eve as one, touching whom, he first expressed his revealed mind of grace to her, and her seed, not intending merely the principal seed Christ, in and by whom it was ratified, and fulfilled, but her Church seed whom the same promise also did comprehend together with Eve, in whose hearing, God uttered these things to the Serpent. And hence Eve, by faith did thus interpret the scope of that promise, as made in refernce to her Infant Church seed, as was Seth, as before we proved, Gen. 4. 25, 26. And the opposition showeth what kind of seed the promise reached, scil. Infant, as well as adult seed, the Serpents seed being as well the least Snake, &c. as the most venomous, and overgrown; and the antipathy being natural and forcible between even little children, and any sort of Serpents, as is evident, this then was held out as Gospel, even in the beginning of the visible Church and world: hence also in the beginning of the renewed world, as I may call it, after the flood, the same doctrine is implicitly held forth, Gen. 9. in the opposition of the servill condition of Canaan, or 25, 26. to the future Church estate of Japheth, verse. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude, so that Chams babes as soon as borne were to be slaves, but Japheth, parent and child, are prophetically devoted to Church estate in Shem Tents, so that enchurched Japhets babes are actually within Shem tents, so soon as borne; As God would accurse collective Canaan, Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge, or cause collective Japheth to turn into the Tents of Sem; which interpreters expound of the joining of the Gentiles unto the visible Church. Now visible Church estate, supposeth visible covenant estate, as is evident. The like opposition was allegorically made in the primitive times after Christ's ascension, Gal. 4. 23, 24. between collective natural Ishmael of the bondwoman in type, and collective legal Ishmael, in antitype: And collective natural Isaac in type, and collective Evangelical Isaac in antitype. In the types, the opposition is undeniably verified: that Ishmael with his children are expunged and cast out from a civil family privilege, and portion in Abraham's house; and only Isaac and his children are to have that civil and natural privilege of inheritance therein: The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac, Gen. 21. 10. And in the antitype, even persons formerly in God's family the Church, if rejecting Christ and the covenant in him, and embracing and adhering obstinately to anything in a way inconsistent with him, such are cast out, and dischurched, they and theirs, as was verified in that legal Jerusalem and her children, even the body of the Jews, adult and Infant. Thus far à typo ad veritatem, the argument is undeniable; and what reason then to make the other branch of the allegory dissonant only, that there à typo ad veritatem, the argument holdeth not, that all enchurched persons, which are gospelled, hold forth the free covenant in reference to Gospel Church estate; are as Isaac and his posterity, visibly privileged, and instated in the Church heritage of the Lord's family, the visible political Gospel Church? As in Isaac, Abraham's seed natural is called, in point of civil heritage all of them, and as in the same Isaac, not Ishmael, Abraham's Church seed was called, and so all of them called to the external fellowship, of covenant, and Church; and as in a restrained sense, Abraham's elect seed were called not in Ishmael but Isaac, Rom. 9. 7. so in the Ecclesiastical Isaac, as I may say, in these days, the Church seed are counted, and not in pagans without the Church: and according to ordinary dispensation, and in man's count, in the same line are God's elect seed counted; all the individual children in the former: that species of Church children, and none other in the sense mentioned, are of the latter account.

But to hasten to the latter branch, that the same doctrine is held forth as Gospel to be dispensed and fulfilled in the purer times of the Gospel, towards the latter end of the world, that Isaiah 56. 20. is a promise referring to the purer times of the Gospel Church, and probably to the times of the coming in of the Jews, verse. 17, 18, 19. when albeit there may be some accursed ones, yet the Churches children though Infants of days, not allegorical Infants in humility or by imitation of believers, &c. that sort of persons too dying in Infancie, yet God promiseth they shall die in a holy maturity of covenant grace, and bliss, as if elder by many years. When elder ones, some die ripened for the cause of God: the like singular account doth the Lord expressly make, as of parents in his Church, so of their offspring, verse. 13. see Isaiah 61. 9. God promiseth not only that the grown persons should be had in account, but their seed and offspring, not meaning it of allegorical seed, amongst the Gentiles; for it's not said they shall be known to convert Gentiles, &c. but their seed shall be known among the Gentiles: yet not meaning pagan Gentiles, but rather enchurched Gospelled Gentiles, the Hebrew word for knowing, being used to signify special owning of persons either by God, Jer. 24. 5. or by men, Psal. 142. 5. Ruth 2. 10. 19. Deut. 21. 17. and 1. 17. Prov. 24. 23. now none will say the worser part of the Gentiles would thus own the members of the Church, or their children, with such choice respect, but the better part rather of the Gentiles, they are then the persons acknowledging the seed, not the allegorical seed acknowledged; so Ezek. 37. 20, 21. 27. when all the scattered of the Tribes of Israel, and Judah shall become as the two sticks joined in one in Ecclesiastical respects, at least, under the discipline of Christ, God in reference to that time re •… the old Charter of Abraham's covenant to be a God to th •… 〈◊〉 which promise he includeth their children, they being a •… their parents scattered among the heathen, verse. 21. and to be gathered to their Land, and parts of the nations and kingdoms, as of old to be then joined, yea verse. 25. expressly their children, and children's children are by covenant put under Christ as their Prince, with them is the covenant of peace made, and that of no temporal but of an everlasting nature, and all this in reference to Church estate and administration, whence that branch of the old Charter now actually renewed of setting his Tabernacle and Sanctuary in the midst of them, verse. 26, 27. and that in a very glorious and perspicuous manner, as persons thereto, ex confesso, to the very heathen, sanctified and sequestered by the Lord, verse. 28. the very same [they] which shall dwell in the Land are children with their parents, [their] Prince will David or Christ be, with [them] is that everlasting covenant of peace, verse. 26. amongst [them] will God's Sanctuary and Tabernacle by virtue of covenant be placed, verse. 26, 27. [their] God will God be, and [they] shall be his people, or he their covenant God, and they his covenant people, verse. 27. and all this in reference to Church administrations of Sanctuary and Tabernacle ordinances, as they are capable thereof, by which they shall become a visible Church or sanctified and sequestered people in the very view of the heathen, which cannot, nor do not attend to gracious efficacies, but external administrations, and dispensations and privileges; and the like, see verse. 28. other places to like purpose might be quoted, but I forbear.

3. Argument, if the Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in church estate before they can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the Covenant, yet then are Abraham's Church seed, then is it Gospel that the promises belong to them; but the former is true, Ergo the latter. The major is in substance the Apostles, Gal. 3. 16. to Abraham and his seed are the promises made: the minor is proved; 1. In those of Abraham's loins, in the elect seed. I should think it should not be questioned but yet it hath by some; that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant, &c. and by such other speeches of our adversaries in this point, the covenant right not only of the individual Infants of believers, but the covenant estates of that species, and sort of persons is wholly denied, and so since it's evident and acknowledged that some are elected of that sort, yet it's denied that they have part in the word of God's Covenant, so that if they die in Infancie, as many of the choice seed of Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob did, &c. yet that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied them, contrary to that principle, Rom. 9. 6. but more hereof anon: but Rom. 9. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. is so clear for it, I wonder any deny it, Isaac and Jacob are made precedentiall instances of interest not only of election, but of God's calling unto the fellowship of his free covenant, without respect either to their desire, or endeavor of it personally, verse. 16. It was that God might show, not barely in the act of his choosing of them in his secret counsel, but in the act of his covenanting grace likewise, that it was not of their works but of him that called them unto that covenant estate: in the example of Jacob most fully; when God would show the rise of that his covenant grace to him the younger, that he should have the preeminence, verse. 12. he verse. 11. instanceth in the time when that was revealed, with so personal a reference to Jacob, even whilst in the womb, and expresseth the forenamed cause as the reason why: and so God expressly mentioneth his covenant as to be established with Isaac in Infancy, or with Isaac to be borne the next year of Sarah, Gen. 17. 21. And hence when Isaac was grown, and was actually a believer, he hath indeed then more actual benefit of his own improvement of the covenant by faith, but he did not then first enter into covenant, but he had interest in the covenant before made to his father with reference to him; that being to be minded in covenant expressions uttered, the persons spoken unto, and understanding what is spoken: are not the only covenanters engaged, but as well the persons spoken of with covenant reference in the declaring of the covenant; so in Gen. 17. 7. 21. and 21. 12. and 26. 3, 4. and 20. 13, 14. and Deut. 29. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, &c. Now that Isaac had such a former covenant interest appeareth in that, Gen. 26. 3. when God spake so expressly to him touching his covenant, he saith not, I now make a covenant with thee, or swear to do such and such things for thee, but I will perform the oath, which I sware to Abraham thy father, he referreth him to a former grant and engagement of grace to him, see verse 4, 5. he doth not retract anything, but confirmeth in solemn wise the validity of the former bond, and the like might be said of all the rest of the elect seed: if all the elect seed were not involved in that covenant, Gen. 7. 7. then the Apostles reasoning should be undermined, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. who is so far from denying the elect seed to be these choice children of the promise, Gen. 17. 7. and 21. 12. that he maketh that choice company of the children of the promise to be the only elect seed; now if all the elect seed be included in that, Gen. 17. 7. and 21. 12. then since some of Abraham's and Isaac's seed died in Infancie, either none of those were elect and saved, which none dare avow, or if some be supposed to be saved and elect, then were they in Infancie, and as Infants of Abraham and Isaac, children of the promise; Since the promise and covenant runs to them as Abraham's seed, not as elect, also supposing they were circumcised before they died, that was no seal to a blank, albeit they being Infants had no actual faith, &c. but rather a seal of the covenant of grace or promise, of which they most properly were children. Yea to all the rest which were in an Ecclesiastical respect, children of the covenant: that enjoined circumcision was to be that his covenant or the visible Sacramental sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, or the covenant of God holding the same forth, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Rom. 4. 11. and 10. 6, 7, 8. and Deut. 29. and 30. 6. 11. 12, 13, 14. compared. And what is true of them, of Abraham's and Isaac's loins as Infants of Abraham and Isaac considered as believing, and enchurched, is true of the Infants of others, as believers and in church estate, the formalis natio of the interest of the Infants of the former, as such, is as valid in those of the latter, the formalis natio being the same in both, as also the covenant of grace in the essentials thereof, is the same, and therefore Abram had then first his name changed to Abraham, and then first was called a father of nations, in reference to this covenant of grace to be made with him and his in this political Church way and latitude of Church interest, and dispensation thereof, as Gen. 17. 4, 5, 6, 7, &c. compared, and then first propounded as a father, and exemplar to other believers of other nations, Rom. 4. And albeit it were a name given him before he was actually circumcised, yet it was not to intimate that there was no need of a visible seal to his children and seed, whether of his loins or otherwise, for he was a father as well of those of the circumcision, Rom. 4. 11, 12. But to show that he was not a father to those which were bound to be circumcised only, but withal, a father to the Gentiles, albeit neither circumcised by actual taking away of the flesh of their foreskin, nor yet bound thereto, verse. 12. It was not then spoken to evacuate the force of reasoning from right to the promise, as invested, or Church promise or covenant unto right to the seal, or to show that albeit Gentile believers did not partake of the initiatory seal of the covenant, yet having the promise they therefore have the seal in Abraham their father, albeit they never are, nor may be sealed in their persons; the Apostles discourse cleareth it to be otherwise, his scope being not to infringe any Gospel right to the Gospel seal, but to take off any reasoning in point of justification from any work of the Law considered apart from Christ; as the five first verses evince: and because that of circumcision was chiefly gloried in by the Jews, he taketh off any reasoning that way in opposition to faith which is all in all rather, in point of justification, whether of Jews or Gentiles; for which end Abraham's example in the way, and manner of his justification is propounded, as verse 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. declare, as for the sealing of Abraham's believers children the Gentiles, in Abraham's sealing, if that were intended, as much might have been affirmed of the believers Jewish children of Abraham, as they were such, and so the circumcising of such Jews, at least, had been more then needed, so far forth. Yea but the Jews were commanded to be circumcised; true, and so were the Gentiles to be baptized: yea but they were to be circumcised, when Infants; yea, and when adult too, in case, as Joshua 5. and in that case at least many of them, being actual believers, Joshua 5. and 6. compared with Heb. 11. 30. might have pleaded exemption, as being, quatenus believer, circumcised in the circumcision of their father Abraham. It was not then spoken at all to weaken the bond to an initiatory sealing of Gentiles, but to [that] initiatory sealing up of the covenant to them by circumcision of the foreskin of their flesh; thus much by the way in answer to what some thus object. But to return to the proof of that propounded, let us show that even in the days since the time of the fathers before Christ's time, such children mentioned were, are, and will be eyed by divine approbation as covenant and Church-seed of Abraham, God hath promised to bless the enchurched nations in Abraham's seed Christ; behold Christ by an outward Symbole testifying that the little ones of enchurched visible believers are in Church account such, witness that act of his, and his offense that any such should be hindered from any approach to him, in the use of any means to attain, at least externally, that blessing of him the promised seed, Luke 18. 15, 16. 7. with Mark 10. 16. hence in the purer days of the Gospel: It was of old prophesied that such children should be accounted the seed which the Lord hath blessed as well as their parents should come under that account, by the Gospelled Gentiles, Isaiah 61. 9. yea God himself expresseth his account as of such parents so of their children, to be such Church and covenant seed: both are under one account so far forth, Isaiah 65. 23. besides, that if such parents, suppose Jews or Gentiles, be Abraham's spiritual seed, Anabaptists will grant, then are their children also; the parents being not merely abstractively considered, the covenant seed, Gen. 17. 7. but as in reference to their children with them, for the seed of Abraham to whom the covenant, Gen. 17. 7. is made, is the seed in their generations, which necessarily imply, and suppose as the parents generating, so the children begotten of them, the parents make not the generation alone, nor the children alone, but jointly considered together. Here Anabaptists sever the subject parties taken into the covenant consideration, they agree it's Abraham and his spiritual seed, but leave out that notation of the seed, scil. seed in their generations, the proselyte gentiles in Abraham's house, they were not his carnal seed; why are they then sealed? but as they were rather Abraham's spiritual and Church seed. Yea but their babes also have the visible seal of Abraham's covenant, yet are they not his fleshly seed: nor yet are they his actual believing seed, and yet have they the feale of Abraham's seed, surely then, in and with their parents they are Abraham's Church and spiritual seed. You will say, God commanded them to be sealed, and therefore sealed. Answ. Suppose it so, yet God commanded their circumcision to be on them, also his covenant or the Sacramental sign of that his covenant sealed to Abraham, & to his seed, in their generation, Gen. 17. 7. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. either then they which in one sense were not of his seed or loins, v. 12. yet were of his covenant and Church seed, verse. 7. or else God solemnly enjoined a seal to a blank or a seal to no covenant of his: no other covenant being then in mention to be sealed, by circumcision which was enjoined to be his covenant or the Sacramental sign of his covenant, verse. 11, 12, 13. Yea but they partaked not of the covenant, many of them at least, in their Infancy. Answ. If ye speak of saving actual efficacy upon them, then neither did many others, no not of the elect seed which lived to maturity of years, so partake of the covenant in their Infancy, nor doth that hinder but that circumcision in the nature of it, and in the institution of it, was a visible seal of the covenant of grace, that which Moses phraseth touching circumcision, that it was a sign of the covenant, Paul explaineth, that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith; scil. not so much, subjective as objective, Rom. 4. The baptism of Simon Magus was in the nature of it, and in God's institution, a visible seal of the most spiritual part of the covenant, and yet did not Iscariot and Magus partake of the spiritual part of the Covenant. It is peculiar to the elect to be in the covenant, in respect of participation of the saving efficacy of it, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. But it is common to Iscariot, and reprobates, adult or Infants, to be externally in the covenant in the face of the Church; as verse 4. of which before. But as for the visible seal it self, whether to elect, or reprobate, to such as partake of the spiritual good of the covenant, or not; this varieth not, nor multiplieth, nor nullifieth the nature of the seal. The nature of it depends on God the author, not upon the sealed persons worthiness, or unworthiness, sex or age. Circumcision was not covenants, but one and the same covenant, ex natura rei, nor was it a part, but the covenant, even the whole covenant Sacramentally, to elect or reprobate Infant or adult circumcised. The commandment of God did not put, or cause any difference, but enjoined it all equally to all sorts. The covenant sealed was but one, not two covenants: albeit, God did hold forth variety of covenant blessings, as doth the Gospel; some more common to all, and some more peculiar to a few; and so the seal it self was to Infant and adult, elect or reprobate, but one in nature: albeit in use and efficacy it were various, according as the Spirit of God and faith made thereof improvement, or not.

To add one word more in way of proof, that Gentile-enchurched-believers Infants they are the seed of Abraham: this being wholly denied by Anabaptists. If I prove that this species or sort of persons, are Abraham's spiritual seed, without personal actual faith, by which only they say persons come to be Abraham's seed, quoting for it Gal. 3. 7. 6. 9. 16. 27, 28, 29. it sufficeth. Now the place to me is full proof thereof: whole Christ mystical, in all the parts of his body, the Apostle maketh it to be the seed of Abraham, but that sort of persons the Infants of believers are a part of Christ mystical, or Christ considered with his body the Church, as Christ is in Gal. 3. and 1 Cor. 12. 12. compared, as hath been proved, Ergo that sort of persons as well that other of actual believers are Abraham's spiritual seed. And here supposing according to them, that Christ is considered there as with his body, the invisible Church; it maketh still more for what I am to prove: since, if that sort of persons be not of the invisible Church whereof Christ is head, there can none of that sort, not believers children at all be saved; since out of the invisible Church is no salvation at all, as some of the most judicious of our opposites do speak, in way of answer to what is brought by our friends, that extra ecclesiam non est salus, that is, say such, extra ecclesiam invisibilem, non visibilem. But we will go yet further, and take this as meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church, according as formerly it was proved to be considerable: And I say, to exelude that sort of persons, scil. believers infants, from being a part of the visible Church in general: is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation, Nay I will go further, and say; that for any to suppose all the individual Infants and each of them which come of such enchurched parents, not to be also parts of this body of Christ the visible Church, and consequently, not to be Abraham's spiritual seed, is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation, in respect to the ordinary course thereof, and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to be saved in, as is only extraordinary: ordinarily they are not to be supposed to be saved, as at least it is not to be supposed, that ordinarily or that in any ordinary way, any Pagans, or Turks, out of the visible Church, or any in and of Rome, as Tridentine, and Antichristian, should be saved: yet God may, and sometimes doth, and will have some souls brought on to him thence, and even from amongst Mohammedans, &c. but all will yield I suppose that this is an extraordinary case: & so crosseth not that rule, that without even the visible Church there is no salvation; scil. taking the maxim in reference to ordinary times, and withal to the ordinary course and way of attaining unto salvation.

Such then as exclude all Infants of believers, one or other from the notion of Abraham's spiritual seed, from Covenant and Church estate, they put them in the Pagan Gentiles estate, of which Paul speaks, who being they and theirs strangers from the promise and covenants, and from the visible Church: they place them in that respect in an estate of persons that are without God in the world, and so under the devil the God of the world, and in an hopeless estate; neither they nor any for them, can have any grounded hope of them, they are without hope, in regard at least of any ordinary way or mean of salvation, Ephes. 2. 11, 12. Nor let it seem grievous that our friends and brethren in the Lord, of name and worth in the Church, have, as it seemeth, urged, that in case of such an exclusion of believers children, they are made as Turks or Indians so far forth, in regard that being not in covenant, nor Church estate, the Apostle truly states such persons cases, they are without hope, and without God in the world. He maketh no distinction of potentia remota & propinqua, in that case. Yea but he speaks of Pagan parents, we of Christian, and there is not the same reason of the children's estate which are of the one, as of the other. Tell me the difference supposing them actually excluded from covenant and Church estate. It is not in their parents prayers, or in the Churches nakedly considered, without reference to any covenant or Church estate of theirs: for they pray as well for Indians, &c. as for them. Nor is it barely in their instruction, and education of them: for if they have any Indian or Black more bond servants in their house, they must instruct both them and their children in God's fear as they are capable thereof. Yea but for the one their prayers and instructions, come from a nearer bond, and are carried on with more strength, then in the other: grant that, yet this is but more and less, and they vary no species of any formal reason of difference; yea but they may believe more for the one then for the other: and why so? because usually the one sort prove religious, when the other is not usual. This confirmeth what I am to prove, that God is a covenant God to the children of his people, and Church; because, albeit sometimes some prove vile enough, yet usually they prove religious and pious: and God speaks of things as they more frequently prove. Yea I demand, what is the ordinary revealed instrumental means of the saving efficacy which is upon any children of God's people and Church, especially supposing they die very young: is it not the word of God's covenant as hath been often said from Rom. 9. 6. and Eph. 5. 25, 26. Yea I would know whether if believers have hope, to take hope most properly, concerning their children's good, or glorious resurrection by Christ, if they die in Infancy, have they other ground then that of God's being a God to them? This is Christ's demonstration in that case: Luke 20. 36, 37, 38. Is it any other then Scripture hope or comfort that way, or must they sorrow as persons without hope? If they draw any waters with joy, Isaiah 12. 3. must it not be out of the wells of salvation, the promises? not other promises which concern not the case, they will not help at such a dead lift, but promises pertinent to the case of their children. Yea can they have such hope without faith, or can they have well-grounded faith where they have not a word of faith for it? and when they cannot believe that God should be so much as externally, much less internally and savingly a covenant God to them? or can they conjecture that ever any were saved ordinarily, if at all, touching whom God never made any promise, neither in respect of internal and saving, no nor so much as in respect of external right therein.

I conclude then, that such children are Abraham's spiritual seed, and that therefore the promises belong to them at least externally. And so much for proof of this seventh conclusion, wherein I have been the longer, in that it is the very hinge of the controversy.

It is not then the Gospel of any mortal man deriving its rise from Zwinglius, or any such sinful son of man, albeit precious in the sight of God and his Saints; nor is it any other Gospel which may be anathematized, I should fear to be anathematized of God if I said so. It's Gospel that believers are Abraham's seed, Gal. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9, &c. true but that is not all, and only the Gospel: this part of the Gospel; their children's covenant estate, at least ecclesiastically, this is Gospel too, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, compared with Deut. 29. and 30. as before: yea the rather is this Gospel, because the other is: one dependeth and followeth upon the other as hath been shown.

SECT. XI.

1 Object.

BY what hath been now said, answer is ready to what I. S. objecteth. That if Infants be visibly in the covenant of grace, then at one and the same time one may be visibly under grace, and yet as Ephes. 2. under wrath by nature, and so by nature be under two contrary covenants of works, and of grace. Mr. B. also hath a like objection.

I answer, they are not under two such contrary estates by nature, taken in the same sense: but by nature taken in a diverse sense, they may: take nature for corrupt sinful nature, and so Paul a Jew and all other Jews, or Gentiles, [We saith Paul ] are by nature children of wrath. But take nature for a birth estate of covenant-Ancestors: and so Paul and others of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were not sinners or strangers from the covenant of grace, as were those of the Gentiles; but they were Jews by nature, enchurched persons. And in their confessing parents confessors and professors, as the word Jew is used, Rom. 2. 9. 28. and Est. 8. 17. Rev. 3. 7. they became Jews, that is, joined in a Church estate, &c. sinners they were in that sense, they had by sinful nature sin in them, but sinners in opposition to a Jew, or Church and covenant estate, at least externally they were not: not Jews barely, scil. persons of that nation, without further Ecclesiastical respect, to the administration of the covenant: for then the notion of sinners of the Gentiles, had been unsuitably added; It had sufficed to have said, we that are Jews by nature, and not Gentiles, but Jews by nature rather as above; the elect seed of Abraham of which yet many died in infancy, they were the choice children of that promise, Gen. 17. 7. with Rom. 9. 7, 8, 9. yet they were also by nature children of wrath. Isaac was visibly the child of the promise in Infancy borne by promise: interested in the promise, expressly made with reference to him, as soon as borne actually; as before intentionally; yet also by nature, as a son of Adam, a child of wrath; but as a son of covenant- Abraham, a child of promise. The like may be said of David in the former sense conceived in sin, Psal. 51. in the latter a child of promise: So of the other Infants of their loins, whence enjoined whilst Infants to be sealed with the seal of Abraham's covenant. Yea some of our opposites grant, yea urge it as a reason against the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. which some give thereof: that

Now the author intended not this thus; that they came into the covenant of grace, when they were grown, and came actually to believe: for then there were no color of argument against Paedobaptists reasoning from 1 Cor. 7. touching such Infants covenant estate: and that annexed, that they were in the covenant of saving grace, and Church privileges, showeth that to be his meaning; since all confess that the Jews children, did whilst Infants partake of the initiatory Church seal of circumcision, which the author elsewhere counteth their privilege, saying, that albeit the author I suppose forgot himself: speaking of branches by nature, saith, that it seemeth to him to import, not that the Jews were in the covenant of grace by nature, but that they had this privilege to be reckoned in the outward administration, as branches of the Olive by their birth, &c. when yet even those illegitimately born of Jews mentioned, are confessed to be in the covenant of saving grace, as well as Church privileges, which as was said, must be spoken of them, as Infants borne of such parents, or else it is not any argument against them, which plead for birth federal holiness from 1 Cor. 7. 14. So then here are persons by nature children of wrath, but by privileged nature and birth in the covenant of saving grace.

2 Object.

If Infants, saith I. S. be in the covenant of grace, and borne so, then such Infants were borne in the covenant, and never out. And besides God's covenant of saving grace, being absolute and undertaking to give▪ saving grace to such as are in covenant with him: all such must be saved, unless God fail of his truth.

Answ.

1. That covenant of grace, as I. S. acknowledgeth it to be mentioned, Deut. 29. it was made with little ones then unborne intentionally, verse. 14, 15. as well as with those then present actually: So that when they were borne, they were born in that covenant and never out: as much may be said of the Infant elect seed, or children of the promise dying Infants, they were borne so and never out of that estate after they were actually existent; yea the rest were all girded in the covenant, Jer. 13.

2. God's covenant did not barely offer, or promise to covenant, but made a covenant a covenant and an oath with them that day, Deut. 29. 12, 13, 14, 15. and amongst other promises engaged himself to circumcise their heart, Chap. 36. 6. yet were not all in heart circumcised, and yet the promise of God failed not; being in the general propounded to them conditionally, and not as it is said here absolutely; at least as it had reference to them all in common. The word of promise took not effect in as many of the Jews, to whom the covenant promises externally belonged, yet it followed not, that therefore it took no effect at all, and that God was unfaithful: for it took effect in others, Rom. 3. 3. and 9. 6, 7, 8. so here.

3. This argument supposeth, that one cannot be within the covenant of saving grace externally, but they must be in a saving estate, the contrary whereto appeareth, Conclus. 3. And it's said of sundry illegitimate Jewish children, that they were within the covenant of saving grace, namely externally: for the author cannot mean other. And yet of all such who will say, they were all in a saving estate? even Esau's birthright was more then right to Isaac's temporal estate, as borne of Isaac: why else doth the Apostle apply Esau's example of selling his birthright, in such sort, as Heb. 12. 15, 16, 17. he propoundeth his example to deter the Hebrews which were in Church estate, Heb. 10. 25. and 12. 17, 18. from the mischief of falling short of the grace of God, not of mere temporal blessings; nay expressly, the thing he fell short of as his birth heritage, as Isaac's first borne, is said to be the blessing indefinitely, even Abraham's blessing to his seed, the same blessing, whereof he rejecting his external right, Jacob his younger brother came to possess: which was a Church blessing as well as natural and civil, Gen. 28. 3, 4. as for temporal blessings he had store of them notwithstanding, nor was Isaac's trembling, when he saw how strangely God had ordered the blessing of the first borne to Jacob the younger son, Gen. 27. occasioned from a bare disappointing him of the external right to temporals, but withal to spirituals, and ecclesiastical good also, whence the Apostle calleth him for his contempt, a profane person, Heb. 12.

3 Object.

But saith I. S. the covenant of grace being a covenant, there must be mutual agreement betwixt the covenanters, and so knowledge, and consideration of the terms thereof, and restipulation, as in men's covenants. Hen. Den, a little differently, maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God, scil. by faith, unto covenant right, and not merely God's entering into covenant with the creature, for so he entered into covenant with the beasts, &c. Gen. 9. 10.

Answ.

To which I answer, the covenant of grace is as well a testament, 1 Cor. 11. Heb. 9. Now a testament may be, and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge; nor do any use to deny a child's right in the testators will, because it was taken in amongst other legacies in the bequeathed legacies, before it understood the same, nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed, the choice parties in God's covenant, Gen. 17. that they many of them dying Infants, without actual knowledge, were not therefore children of the promises, or that that solemn covenant, Deut. 29. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. and 30. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, &c. with that people, wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts, that therefore the covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present, because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions, the contrary being there expressed: no rather it sufficed, that the children's covenant estate being the parents privilege, whence the encouragement to Abraham to walk with God, Gen. 17. 1, &c. From that amongst other encouragements, that God would become his seeds God also, &c. verse. 7. and so, Deut. 29. and 30. amongst other encouragements to the parents that is one, verse. 6. that God will do thus for their seed also: yea the children being reckoned as in their parents, as Levi paid tithes in Abraham, &c. yea the external avouching in a covenant way of God, being owned as the children's, Deut. 26. 16, 17. yea the children's circumcision being as well the covenant duty: Whence called the covenant, or the covenant parties, covenant part or duty as well as the token of God's covenant, Gen. 9. 7. 9, 10, 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the covenant, and professed owning of it upon the covenant terms, as well on their children's part as their own, and they restipulate in a passive reception of the covenant condition, and bond to after imitation of their father Abraham's faith and obedience; to which purpose I. S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenant. Yea the bastard children of Judah, and Gilead and others, are acknowledged to be in the covenant of saving grace, which yet could not personally restipulate, in a way of actual knowledge or faith, or the like.

4 Obj.

Your doctrine would make God the author of sin, partly in causing persons to believe untruths: partly in promising life to the wicked, and so keeping of him from returning. Besides, it will make every believer an Abraham, and make Christ's body to consist of dead members, and even confound the world and the Church as if one.

Answ.

To the first we require the parents in reference to the Church and covenant estate of their children to make confession of their faith in the covenant of God as made with them, and their seed indefinitely according as the terms of the covenant are, and being the terms of the covenant, it's no untruth or sin to believe it, in foro dei, or confess that faith in foro Ecclesiae; which of the believers children is elect or saved, or not, it's to us a secret, and our doctrine requireth them to believe revealed things, as are those indefinite words of the covenant, leaving secrets to the Lord; and no other was Moses doctrine, having propounded the covenant of God as with parents and children, and being yet further to enlarge, he joineth the former and latter part of his speech with that item, that secret things belong to God, but things revealed, scil. touching this his mind of grace indefinitely, these are for us, and for our children. And for further taking off of this cavil together with the second, I answer, when some say that even bastard children were in the covenant of saving grace, and even I. S. which objecteth the same confesseth that God promiseth to be a God or to fulfill his promises: even such as Luke 1. 74, 75, &c. and gave them circumcision to confirm the same on both seeds, requiring them to walk in the footsteps of Abraham's faith, &c. I demand, were the carnal seed saved? I. S. will not say so, yet God promised and gave circumcision as a seal, to that end that he would be their God, requiring them to believe, &c. did not then God fail in his promise, or in requiring them to believe an untruth? surely no, so when they were on that ground according to I. S. to walk in the footsteps of Abraham's obedience, and circumcision of heart was required of them, did not this rather further, then hinder their repentance? is it not the Apostles argument to the Jews to prevail with them to repent? Repent, for the promise is to you, &c. Act. 2. 38, 39. Nay doth not our doctrine holding forth the interest at least external of such in covenant thereby hold forth as well an external interest in that which is in its self a most effectual means to further their saving good, and to be as a seed of regeneration, and faith, &c. unto them, 1 Pet. 1. to the end, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. Rom. 9. 6. and do not our opposites rather block up so far the ordinary way, and debar believers children from the ordinary means of their chief good, by denying them interest in the word of promise, the which is such a means? Nor do we by our doctrine make every believer an Abraham, we confess many things in Abraham's covenant, Gen. 17. to be more personal, and some more peculiar to those times, yet this no way infringeth the covenant right of Abraham's spiritual seed, on the sameness of that covenant with us in the essentials of it: then there was such a particular land promised to him and his; the Gospel holdeth forth temporal mercies to us as well as spiritual, 1 Tim. 4. 8. 1 Cor. 3. end, 2 Cor. 1. 20. 1 Pet. 3. 10, 11, 12. albeit not such a particular land; so the multiplying of Abraham, &c. was of such a peculiar consideration, yet that hinders not oneness of the covenant, now: that the promise made with Abraham long before the Law should not be to his spiritual seed, our opposites themselves being Judges, the like may be said of the promise of blessing all nations in his seed, &c. Gal. 3. 8. yet verse. 16, 17. the promises are to the whole seed, so God saith to Abraham, I will make thee a father of many nations, Gen. 17. 4, 5. he never said so to Isaac or Jacob, &c. what, were not they therefore children of the promise and heirs of the covenant of Abraham, that God will become a God as to them, so to their seed? none will say so, or in that they were fathers of the covenant to their posterity, Rom. 11. 16. 28. that therefore they were Abraham's, or that those Jews assembled, Deut. 29. to whom God maketh that promise of circumcising their seed, Deut. 30. 6. as one part of his covenant, Deut. 29. 14. so Ezek. 37. 25, 26, 27, 28. God will be a God to those mentioned parents and children, so is Jesse a covenant root to David, Isaiah 11. 1. yet are not these therefore made Abraham's, no more are enchurched believers, by any doctrine of ours. Nor do we by our doctrine make Christ's body such a body, or make such confusion of world and Church thereby, no more then did God of old, which yet ordained the Jews children to be his, and his Church covenant children, Ezek. 16. 20, 21, 23. and how we distinguish Church and world, let our practice judge and our doctrine which holds forth the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant, if not explicit, yet implicit, to distinguish the political Church and its members from all others.

5 Object.

Some in a more Familisticall way object against our proofs as most what in the Old Testament, which they make account are not valid, unless the same things were come over in the new.

Answ.

1. We have as well brought grounds of these conclusions touching Gen. 17. from the New Testament. Secondly, Christ came not to evacuate the moral Law in the Old Testament, no not in a title of it, but to fulfill it, and by expounding it in the very spirit of it to establish it, Matth. 5. 17. to the end; and the Law it self is established through faith, Rom. 3. 31. and it's spiritual, not carnal, Rom. 7. 14. and what then is the Gospel of which this point in question is part as was shown, or would Christ make void a title of the Gospel in the Old Testament, as if in, and of it self not valid unless come over again in the new? of what force then would many precious promises be, in the Old Testament expressed, but never again expressed in the new, as Isaiah 12. 3. Ezek. 36. 26. and such like?

Thirdly, if such proofs are not valid, why keep we a weekly Sabbath, as the Lord's day is called, Matth. 24. 20? why keep we solemn thanksgiving days, &c? why do the Apostles refer us for proof even of the new covenant, Heb. 8. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, &c. to what God saith, scil. in the Old Testament, as in Jerem. 31. or why doth Christ fetch his usual proofs of the main matters of faith thence, John 5. 46, 47. Luke 24. 44, 45, 46? see more in such way of proofs, Acts 10. 43. and 28. 23. Rom. 1. 16, 17. Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. and 10. 14. and 16. 16. besides many other like which the Apostles urge this way.

Fourthly, if such proofs be invalid, we must blot out such charges and testimonies touching their perfection and validity, as Psal. 19. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. spoken before the New Testament was, and yet so perfect was it, and so efficacious, and precious: so John 5. 39. 46, 47. and Rom. 10, 6, 7, 8. and Luke 16. 29. 31. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16. Paul makes account the Scriptures, scil. of the Old Testament little else being then written, were of sufficiency to all uses, whereof a Minister stood in need to make of the word, as Cartwright on the place expounds it, and 2 Pet. 1. 1. 19, 20, 21. speaking of Scripture by men inspired of old, those of the Old Testament: Peter maketh them more valid then extraordinary voices from heaven, touching Christ, &c. and chargeth them to be in perpetual request with the Saints, see Ames and others in locum. If Hen. Den. within his first part of Antichrist unmasked, had kept to his testimony which he brings from 2 Pet. 1. 19, 20, 21. against the argument used by Dr. Featly taken from the harmony of confessions, be had never so miscarried, as in his second part, page 25. as to say, this is the Prophets, to declare repentance as a means of remission, Ezek. 18. 21. 22. but this is not the Gospel, &c. And the Law and the Prophets teach is to repent [for] remission, but the Gospel, repent [unto] remission, &c. to let pass his abuse of the testimonies he alludeth to, this I observe that Prophets, with him, of the Old Testament are set in opposition to Gospel as if inconsistent with it, the absurdity of which is apparent enough in the very naming it.

Fifthly, if they be invalid unless come over in the New Testament, then must all the Saints question their faith and comfort which was occasioned more immediately from grounds in the Old Testament, not eying at that present, nor possibly afterwards, this or that like passage in the new, touching the discovery of their good estate, or otherwise of their spiritual support, contrary to Rom. 15. 4. which Scriptures then mentioned, were of the Old Testament.

Sixthly, if so, how did John Baptist and the Apostles convince the Jews, before yet the New Testament was existing of such, and such things touching their peace, and touching Christ's kingdom, and government, yea, what ordinary means is left to convince the Jews, when they are to come in, they denying the New Testament to be valid? see Acts 18. 26.

Seventhly, the primitive converts and disciples thought not so, touching such was of old testament Scripture proof, Acts 17. 11. by Scriptures, meaning those of the old Tastament, as those places, John 5. 39. and 10. 35. and 7. 38. and 2. 22. Gal. 3. 8. 22. and 4. 30. Rom. 9. 17. and 10, 11. and 11. 2. and here let me not forget what A. R. in his second part of Vanity of childish baptism, bringeth cross to what we have said, he saith that no believers are fathers, scil. in such covenant and Church respects to their children which we have mentioned, but Abraham only; and he maketh Abraham rather a pattern father in other respects to believers quoting Scriptures to that end.

But doth A. R. indeed think that no others were covenant and Church-fathers but Abraham only, the Apostle calleth all those enchurched Jews of old our fathers, fathers to him and to the Gentiles, Corinthian members, 1 Cor. 10. 1, &c. Yea will he say that Isaac and Jacob, &c. were not such fathers to their seed also as was Abraham in covenant, and Church respects, because that was neither said to Isaac or to Jacob, I have made thee a father of nations? how then are the Jews said to be beloved for their [fathers] sakes? surely it was not for their sakes as men, and natural fathers, but as spiritual and covenant fathers, Rom. 11. 16. 28. compared, of which more hereafter; yea the covenant is expressly made in those terms to Isaac, and to his seed; to Jacob; and to his seed, Gen. 26. 3, 4, 5. and 28. 13. 14. In respect therefore to their seed they are covenant fathers, yet in respect to Abraham, they themselves were Abraham's covenant and Church seed, to whom together with their father the covenant was made, even with a Church reference Gen. 17. and so are gentiles enchurched believers: fathers, as such, to their children; yet seed also in reference to Abraham: nor is it more contradiction to say thus, that the same persons may be Abraham's seed, and yet fathers in divers respects, then to say the same man may be a son, and yet a father in divers respects, a son in respect of his father, and a father in relation to his child. Nor can I perceive otherwise but that A. R. himself, layeth in the same place a groundwork cross to his own assertion this way:

hence to me it seemeth, that Abraham is considered in a threefold respect.

First, as a faithful man having seed. Secondly, as a faithful man having the covenant made with him, and his seed. Thirdly, as one, with whom and with his seed the covenant is made, not merely as a faithful man, but as a pattern to all believers, which to me undeniably seemeth to be an unwilling grant that as Abraham's seed in covenant with him admit a distinct consideration from all actual believers, as such, whether Jews or Gentiles: So that Abraham in that consideration of such a faithful man, with whom the covenant was made, and with his seed so distinguished from all believers, whether of Jews or Gentiles, was therein a pattern to all believers actually, whether of Jews or Gentiles, yea that he was especially in such sort a pattern to them all, and had the covenant so made with him, and with that his seed, that he might be, or because he should be, therein a pattern to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles: and this is the very truth, which we affirm, that Abraham in the essentials of the covenant, was a pattern of interest of believers and their children in the covenant of grace, at least externally, and ecclesiastically: but this is cross to A. R. elsewhere, yea in the same place as followeth.

Object.

Answ.

But suppose that Abraham's seed intended in the promise were all saved, and so no others but they the seed, yet will it not follow, from what the Apostle saith that the promise is sure to all the seed, that therefore all actual believers, and only such are saved; we have before proved from Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. that all in whom the force of the covenant took, so as that they were saved, were the choice intended children of the promise, or all elect Israel, which came of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's loins; yet did not all those live to become actual believers, many such elect ones dying in Infancie. But to come to A. R's. assertion it self, I demand whether the members of the visible Church, of which A R. is officer, or member, be all and each of them Abraham's seed; for if not, I urge his own plea against us; what right have they to the seal of the covenant made to Abraham's seed? if they be all Abraham's seed, then by A. R 's. ground, they must needs be all & each of them saved, it is not possible there should be any reprobates and hypocrites in a particular visible Church, which to affirm is ridiculous, but let him quit himself thereof from his own principle if he can: the Apostle saith of the Galatian Churches, and members thereof to whom he wrote, Gal. 1. 1, 2. that they were children of the promise and of the free woman, and that Jerusalem above was the mother of him, and them [all] Gal. 4. 26. 28. 31. and that they were Abraham's seed, Gal. 3. 29. now then I demand whether we must not conclude of them all that they were in a sure estate, and infallibly saved, according to A. R 's. ground, comparing Rom. 4. 16. and Heb. 6. 16, 17. with Gal. 3. 29. Yea but why then doth Paul fear and question so much the estate of persons, so sure and infallible, if so it were, because called all Abraham's seed: for he feareth lest he had bestowed his labor in vain, Gal. 4. 11. and that any saving work, in many of them at least, was not so much as yet begun, that he must be fain to travail again with them in birth, till Christ be formed in them, verse. 19. yea why doth he suppose any possibility of their suffering in vain, of their ending in the flesh, Gal. 3. 3, 4, 5. of Christ's becoming of none effect to them, Chap. 5. 4. many of them being of such spirits and way whom he there intended, as appears by Gal. 1. 6, 7, 8. and 3. 1. and 23. 4, 5. and 4. 21? How will A. R. salve it? not by saying he spake thus in a collective sense only, understanding the former, of the elect part, and the latter of others. Yea but why then doth he mention their being baptized into such an estate, Gal. 3. 27, 28, 29? were none but true believers and elect ones in that Church baptized? for all that were baptized are said to be one in Christ as having put on Christ, and if Christ, then Abraham's seed: either then there were none but elect ones & true believers in those Churches, which were absurd, and cross to the Scriptures before named, or if there were any hypocrites or reprobates in that Church, they were left unbaptized, which were as absurd, to avow it; for how knew they so exactly to distinguish of such divine secrets, in so infallible a way? were they God's to know the secret guile of hearts? Now if not unbaptized, then they also in baptism putting on Christ, and putting on Christ, being one with Christ, and so Christ's, and being Christ's were Abraham's seed; now A. R. must conte with us to say, that when 'tis said that all baptized persons put on Christ, Gal. 3. 27. it was verified in general of them all Sacramentally and Ecclesiastically, and so when said to be all one in Christ, and to be Christ's and Abraham's seed, and all children of the promise and of Jerusalem which is above, &c. he must distinguish of persons being such in foro dei, and of persons which are such, in foro & facie ecclesiae visibles. In the former sense, only the elect amongst them were such, in the latter sense, all in common, sound and unsound members, of the Church, they were such; and that the Apostle speaks such things of them in common not by a mere infallible Apostolical dictate and sentence, as concluding them to be all such savingly, but ministerially to hold forth what such as members of Christ, as head of the visible Church, were Ecclesiastically.

Object.

But will it not be said that whereas, Gen. 17. 7. maketh but two subjects of the covenant God made, scil. Abraham and his seed, which Paul expounds to be believers, we by our doctrine do make three subjects and parties, Abraham and believers, and the Infant seed of both.

Answ.

To which I answer, that we do not make three such distinct subjects now anymore then of old there was made before Christ was incarnated; then Abraham and his believers, grown children, and the Infant seed of both made but Abraham and his seed, and so is it with us. Secondly, that the covenant being made with Abraham and his seed, Abraham sustaining the person of all believers, Jews and Gentiles, which in a sense also were his seed in that covenant, hence therefore the covenant still is only between Abraham and his seed.

CHAP. IIII. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Luke 18. 15, 16, 17.

ANother Scripture holding forth the Federall and Ecclesiastical right and holiness of enchurched visible believers little ones is, Luke 18. 15, 16, 17. where the Lord affirmeth of the children offered to him by those pious minded parents, that of such is the kingdom of God, as Matthew hath it, Chap. 19. of such is the kingdom of heaven, which is here taken for the visible Church, so Matth. 8. 11. 12. and 13. 24. and it seemeth evident from Luke 18. that he mentioneth the kingdom of God three ways, First, a kingdom of which such Infants and such like persons are; namely, as subjects. Secondly, a kingdom which such actual subjects of that kingdom do receive. Thirdly, a kingdom unto which in an ordinary way and means they come to enter. The first is meant of the visible, not of the invisible Church, and of them as members of the former, and not so properly of the latter; touching which, let it be remembered that this was not a bare temporary, and present charge, in reference barely to those very children, and only to that very present approach to Christ, but did respect after approaches of such like persons unto Christ, he saith not, suffer these little children to come (at this time) to me, for of these is the Kingdom of God, but indefinitely, rather suffer little ones, scil. of this sort, such as these are to come to me: nor would A. R. and others, which apply it to such like persons for humility, &c. restrain it to the occasional act at that time, but enlarge it in reference to any such persons at any time in a like case that they should not be hindered from Christ. Now as for the members of the invisible Church, as such they are invisible, and fall not under the proper cognizance of the sons of men to know, which or where they are: and to suppose an injunction of not hindering their approach to Christ, unless they came under a visible respect of members of the visible Church that they might be discerned, and it might be known how and when, and in whom this rule of suffering such to come to Christ, were kept or broken, it were very incongruous, and it's a very improbable conjecture, that Christ spake thus of these very Infants, by an act of divine knowledge of them to be the elect of God: as if a company of children should be by an unwonted providence, singled out to be brought to him, which were everyone of them elected to eternal life, and not any of them, in a contrary estate. And by the latitude of the extent of Christ's speech, as before we shown in reference to after and other times, and examples of like nature as to the present case it appears, he neither spake thus as God, or as a mere extraordinary inspired Prophet, but delivered as in ordinary administration of the mind of God, as at other times, an ordinary rule of ordinary practice and use afterwards, in reference not barely to those very little ones then brought, but to others like them; wherefore such evasions of C. B. in his fourth answer to this place are frivolous. And why should there be such startling at this place as if it were uncouth doctrine, that children of enchurched members should be counted subjects of God's kingdom, or members of his visible Church? the Jews children, as well as parents which were cast out together▪ Matth. 8. 11, 12. were surely in that kingdom together, out of which they came to be cast afterwards; the uncircumcised man child was of the people or Church of God in visible account, else not cut off from his people in that case of neglect, Gen. 17. 14. and in the purer days of the Gospel, yet expected, the children are put under David or Christ their Prince as King, and head, and Lord of his visible Church, as well as the parents, as before we shown from Ezek. 37. 25, 26, 27. and God accounted them even in very corrupt time, children of his covenant spouse or visible Church, Thy children which thou barest to me, Ezekiel 16. 8. 20, 21. 23. witness the setting to of the initiatory Church seal of circumcision to those children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's loins; and no wonder, in that they were all interested in the covenant of grace, as invested with Church-covenant, which is even the very form of the Church, giving Church being to persons therein interested; nor is it likely that these children were other then such, being either proselytes children, joined to the Jewish Church, or children of Jews, either of them formerly circumcised, and in facie ecclesiae of the Church, the Apostles which used to be questioning anything obscure, which they understood not, or seemed to them strange, would in likelihood have inquired after satisfaction therein, of Christ, as their manner was, if it had not been very clear, convincing, approved, received doctrine, which Christ urged as his reason of reproof of their act in hindering the little ones approach to him; he which himself forbad them, Matth. 10. to go into the way of the Gentiles, no not into Samaria, and when himself took up the Gentile Canaanite in such sort at first, albeit she a believer, Matth. 15. 22. if these had been other then visible believing enchurched persons, yea though Gentiles yet enchurched proselytes which brought these children, he would not have so roundly, and sharply taken up his Disciples, for assaying to hinder them from him, when the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaketh thus to the Church, and not to the city as such, which writ to him, and to whom he writ this back again; he saith else [their] children, as appropriating external adoption, as well as formerly, to others of that sort, Rom. 9. 1, 2, 3, 4. they were the children of that Spouse of Christ, 2 Cor. 11. 2. 3. as those were formerly of that Church, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. she brought forth other children by the ministry, Psal. 87. 5. albeit, not so many as now, and hereafter, Esa. 54. 5. but that way also did the Church bear children to the Lord. And are purer Gentiles Churches wombs in that respect shut up; or doth the Lord less affect communion with his Church in that expression of his love now, then he did to the Church of old? surely no; the Corinthian members as a Church body, had their Church children, and seed: also, the Apostle taketh order with the women, 1 Cor. 14. Let [your] women keep silence in the Churches; but why [your]? what, because they were the members wives only? no verily: since some such were Pagans, and without the Church, and he protesteth against any Church dealing with such, 1 Cor. 5. end; what have we to do with them from any Church care, or respect? but rather [your] women as being of the Church, and so here, not [your] children holy: scil. barely of your members in a common natural way: but yours in a Church relation rather. And let the Apostles division be further attended, 1 Cor. 5. placing all persons as either within or without the visible Church: For if his division be regular, as who will say otherwise, of the wisest dictates of the holy Ghost? then these membra dividentia take up the whole division, and there is no middle or neutral estate actually of persons. And albeit the persons chiefly intended, be adult persons, yet it must hold, as well of others, or else it is not a complete division. So then the little ones which are borne of enchurched persons, they are either actually within the Church, or actually without at present, only some possibilities as some suppose of their being actual members, afterward at most: but at present their actual estate must be the one, or the other; if actually within the Church, I have what I seek, if only potentially such as may come in, but yet actually without, 1. then the children of the Church in primitive times were such as the Apostles, as extraordinary, and now Elders as ordinary officers in the Church, were not, nor are to take any special Church care of; since the tie of that Church care, as such, dependeth upon covenant and Church relation, either extraordinary, as that of the Apostles, to all the Churches; or ordinary, as that of the officers of this or that Church. 2. Then Churches and their officers are not to deal with any such children more then with pagans in any Church way of instruction or admonition when grown up. 3. Then are such so far forth to be left as persons without actually, to the more immediate judgment of God; what have we to do with such? God judgeth them, and the phrase of God's judging them, how sad a case it noteth, see Heb. 3. 4. and 10. 29, 30, 31. 4. Then such children being actually without, they are actually and at present amongst the number of such persons of whom is little hope: as Mark 4. 11, 12. to them without: if hardened persons, in parables: so Revel. 22. without are dogs. The persons left out of Church fellowship by the new Jerusalem are of the worst sort, •… vel. 22. 15. 5. Then the Jewish Church is supposed to have a larger share in the charity of God, and his people, so that their children in relation to Church estate are called and counted God and his Churches children, purer Gentile Churches have no such charity allowed towards the members children: which absurdities if any will swallow, let them enjoy their conceits.

SECT. II.

ANd thus far of the dispensing kingdom of God, as it seems to be included, and intended in the first expression, Of such is the kingdom of God: which may serve to answer the scruples of some, as if such an assertion of children of believers, to be of God's kingdom, should cross the course of providence, many proving wicked: For this hinders not, but they belong to the visible Church: no more then Christ's assertion of all the Jews, to be the children of the kingdom of heaven, into which the Gentiles from all parts should come after the rejection of the Jews, Matth. 8. 11, 12. nor is this anymore cross to Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. then that is; yea suppose the Kingdom of heaven be taken for that of glory; yet in that covenant and Church estate is theirs, so far also is glory theirs, scil. in foro ecclesiae. And we have before proved that Christ spake this as man, not merely as God, as he said before of the Jews, Matth. 8. 11, 12. and after this spake to like purpose, Matth. 21. 43. they were as externally adopted, Rom. 9. 4. externally inrighted to that promise of glory, the promises indefinitely being thus far theirs, & that promised heritage being thus far theirs. If they had not God's kingdom, in respect of this estating of theirs in it, and right to it; how came they to have it taken from them? was not that in respect of any external Church right actually theirs unto, or to the dispensation of the covenant holding the same forth? they were all heirs, albeit under tutors, Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3. but to me the former sense is rather most unquestionable, that of such is the kingdom of God, or of heaven, scil. the visible Church as before was proved; and this may also satisfy that which is objected, that he might speak this in reference to the future; that is, that they were elect ones, and should in time be of God's kingdom, that is, believers, or in that they were such as God would bless: For Christ's words are not, Of such may, will or shall be the kingdom of God, nor that they were of his kingdom, because such as he would bless; but rather that they should not be hindered from being blessed of him, because of such [is] the kingdom of God; as the context and force of that reason in reference to the occasion showeth: and as for that assertion of their being all elect, the improbabilitie thereof hath before appeared; nor doth Christ seem to speal: of the kingdom of God as taken for the invisible Church of actual believers▪ but of visible members of the visible Church, as before was shown. He affirmeth that those little ones, de praesenti, were of the kingdom of God, yet were not they actually believers, he asserteth as much of the Jews to be rejected afterward, that yet at present they were the children of that very kingdom of heaven, whereinto the Gentiles, even the very best of them come to sit; the Church estate in both was the same in the essentials, and the covenant estate the same essentially: the external right to grace, and glory the very same essentially, and so the reason of the grant here, and assertion, is the same in reference to the little ones, of other visible believers, as of these which brought their children to Christ, unless God should be made a respecter of persons; their Infants must come to Christ, and not be hindered, because they were Federally and Ecclesiastically privileged, or because of such is God's kingdom; the same is valid now, since as adult persons externally in covenant and Church estate, must not according to our opposites minds be hindered from Christ, because such like as these little ones; so neither believers little ones being also such like as well; they may not be hindered from any such way of initiatory approach to Christ as they are capable of, as is external baptizing in the name or fellowship, as of the Father, so of Christ the Son, and also of the holy Spirit; to which purpose I suppose our Divines had reference, in urging this place for Paedobaptism, nor was this an affirming of Infants being saved by their parents faith, but an assenting of their external Church right, by virtue of the latitude of God's covenant applied by the parents, and by occasion of their holding forth of that faith, which did, foro ecclesiae, unite them, and their little ones to Christ, as head of the visible Church, in which may by external adoption and insition are interested, which are not saved as before we shown; nor will that take off what it seemeth, some worthy Divines, have lately urged from hence for Paedobaptism; that if Christ's mind had been that Infants should have been baptized, he would have commanded these little ones to have been baptized for an example: for according to the principles of C. B. and others, Christ did love these little ones with his everlasting love, they received heaven of free gift, as all that will be saved must do: theirs was the kingdom of glory really, and Christ as God, and as an extraordinary Prophet of the Church knew all this, &c. now why should not, or were not these Infants, at least baptized? C. B. will answer, Infants of believers may die in their Infancy, and they may live to commit actual sins, &c. and we not knowing which will live or die, cannot baptize them, what then according to C. B. it seems the uncertainty of Infants deaths, whilst young, or living to grown years, is an impediment to their baptism. Where did C. B. here or ever read in Scripture or of such a just bar to Infants baptism? but suppose it were so to us, which know not this, yet C. B. will not say but Christ knew all herein, how matters would prove, therefore that was no just hindrance in the nature of it thereto; for then he to whom this could be no hindrance touching these children about whom C. B. saith he revealed his Fathers eternal live, and good will, he had caused at least these little ones to have been baptized. Yea I demand upon the grant of those things mentioned, whether C. B. or others opposing Paedobaptism, would deny that such as Christ receiveth, and blesseth, and alloweth, the kingdom of heaven in their sense, that is, that of glory, to be theirs, if grown ones, should not therefore be baptized. Now if this will not be denied, as I suppose, why, supposing the like case of any little ones, and Infants, shall the same be denied where there is the same ground of baptism in both sorts? Nay suppose that by extraordinary revelation, C. B. and others of his mind did know as much as here is mentioned, in Mark 10. and Luke 16. that such and such children were God's chosen ones, that they were received, and blessed of Christ, not in any common way, but as the very heirs of glory, as these Infants are by them supposed to be, and so were actually blessed with the spirit of grace, &c. would not they baptize these Infants? I suppose the more judicious would, and have said that, in that case, they would do it, because

Nor indeed could it be denied by them rationally; since in this case Infants are not merely supposed to be capable thereof, but really to have received the sublime things visibly sealed in baptism, even the spirit of grace, love, and blessing of Christ, the promise of grace and glory, &c. And therefore not to be denied baptism, especially seeing this their receiving of the thing signified, is also manifested, & so all usual occasions that way removed. Now then to come to apply what here is granted; First, then persons may come under the notion of Disciples which were never outwardly taught, and cannot personally hold out actual faith, which our opposites elsewhere deny. Secondly, that it is not contrary to Christ's mind, and to the rule, that persons, without personal profession of faith should be baptized. For as the former notion of Disciples, if natura rei, it were not otherwise appliable, then as not ordinarily, so neither extraordinarily: and whether ordinarily, or extraordinarily, if appliable so; it is not simply to be denied; so I say in the latter: albeit, extraordinary things done besides rule cross not ordinary rule; yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily, is anything to be done, which is in itself contrary to rule. It was beside rule for a Priest to kill Zimri and Cozbi, but not a breach of rule, or anything contrary to rule. Thirdly, that there was ground why Christ might command those little ones brought to him to be baptized, yea it was his mind, and according to his will they should be baptized, albeit it be not mentioned that they were baptized: who could forbid water that they should be baptized, which received the holy Ghost, which were Disciples? Christ's extraordinary knowledge of it himself, and revelation thereof to his Apostles then present, which used to baptize others, John 4. 1. 2. it's granted was sufficient warrant, albeit there had been no rule for it, when yet in this case the rule of baptizing Disciples, John 4. 1. also might suffice. Let it then be no more said, that if it had been Christ's mind, that Infants should be baptized, he would have commanded those, Luke 18. to be baptized, since according to the acknowledged principles, those little ones either were, or might groundedly have been baptized. But we will suppose Christ did not then expressly enjoin those little ones baptism, or that they were not then baptized, yet will it not follow that it was not his mind such babes to whom he expressed such love should not be baptized, or were not baptized; he that had his time of blessing them, was free to take his time of enjoining their baptism. Yea he gave not any express charge, touching any care to be had of them, by those which brought them: nor touching their being further instructed, in the way of God, and many other things of that nature: And yet none will thence reason that, Ergo, it was not his mind, that any special care or religious endeavor, touching their further good should be used. No more doth the former follow that it was not his mind that either those or any other such like persons should be baptized, because he did not then express his mind that way touching those little ones. There might be diverse other reasons▪ why Christ might not then enjoin the same: possibly their parents themselves, albeit circumcised, yet not baptized, or if baptized, their children also might be baptized when they were. And his reasons to prove that by kingdom of heaven is rather meant that of glory then of grace, are as weak still. First, Because they understand not the Laws of the kingdom of grace. Secondly, because this kingdom is a local kingdom, as appeareth by the word entering in. But doth C. B. which saith these Infants did receive the kingdom of God by gift, think that they received not the kingdom of grace, at present before their entrance into glory, they were not yet entered heaven, but on earth then, and long after it may be, yet he saith those little ones received it of gift; in what way, or by what means could they receive it? without any covenant right? surely no: For there is no inheritance of glory other then that promised inheritance, hence the promise put for glory promised, Heb. 10. 36. nor eternal life, but such as is promised, Tit. 1. 1, 2, 3. yea could they receive it, without the Spirit? which yet they must also partake of by promise, or no way: none are made partakers of the Divine nature in any respect but by the promises, 2 Pet. 1. 4. now if thus really, and effectually interested in the covenant of grace, and partakers of the spirit, then the kingdom of grace too was theirs: albeit they understood not the Laws of it. Yea doth Mr. B. think that the kingdom of glory belongs to any to whom that of grace belongeth not? must not that be first ours before the other? yea doth not the phrase of receiving the kingdom note out, that the kingdom of glory is received, in and by the receiving of that of grace, or of the word of the kingdom the promise, and covenant, &c. else is it not improper to say that those Infants before they entered into God's kingdom of glory they did receive it? It's a Local kingdom, as Mr. B. hath it, and is it proper to say that a man receiveth a place, before he come at it, otherwise then by word of mouth, or writing, or some equivalent engagement? I conclude then that the kingdom that they received was rather that of grace, even the covenant of grace, if not also grace of the covenant, wherein was plighted, and engaged some right to that of glory, or that it was the kingdom of glory, in reference to such plighting and pledge of it. Nor doth Mr. B. his other reason conclude against what I have said, they were at least externally of God's kingdom, in that first sense, scil. considered, as his kingdom dispensing, scil. his Church. Secondly, they received his kingdom in a second sense, scil. considered as dispensed in the revealed way of God's plighting of it by word, and initiatory seal at last of Circumcision, if not of Baptism; and how ever in the external right to both they are such, which according to men at least should enter into glory in respect of actual fruition of it, which is the kingdom in a third sense, scil. the kingdom to be possessed, and to which a entering in, in the Text hath indeed reference; but else Mr. Blackwoods reason would not enforce it, that because of that local expression of entering in; the kingdom must ergo be a local kingdom, or heaven it self: there are local expressions very full, Matth. 8. 11, 12. sitting down of some in the kingdom of heaven, out of which others are cast: yet will not Mr. B. conclude that even the Jews were in heaven, and so cast out thence, if they had not been first in, they had not been thence cast: in, and out, are here relatives. It was some other kingdom, scil. that of grace in the external subject of it, the visible Church; and engagement of it, the covenant of grace and dispensation of it: the administration of Church ordinances, &c. in which they were by external adoption and incision, and out of all actual privileges whereof they were afterward cast. As for that which others object against us in this point of children's federal and ecclesiastical estate from hence, scil. that Christ saith not of these, but of such, and such like, scil. as A. R. hath it, such like in humility, &c. is the kingdom of God, &c. this is as groundless an interpretation as some others mentioned.

For first, it's evident that Christ maketh these little ones patterns to others like them, in that interest in God's kingdom, of such or such like is God's kingdom; now samples must have that verified in themselves, in some sense in which they are examples to others; secondly, they are inclusively made examples of such an initiatory receiving of the kingdom of heaven, as tendeth to a more full fruition, and enjoyment thereof, Luke 18. 17. Mark. 10. 15. and and therefore at least externally such, and so qualified themselves now will their paralelling this with, Matth. 18. 3, 4, 5, 6. hold good therein, to say nothing, that that, Matth. 18. 6. may be read from the Greek, these little ones 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of persons believing or of believers in me, scil. of parents believing in Christ, which little ones are not to be slighted but received in Christ's name, verse. 5. scil. unto Church communion as well as others, as that phrase implieth, Rom. 15. 7. This is undeniable that the occasion of that speech in Matth. 18. and of this in Matth. 19. Mark 10. Luke 18. was different, and at divers times uttered as the Texts compared show, nor saith Christ in Matth. 18. as here, he that receiveth not the kingdom of God as a little child, but thus; unless ye be as children, scil. in humility, &c. verse. 3, 4. compared; and that likewise in Matth. 18. doth not conclude, ergo the interest of such children, more then unto Doves, or sheep unto whom subjects of God's kingdom are like, but here as he saith of such like is God's kingdom: for withal, he saith that others must receive God's kingdom as they do, making them patterns as well of receiving of, as interest in God's kingdom, which was never affirmed of sheep or doves are harmless, if patterns of it. Actual guile, malice and envy are removed from Infants, they act not such sins if they are patterns to others therein, 1 Pet. 2. 1, 2, 3. compared, they are low and little in their own eyes, not minding great things, &c. if patterns of it, Matth. 18. Psal. 131. 1, 2. so here they are interested in God's kingdom, do receive it externally at least, both those here mentioned, and such like Infants, if they were made patterns thereof unto others, else the sense of Luke 18. 17. would be thus, Unless any receive Christ's kingdom as a child doth, scil. in a bare resemblance of reception thereof without any reality therein, so much as supposed, he shall not enter into it. Thirdly, Christ bringeth this as a reason why his Disciples should not hinder little ones as profane from him, but rather further the approach of those babes, because of suchlike Infants, like them in covenant, and Church interest in God his kingdom. Now if this had been Christ's only reason thereof as is imagined, because not of these out of such like little ones by resemblance in humility, and harmlessness, &c. is God's kingdom, therefore further, and do not hinder their coming to me; then one might upon the same ground argue, that since oft persons like good seed, and good fish for usefulness and fruitfulness, &c. is God's kingdom, Matth. 13. 24. 38. 47. 49. and since of persons like Eagles for renovation, sight, and seed, &c. God's kingdom doth consist, therefore further, and do not hinder the bringing of such seed, fish, and Eagles unto Christ; this were ridiculous. Yea suppose any other thing short of what I have formerly mentioned touching these babes, wherein some of these creatures are not all out fully resembling the Saints, yet if not interested more then those creatures in the kingdom mentioned, it's not the degrees of more or less like which will alter the force of that formal reason of not hindering these creatures therefore from Christ, scil. because bare resemblances of the Saints, as our opposites interpret this. Fourthly, as Christ taking them up in his arms, as the word is translated, showeth they were little ones indeed, of whom he spake, and not metaphorical little ones, even grown persons like them; so other acts show that he expressed as much in effect touching those babes in his acts about them, as in his words he spake touching them, the expressions of Christ's love toward those persons, whether he took them up in his arms or embraced them, it was no complement in Christ, but a most significant expression of his love; & his blessing of them, do declare that they had some more peculiar interest in some respects, at least in an Ecclesiastical and Federall way, in him the King, and in that his kingdom mentioned, then to be bare semblances of others which had. Fifthly, the Greek article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in reference to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Luke 18. 15, 16, 17. the little ones, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in reference to the parents, as Beza noteth on the place, seemeth to show, that he intended not such allegorical little ones, as the bringers of them, but the little ones brought in that assertion mentioned.

Object.

Yea but Piscator maketh that an argument, in that he called the little ones, verse. 16. that ergo they were not babes: and beside, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a child capable of teaching, as 2 Tim. 3. 15. from a child thou hast learned the Scriptures, &c. and so your purpose faileth to apply this against Anabaptists denying the covenant, and Church right of babes of enchurched believers.

Answ.

1. It's said he called them, scil. in calling their parents which brought them, albeit, they might not be all capable of understanding that invitation; it's usual in Scripture because of parents nearest interest in their children to ascribe things to their children, which are rather to be understood of the parents, as when it is said Levi paid tithes in Abraham, Heb. 7, &c. Secondly, albeit, that phrase be used in Tim. thou hast known the Scriptures from a child, yet it follows not, that therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not in the very natural proper, and constant use of it signify a babe more then the like phrases used in Scripture should not have their proper signification, because something there mentioned is not in strict acceptation appliable thereunto; as when it's said, thou madest me hope upon my mothers breasts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or when I was upon my mothers breasts, so Psal. 58. 3. the wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are borne speaking lies: in these places will it be hence argued that the Hebrew words rightly translated, and so constantly used as translated, signify other then from mothers breasts, and womb, &c. in that a very sucking or new borne child is not capable of actual hoping in God or going astray actually from him, but rather persons grown up more in years; here all will say these species are hyperbolical, showing that these things were acted thus by them very early, and very soon; so what though a little one, which is not a suckling but can speak and understand is capable of knowing the Scriptures, yet it followeth not that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth any other then a babe, but it showeth that Timothy was so trained up very early, he doth not say, thou even a child [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] didst know, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from a child, that is, very soon and early in thy age. Thirdly, the Apostles did not use to hinder little ones which could go and speak, from coming to Christ, but further them rather: whether the parents were Jews of Gentiles, yea, and those not proselytes: witness that act Mark. 9. Matth. 15. this therefore was an example as they apprehended tending to trouble Christ more then ordinary to meddle with poor shiftless babes. Fourthly, if they had been little ones which could go, yet it sufficeth to prove what Anabaptists deny: that before persons could actually hold forth personal. Faith or repentance, may be actually in covenant with God and inrighted to the initiatory seal of it, and that albeit Christ did not actually cause these babes then to be baptized, that they had therefore no right to be baptized, it followeth not.

But I. S. he acknowledgeth those children to be of that kingdom or members of that Jewish Church, and therefore have right as well as others to temporal blessings, and that these children were brought to Christ for cure producing some Scriptures for that end, where prayer and imposition of hands was used upon that occasion; but doth the Text say, of such or such like was [that] kingdom? no verily, but indefinitely, of such is [the] kingdom of God; and what though those children were of that Church, since Christ enlargeth his speech, as we shown, to such like persons, and so to other babes of like condition with those; and had the Jews, and their babes only right to temporal blessings will I. S. say: when that Abraham's covenant of God his being a God to them, scil. to fulfill his promises: instancing in that, Luke 1. 73, 74, 75. as one is acknowledged by I. S. elsewhere, to be by circumcision visibly sealed upon both seeds, as he termeth them. True it is that as, 2 King. 5. 11. Matth. 8. 3. and 9. 18. Luke 4. 3 • . 40. one way of healing was putting on of hands, and prayer, but is all here meant? the Lord blessed them, scil. in way of cure only, or the like: other Scriptures mention imposition of hands, and prayer in that way of curing; true, but here is no mention either of the diseases or of the cure of the little ones following upon Christ's imposition of hands, as there is in the other Scriptures in other cases; no nor is here prayer mentioned: the parents desired him to pray, Matth. 19. but he blessed them saith Mark, whether in prayer way, it's not said, yea since the Scriptures mention these acts of blessing, and imposition of hands in way of ratification of covenant right, and privileges of the covenant of grace as externally, at least, the heritage of such and such, witness that Gen. 27. 17. and 28. 1. 3, 4. and 48. 14, 15, 16. why should not we on better grounds look at this as comprehended in this act of Christ? and why is I. S. so uncharitable to limit the requests of these pious persons entreating Christ to pray, indefinitely, for the little ones: that this was only to move him to desire temporal things for them? Christ doth not seem to make any such interpretation of their request when he blessed them, as Mark saith, what was that only in regard of temporals? who would limit Christ's blessing within so short a compass? nor was it the Disciples use to hinder, but further the cure of persons children brought for that end, as the instances in Mark 9. Matth. 15. show.

Object.

But if you make Infants of enchurched believers to be actual members of a visible Church, do you not destroy the usual definition of a visible Church; given by Divines, that it's a company of persons professing the faith, &c.

Answ.

Musculus, Aretius, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Dr. Ames, Mr. Cotton, Dr. Whittaker, Peter Martyr, & generally all our Divines which define a visible Church severally, but in substance to like purpose, they yet make that no undermining of their own doctrine, de ecclesia, or of the descriptions visibles ecclesiae which they do give; when the same authors maintain from Scripture grounds that such Infants are actually members of the visible Church, and externally in the covenant of grace, and such as are to be baptized: yea such Infants being of the Church; It is not therefore not a company of professors of the faith, since Infants are fideles, as they are rationalls, as some say, scil. actu primo, non secundo; yea they confess and avouch the Lord in their parents avouching of him, as they did of old, Deut. 26. 16, 17, 18. and 29. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. they promised to stand to those conditions in their parents promise made with respect to them.

Object.

But if they are of the Church, and in the covenant, and have right to the Seal, then to both as well as to one, to the Lord's Supper as well as Baptism.

Answ.

We do not say they are complete members of the Church, but incomplete as Ames speaketh to this purpose in his Medullâ, & having interest in the Church and covenant, we say they have right to the initiatory Seal: but not therefore to all memberly privileges of voting in Church censures, elections, admonitions, &c. even grown persons that are with us as transient members by communion with other Churches, yet are not reckoned as in full Church communion with us, in all Churches privileges, as in choosing officers, censuring offenders, &c. Nor will Mr. B. his paralleling of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper prove that if to be admitted by Church interest unto the one, then also unto the other: for suppose one, and the same thing be sealed, yet not by one and the same way: the former only being the initiatory seal of covenant and Church interest, not the latter: nor is it true that the same preparations is required to the former as to the latter: since nowhere spoken so exclusively of persons to be baptized as to come to the Lord's Supper, Let a man examine himself, and so no otherwise, let him eat; nor doth it follow that because there is but one excommunication, there is but one communion; excommunication being properly of persons in full communion of all Church privileges in this or that Church where the offense is committed. For to instance in no other case, but in that of a brother in another Church which is in Church communion in Mr. B 's Church by virtue of communion of Churches, yet not in complete membership, & full communion of all Church privileges there: he offendeth; will Mr. Blackwood now put him out of Church communion with his Church by actual censure from his Church? I suppose not: in that the party hath not personally submitted yet to the Churches power: but they will withdraw communion rather: this then is a different way of discommunicating, and by Mr. B 's grounds, ergo argueth a different communion, and so not the same, which was that he assayed to prove; nor do his proofs evince but that others were baptized then did partake of the Lord's Supper.

Object.

Before we pass further, let me remove another objection which I meet with, scil. that if we make Infants members of a visible Church, which do nothing from whence to denominate the same, but are merely passive: It will follow that there may be a visible Church, consisting only of Infants of believers. For a number of visible members make a visible Church.

Answ.

This followeth not, since the main force of such denomination lieth in the grown Citizens of God, which use in all City acts public to carry it personally, and not from the children, which yet are free Deuisons. As for a Church of only Infants: it's not supposable their Church right depending upon enchurched parents; nor are the Infants such perfect members of the Church as others: nor do a number of believers regularly, make a visible political Church, but in such a way of actual combining together either explicitly or implicitly, as in all other bodies politique. Whence a more peculiar relation one to another, and a peculiar ground of memberly care for, & power one over another, in a brotherly way to watch over, or seasonably to admonish each other, and the like.

SECT. III.

TO conclude, let such as oppose us in this doctrine of the faederall and Church holiness of enchurched believers little ones, consider of the absurdities which their opposite Doctrine exposeth them unto.

As first, the denial of any ordinary way or means of the salvation of believers Infants, as being neither actually in the visible Church, out of which ordinarily there is no salvation, nor being actually any of them in the covenant of grace, so much as externally, and so excluded from any ordinary means, or way, or estate of salvation, as before in part we shown: The promises being made to the Church, and the covenant being the Spirits instrument, by which to convey good unto such as ordinarily partake of it. Even before the world was: God, ordered all good to be conveyed to us in a way, and by virtue of his covenant, therefore also called the everlasting covenant, and Gospel, Heb. 13. 20. Revel. 14. 6. hence God was said to be in Christ reconciling the world to himself, 2 Cor. 5. 19. hence eternal life said to be promised before the world was, Tit. 1. 2. Hence that, Ephes. 3. 8, 9. even Christ himself is his people's no otherwise then in way of covenant, Isaiah 42. 6. and 49. 6, 7, 8. his blood is the blood of the everlasting covenant, no interest in it, nor in himself, but by way of covenant with it seals, as that wherein, and whereby salvation is engaged, Heb. 13. 20. man's salvation is only in his name, Act. 4. 12. and reconciliation in his blood, Colos. 1. 19, 20, 21. and that blood is the blood of the covenant as before, see Zach. 9. 11. he is a mediator of the new covenant, and Testament, Heb. 9. 15. Heb. 12. 24. if believers Infants have not interest in that covenant, no interest in him as Mediator: for he is no other Mediator but of such a covenant, his business as Mediator is to confirm a covenant to such to whom he is a Mediator, Deut. 9. 24. Rom. 15. 8. none can partake of the Spirit, nor any influence of it but by the promises, 2 Pet. 1. 4. nor of a glorious resurrection, but by virtue of, I am their God, Luke 20. 36, 37. nor of glory, but by virtue of the same, Heb. 11. 16. see of both, Act. 26. 6, 7. if therefore that species or sort of persons, covenant enchurched parents Infants, are excluded from right in the covenant, unless they come actually and personally to believe therein: actum est de salute eorum, they are given for lost irrecoverably, and all the individual Infants of such persons are left in as bad a case.

Secondly, that sort of grown gentiles being supposed only to be made nigh by the blood of Christ in covenant, and Church respects actually: it will argue that that sort only were actually strangers before, & not their children with them, not only individually, but specifically considered, since the same sorts at least of Gentiles, formerly strangers, are made nigh, Eph. 21. 11, 22, 13. compared.

Thirdly, then is it supposed that Christ took down the partition wall which stood between grown Jews and adult Gentiles, but as for the believing Gentiles Infants, either there was no such partition wall betwixt them and their parallels the Jewish Infants enchurched, or if there were, it so far remains untaken down as concerning that sort of Infants.

Fourthly, then Divine justice is supposed to have a larger latitude in involving the little ones of such as respect the Covenant under the expressions and visible dispensations of divine displeasure, as in Cain's, Ishmael's, Esau's, the Jews rejection together with their little ones; then divine grace hath in the expressions and dispensations thereof, unto the little ones of such as took hold thereof; contrary to all former examples: how long did God continue external adoption, and son-ship in Seth’s line, Gen. 6. 1. how long in Abraham's, Isaac's and Jacob's, Rom. 9. 4. and not rejecting them till rebelling universally, and fatally?

Fifthly, then it's supposed, that there are two covenants of grace, one with them of old, another with us now, essentially different, which is absurd as before was shown, and may be further evinced in that baptism, that new way of initiatory sealing of the covenant, when first instituted, it was instituted precisely with sole respects to the Jews, John 1. 33. Matth. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. John 4. 1. compared with Matth. 10. 5, 6. to show that there was no other covenant to be sealed by baptism, then that which was made with the Jews in the substance of it, Luke 24. 44, 45, 46, 47. Act. 2. 38, 39. the same promise first sealed by baptism to them before was to them afar off, and no other to them afar off to be sealed by baptism then that promise which was to them, and to their children; now if one covenant essentially, then either the Jews children were not in covenant, no not so much as externally; contrary to what we shown before from Acts 2. and in the conclusions laid down: or if they were, it was merely ceremonious; now supposing ceremony in the way of sealing, by circumcising of the flesh of their foreskin; yet what ceremony was in the principal part of the covenant it self, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee in their generations? or if it were one part of the covenant, then, but is now abolished by Christ, then it seems Christ by his coming hath abolished one material part of the covenant of grace, without any other thing equivalent to parents as covenant parents instead thereof.

Sixthly, then God is made a respector of persons looking at Jews with theirs in covenant respects, but not so eying covenant enchurched Gentiles: Yea he is made to speak things at large, to be a God to all the families of the earth, Jer. 31. 1. yet when it cometh to be Analysed, he is not a covenant God to anymore then particular persons actually believing only: no covenant respect is had so much as externally, no not so much as to the choicest part and prop of the families, scil. children.

Seventhly, then is all former distinction, ever used to be so carefully observed, and held forth, and mentioned, laid aside. Seed of the woman, and of the Serpent in the younglings of both are confounded, no distinction of sons of God, and of men, of seed of Isaac and Ishmael in the Infant part thereof. No Church distinction of children clean or incleane; Albeit, that we mentioned not to the State, but Church at Corinth, as a Church to whom the contrary was noted as absurd; else even the children were as Pagans unclean, but now they are holy. So Acts 2. To you, and your children, not to others; as afterwards: actually to others with theirs Some only were nigh in covenant, and political Church respects; the rest far off: nay do not C. B. Hen. Den, and some others ground upon Rom. 5. 18. whereby to put believers children in the same estate without any difference, as such, from any others children? Nay C. B. would know why Turks, and believers Infants being alike free from actual sin and guilt of original, that they may not partake of the same benefit of free grace, and albeit in them there be something worthy of damnation, yet it appears not from Scripture that any were damned for original sin only, and would know why we should not think as much of Infants in general, dying infants, as was said of David's child, 2 Sam. 12. 23. thought by Divines to be saved, bringing Rom. 5. 18. for a proof of such general redemption of dying Infants. Strange charity beyond all bounds of regular judgment, to all Infants dying, and none to believers Infants in general, so much as of their external interest in the covenant; but doth Mr. B. expound deaths reign over Infants, Rom. 5. 14. to be only restrained to that of the first death? or might Babylon's little ones be accursed if not under wrath, as such? doth Mr. B. imagine that all the Infants destroyed in the flood, in Sodom and Gomorrah, in the last destruction of Jerusalem, &c. that it is so much as probable they that were saved? are all by nature the children of wrath, and yet all dying in that estate, and under no covenant of grace, so much as externally it is, so much as probable that all such are saved? Is there any Mediation of Christ, but as a Mediator of a covenant? and are Turks Infants under the covenant, when as their parents are not? were all Gentiles of old, young and old, being strangers from the covenants of promise and of the Church, without God, and Christ, and hope: and now the case is so altered that the chrildren of strangers from the covenant are to be judged hopeful? Doth Mr. B. startle at 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the children of believers, yea though dying Infants, yet as believers children, they are no more but civilly clean, and in covenant respects as profane, yet are Pagans children clean in respect of Covenant mercy? for else how can they be saved as before we proved? as for Rom. 5. 18. our Divines have used to answer Arminians, that [all] is taken for [many] as before, verse. 15. But here Mr. B. in the case of dying Infants will have it universal: and if universally true of dying Infants, why not so of all living Infants, why not of all men simply, where will there be a restraint? If all men simply, in one sort of persons dying be understood, and not all men that is many: whereas we are used to be upbraided with the absurdity of universal redemption; I fear Mr. B 's doctrine rather. And so much of the first part of this discourse touching the covenant and Church estate and right of Church members children.

CHAP. I. Sect. I. Touching Children's Baptismal right.

HAving discoursed of the doctrine of the Federall and Ecclesiastical holiness of the Children of visible believing and enchurched parents and cleared the same, let us address ourselves a while to consider of the external & Church right of such little ones, unto the initiatory seal of such covenant & Church right, which followeth thence. The initiatory seal followeth the covenant, we speak not of an extraordinary time of the Church, when either it hath no particular express initiatory seal distinct from another sealing ordinance; as before that solemn covenanting of God in reference to the Church in Isaac's race, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, &c. with 19. so there is some peculiar state of the time not appliable to the ordinary time and way of a visible political Church and its administrations: as then also were family Churches, as that in Melchizedek’s and Jobs family; which not being successively to continue, were not so immediately eyed in point of solemn institution and Church laws, as was this of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's race, wherein the visible Church was to be continued: such extraordinary cases and times, are very impertinently urged by some to infringe the force of ordinary rules, and principles: they know an extraordinary case of eating shewbread by such as were not Priests, of plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath day, of a private Disciple's baptizing upon an extraordinary and immediate call, as did Ananias, Acts 9. of Zipporah's circumcising, and these do not nullify and invalidate ordinary rules and principles, touching circumcision or baptism, or the sanctification of the Sabbath, &c.

This proposition then I shall lay down for further proof: that in ordinary times and cases, respecting the political visible Church, and its administrations; such little ones as are of parents in such visible Church estate, they have external right unto the enjoined initiatory visible seal, of which they are outwardly capable, and ought not to be denied the use and benefit thereof; ordinary times then and not extraordinary are here considered: let none object then, children of members of an ordinary political visible Church are here considered: let none object an extraordinary case of Johs or Melchisedecks family; a visible seal enjoined, not a case wherein actually any such seal is not enjoined is here also considered; but either actually enjoined, or at least in view at the present making of the covenant with Church reference as in the case, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, &c. let none object Adam and Noah's time and cases against our thesis, external right in such a Church seal is propounded; let none confound this with internal and saving right, which is visible to God and not to mere men; the initiatory visible seal is propounded, not all the seals or Church privileges; as choice of officers, and voting in other Church occasions, &c. A male child of eight days old might be circumcised, but was never intended to be enjoined personal appearance at the solemn celebration of the passover, there to go up, and not to be carried or to have others appear in their stead, Deut. 16. 16, 17. all the males which were to be at that feast were as well to be at the feast of tabernacles, Ibid. where such as kept that feast were to carry boughs to make Booths or Tabernacles to dwell in, Deut. 16. 16, 17. compared with Levite. 23. 34, 35. 38, 39, 40. which none will say was Infants work. Let none then object, that you may as well plead for Infants coming to the Lord's Supper, as in Cyprians time, and was the corruption of the time, as was crossing, rebaptizing, &c. in use in his time too, and as the Jews Infants partooke of the passover, the contrary whereof appears in a word we spake of initiatory sealing of persons outwardly capable thereof: otherwise albeit the parties have a covenant right unto it in the general; yet in that case of incapability, it's peculiar and their jus in re: justly suspended from being personally elicited, and this doth not make the ordinary rule and ground of right to the initiatory seal to be invalid: suppose an adult believing Pagan or Turk to join to our opposite Churches; who make total immersion essential to baptism, and that they were banished into Freezeland or Greenland or some such cold country: if this person be very weak and sick, yet desireth to join to them ere he die, I demand whether he hath right to baptism or no? this will not be denied: Yea but is this right to be elicited? surely no, unless they would be guilty of his death. But why not baptized? because you will say it's not simply necessary to salvation: There being no contempt of it, but only a natural and corporal incapacitie thereof; but this crosseth not that ordinary rule, ground, and way of baptizing. Very true, but then let none object against such Infants covenant right to the initiatory seal; the case of the females of Abraham's seed, which albeit in Abraham's covenant yet not circumcised: for when God enjoined cutting away of the superfluous foreskin of the flesh to be the seal of his covenant, the very nature of the command doth in reason, if the notion of males had never been expressed, reach the case of the males, which have such a superfluous foreskin of their flesh, and not the females which are naturally and corporally uncapable thereof: as having by nature no such superfluous foreskin, and so in that case as in some others, that law of circumcision had some things peculiar in it, albeit it had other things in common with that of baptism. For the clearer handling of this thesis propounded we shall lay down a few other propositions or conclusions.

SECT. II.

1.

THat mixed commands of God having some part circumstantial, & vanishing, some part substantial & abiding, the latter is binding to us, since Christ's time, albeit the former be not. A seventh day which God shall single out to be holy is binding to us; not the very seventh day of the week to be that day, he that commanded the sanctification of the seventh day, he commanded a seventh day of his own choosing, and that to be that seventh day: the former stands in the fall of the latter. He that commanded a strict holy worship on the Sabbath, Exod. 34. 21, &c. he commands suitable worship to the day and strictness of worship, in such and such a manner of expressions; the former was perpetual, the latter temporary; the morality of the second commandment enforceth all the substantials in seals or worship enjoined, nor doth Christ in that sense abolish a title of the Law.

SECT. III.

THat consequential commandments grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandments; as even consequential articles of faith are articles of faith: and in a word all consequences drawn as necessarily flowing from, or grounded upon Scripture principles, these are of Scriptural warrant. Paul, Act. 13. 46, 47. maketh a promise, yea an old testament promise, to be virtually a command, yea a New Testament commandment: Loe we turn to the Gentiles; why so? For God hath so commanded us; How doth that appear, or where? It followeth, so hath God commanded, saying, I have set thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be my salvation to the ends of the earth: this was spoken too in Isaiah 42. and 49. and it was a gracious promise in the letter of it; yea but Paul rightly drew the force of a command as included in it, according to the old rule; He which promiseth the end, he commandeth the means tending to that end; but of this more hereafter, but here we see what ground work is made use of in way of authorising so great and weighty a matter upon. It's verily the mind of God and Christ that Baptism and the Lord's Supper should be administered to the worlds end; yet is it only to be drawn by Scripture consequence from such like places, as Matth. 28. 19, 20. and 1 Cor. 11. 26. So when it's said, As oft as ye do this: our Divines make account it is a virtual command to celebrate the Lord's Supper often: and not, as in some places, twice or thrice a year. That sisters as well as brethren should in case be ecclesiastically censured it is of Scripture warrant; yet by consequence only; for the rule is of a brother offending, &c. nor is [brother] of the common gender, Matth. 18. 15. 2. Thes. 3. 6. 14. And as in matter of practice, so of faith, it is thus; in Christ's time there was no other Scripture, how then should that great article of the resurrection be convincingly proved, even to learned Sadducees which deny it? verily an Old Testament proof Christ maketh account sufficeth, as that Matth. 22. 29. 31, 32. compared with Exod. 3. 6, &c. and Luke 22. 37. yet this was but drawn by consequence. Thus the orthodox fathers dealt against the Arians denying Christ to be essentially one with the Father, they held him forth to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consubstantial or coessential with the Father, yet no direct Scriptures are for the same expressly: so in reasoning against such as denied the deity of the holy Ghost, or that he was to be worshipped they did the like: And where is it otherwise then by consequence to be drawn from Scripture, that there are three distinct persons or substances in that one God? or that Christ hath two natures essentially distinguished, and yet united in one Person, &c? Circumcision is called a sign of the covenant, how did Paul in speaking of Abraham mention circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of his faith? whence drew he that, that circumcision was in the nature of it; else it had not been so to Abraham or any other, any such thing? verily it was from Scripture consequence. And as in matters of faith and practice, so in matters of fact, the same rule holds, Acts 4. 4. there were four thousands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 virorum, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hominum, a word of the common gender, which believed: What no woman among them, none of their wives? that were very strange, but were they not baptized? Anabaptists will yield surely they were, yea but that must be drawn by consequence. The Church of the Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, &c. surely had the Lord's Supper administered among them, so the Thessalonians, the seven Asian Churches had baptism administered to and among them, yet this must be drawn by consequence, or no way, according to that true rule all this is regular, scil. Scripture is not the letter alone, but the mind and intent thereof drawn by consequence, according to the Analogy of faith, and by this rule we are to hold forth the doctrine of faith and rule of manners and worship, &c. Rom. 12. 6. Else as well many absurdities would follow. Must we actually sell all, taking up a Gibbet daily, lend freely, looking for nothing again, turn the other cheek to him which smiteth one, pluck out our eyes, cut off right hands, &c? Analogy of faith must help here. Hence Evangelical duties are not always grounded upon express commandments, either in old or New Testament, but from consequences drawn from either: such as are praying morning and evening in the family, and also in the closet alone; constant, daily and set meditation; daily reading of the Scriptures in the family: holy vowing, setting a part solemn days in private or public for thanksgiving, &c. much less are many of these come over again, as some phrase it, in the New Testament, with mention of the persons thereunto obliged: thereby receiving their binding virtue; nor is that therefore sound that in point of worship that is excluded which is not expressed; do not such even grant consequences?

SECT. IIII.

3.

THat Federall ordinances, such as are the seals, are as well privileges as precepts; hence circumcision is reckoned as the fathers privilege, Acts 7. 2. 8. hence Rom. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4. see more Acts 2. 38, 39. this some which oppose us acknowledge when such speeches as these are used:

and one of the ways of that administration was circumcision, was it not? These speeches indeed seem not so consonant to some passages before, and some after: But let me reason of these things a little, the covenant of Abraham in special wise belonged to the Jews, and that was a covenant of grace, scil. to be a God to them and theirs, as I have proved; was this no privilege to them? or was that, Deut. 29. 14. with 30. 6. no privilege? was it no privilege for this namesake of God to have such engagements, not merely for temporals but spirituals, even when they had provoked him? Ezek. 36. from the 17. to the end. Were they with theirs so peculiar a people in these respects, and yet were these no privileges? Deut. 14. 2. see more Chap. 7. 6, 7, 8. it's reckoned as a choice fruit of his love: And were even sundry Infants of theirs base borne, in the covenant of saving grace, and Church privileges, and was this no privilege to them, if so? since the promises of the covenant of grace, are privileges, and the same now to believers, and as large and honorable as then, either these promises to their children mentioned, Deut. 30. 6, &c. were not of the substance of the covenant of grace; and then how could even base borne children be in the covenant of saving grace? or they are no privilege; neither of which I suppose will be affirmed: if these promises to Church children be not barely of the administration of the covenant: for so are the Church privileges rather, which are before made distinct from their inbeing in the covenant of grace, but of the substance. Then why not now the same and larger rather? Why are believers children then excluded the covenant? And are the privileges in respect of administration of the covenant now enlarged, &c. Then either that administration of the covenant initiatory seal, as such, to their children, was no privilege: or there must be such a like privilege and not straitened, at least not wholly excluded, as that of a like, I say not the same, but a like administration of the initiatory covenant seal to enchurched believers children now. And suppose it be no privilege to have anything in lieu of circumcision of Infants, but Christ; yet is it no privilege to have any other thing then Christ to believers themselves? Circumcision is confessed to be an appointed seal of initiation to them that entered into covenant with God before Christ's incarnation, and baptism such a seal since; and that it signified sanctification by the Spirit, justification and salvation by Christ, and faith in him, but as to come, and baptism as come, &c. and is this no privilege to believers, that now they have not that manner of initiation by circumcision; yea but in a better way they have, scil. by baptism? Christ indeed was then to the Saints, and so he is now all in all ordinances and privileges; the Chieftaine, that first, or principal one, Isaiah 41. Cant. 5. Psal. 73. 25. but it was not therefore no privilege, nor is now the like, to have together with Christ many precious ordinances dispensed to them and us: and verily the Scripture in old and New Testament, accounteth it no small privilege, to have God's Tabernacle and Sanctuary, Church and Church ordinances with us; and persons to be in and under the same; hence promised as a reward and a fruit, yea part of the ratification of his covenant with them, Levite. 26. 9. 11. and therefore in the choice times of the Gospel, it's so reckoned, Revel. 21. 3. yea and as of old the children's Church estate and privilege was therein included as of that nature: so in reference to the other times mentioned, was the same of the same account, as we have shown from Ezek. 37. 25, 26, 27.

SECT. V.

4.

THat Baptism is now the only initiatory visible seal of the covenant; which being once administered, there needs no more renewing of it.

First, it is a seal of the covenant, no bare badge of Christianity as some have said, albeit the more judicious of our opposites yield this, that

And it appears so, 1. In that it agreeth in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal, Col. 2. 11, 12. whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision, Phil. 3. and Jews said to be baptized, 1 Cor. 12. hence first instituted for a seal to the circumcised Jews; to show it was in the essentials of sealing Abraham's covenant to them, but the same with circumcision in a manner; only as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ, as to come, this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come: that was the seal of the righteousness of Abraham's faith, or that whereon his faith acted to righteousness of justification, Rom. 4. 11. even the promise of grace in Christ, Rom. 10. 6, 7. with Deut. 30. 14. hence when Christ is called the Minister of circumcicision, it is thus explained by the end of the sign administered, scil. to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, Rom. 15. 8. Acts 7. 8. Gen. 17. 11. hence the promise premised, and then baptism annexed as the seal, Acts 2. 38. hence that washing annexed to the word, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. 2. It's a Baptizing in the name or covenant fellowship of God the Father, Son and Spirit: he having exalted his word above all his name, Psal. 138. 2. 3. It's a seal of remission of sins, and therefore of the promise tendering the same, hence joined, Acts 2. 38, 39. Acts 22. 4. The nature of it showeth the same, it being a Gospel Sacrament, and that is a visible seal, and the seal is to the covenant, hence called by the name, Acts 7. 8. 1 Cor. 11. 25.

Secondly, it is an initiatory seal: as first, annexed to the Gospel dispensed, with reference to covenant fellowship with God in Trinity; not first, Disciple them, and then, let them come to my Table, but baptizing them, scil. so soon as ever brought into covenant and Church estate, and seal them up thereby unto covenant fellowship with the Father, Son and Spirit. Hence repent and be baptized, for the promise is to you; not, repent and come to the Lord's Table; for the promise is to you. Hence that order observed of communion in breaking of bread after they were baptized, verse. 41, 42, 43, 44. there John began in any sealing way, Matth. 3. Mark 1. As of old circumcision long before the Passover, hence called the washing of regeneration; metonymically attributing the thing sealed, to the visible seal, Tit. 3. 5. the new birth is the first fruits of the spirit of promise: nor is this ascribed to the other Sacrament as that which is its proper Sacramental work initiatorily to seal; albeit after it be thus initiatorily sealed by baptism, the other doth also virtually confirm it.

Thirdly, this being once administered needs never be renewed, as if two initiations or beginnings, or regenerations, or first enterances into covenant, or first ingraffings into Christ, &c. as there was not Iterations of circumcision. It were but to take the name of God in vain, and a will-worship indeed, if ever before dispensed in the truth of the essentials of the ordinance, and it were unsafe to say, we may renew that one baptism, as we may renew that one faith of ours, unless as many times in a day: and as in variety of occurrence, changes, services, sufferings, temptations, ordinances, businesses, &c. we are to renew our faith, so we should renew our baptism, nor will the 19. of the Acts bear out any such practice. Luke mentions Paul's discourse touching the manner of Johns baptism, scil. to hold forth the duty which God required in reference to the Lord Jesus, and accordingly they were by John baptized into the name of Jesus, whom John held forth, as verse. 4, 5. compared shows, and as the annexing of Paul's name, 1. to this declaration, verse. 4, 5. and then 2. to his act which he then did, verse. 6. •… inceth: It's not said, then Paul baptized them, but then Paul laid his hands upon them. It's said of the other seal, As oft as ye do this, 1 Cor. 11. But not a whisper that way touching being oft baptized. The Apostle in mentioning of one spirit, body, hope of our calling, metonymically put for the thing hoped for, even glory, which is but one essentially, as one faith: which I suppose is taken, as oft in Scripture, for the doctrine of faith, which is but one, Gal. 1. 6. 7, 8. Jude 3. and so one Lord and one God: he mentions one baptism: and why doth he not as well say one Lord's Supper too, which albeit oft renewed to the same persons, yet it's but one institution and the same ordinance still: if no further matter be in that oneness of baptism, but to signify, that it's one and the same baptism indeed, but yet so as that it hinders not, but it may often be renewed upon one and the same person warrantably, though it were before orderly administered to him.

Fourthly, that baptism is the only initiatory seal: I never heard this yet so much as questioned by any which deny it not to be a seal, therefore I need not speak any further in confirmation thereof.

SECT. VI.

5.

THat the Application of such an initiatory seal of the covenant of grace made in reference to an ordinary political visible Church which God shall appoint, and whereof the several parties in that covenant are capable; this is an external condition of that covenant, and to be so far forth kept by all that are externally interested in the same, and that for that very reason and ground, because they are in such sort interested in that covenant. Ere we confirm this, let us premise that, that covenant Gen. 17. was a covenant of grace, and it was made with reference to an ordinary political visible Church, as we have before shown. And albeit that Church, quà such a political Church & national, &c. differ from congregational Churches: yet quâ visibil •… ecclesia politica, & ordinaria; so it was essentially the same with ours; hence then needs no scrupling or startling. As for their external interest also in the covenant of saving grace, it hath been likewise cleared, & that also need not breed contention upon the point of disparity.

This being premised, the proposition may more easily proceed, Gen. 17. 7. God propoundeth his gracious covenant, verse. 9. he informeth of one external condition to be observed, by persons taken into that gracious covenant, and inferreth the condition upon the premised covenant: thou Abraham and thy seed after thee: and when Isaac with whom — this covenant is established, verse. 19. as in whose race the Church and Church seed is to be continued hath seed; then it is thou, and thy seed: and when Jacob hath his seed, it is still the same, thou and thy seed, in such covenant language, what he speaketh to one father he speaketh to others; all are but Abraham and his seed still: yea and as then the same to Abraham's believing seed with their children, so it's but the same now; thou believer and thy seed after thee, are the same parties as Abraham and his seed; yea thou Abraham and thy seed after thee, scil. in their generations; wherein fathers and children begetting and begotten are comprehended: And so now Abraham's spiritual seed in their generations, are Abraham and his seed; thus far it's the same: yea, but what must Abraham and this his seed do, and therefore do because in covenant? they must keep the covenant. But some are Infants there intended in the seed after thee, and seed in their generations, how can they keep covenant? Yes verily in the sense intended they may, scil. receive such a covenant and Church initiatory seal, as he shall appoint to them, according to their outward capacity, else to imagine any other external way of their keeping of covenant, it were vain. Abraham and his adult believing seed, which so far forth he as communis persona did therein represent, they may keep God's covenant many other ways; but the Infant seed of Abraham and of his believing children, then or now cannot externally and actually keep the covenant and external condition thereof otherwise.

And let it be attended, that the wise, gracious covenanter, and Law giver of his Church, he distinctly layeth down; first, this general rule and principle with the ground of it; before he instance in, or pitch upon any particular way or branch thereof. Wherefore this general being with greatest wisdom thus laid down, it must have its distinct consideration and weight by, and in it self, absolute, as well as any particular branch thereof may, and doth admit of the like, or as even this general may have its consideration also, comparate, in reference to any such particular. He that were to preach of this Text, Gen. 17. 9. might and would so handle it, and raise distinct observations from it: if one were to deal with an adult person, a seeker; which denieth all visible Church ordinances, &c. and only pleads interest in the promise, in Christ, and the Spirit and Father, spiritual illuminations, and consolations, and quickenings promised; this Scripture ground amongst others, might now be urged: Thou shalt therefore, even because of the promise and covenant, keep my covenant, saith the Lord. Yea suppose it were some Jew that should be converted, and not deny the ordinances of Baptism, but like as many in former times, as Constantine, Theodosius, and divers others did upon unwarrantable grounds, he should defer his baptism too long, and nelect it too much, pleading the fullness of the covenant: and that all in all ordinances is their and in the branches of it, the promises, as in the well-springs, Isaiah 12. 3. this, Gen. 17. 9. might be very pertinently urged to him, Thou shalt therefore keep my covenant; either then he must deny this Sacrament to be any external condition of the covenant, on our parts, as well as a visible seal thereof on God's part; which were ridiculous or if it be yielded to be a duty on man's part externally in covenant, then it is manifest indignity to God, yea a breach of covenant to neglect it, as receiving the initiatory Sacrament, is a special branch of keeping God's covenant, so neglect or contempt thereof, must be acknowledged to be a special breach of it, and as much might be urged in respect of neglect or contempt of the initiatory sealing of their seed, or children; both are equally made God's covenant to be kept, or the covenant condition and duty which most immediately and necessarily and properly doth follow thence. Hence this is firstly, and principally here included, as the keeping of God's covenant, by the persons interested therein according to their outward capacity of it.

This royal general covenant Law, was not ceremonial, nor was the ground work of it ceremonial: that covenant, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, was not ceremonial & vanishing, but an everlasting, & if everlasting then an immutable covenant, even the same to the worlds end; that inference of this covenant duty, laying upon such as were externally interested in it, as propounded with Church reference; Thou shalt therefore keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee; this was not ceremonial. That covenant duty in the general, and the keeping of it, I mean an initiatory visible seal of the covenant, and the receiving of it, was not in the nature of it ceremonial; for then every species of this subalterne genus an initiatory covenant seal, had been abolished by Christ's coming, and so not circumcision only in the symboll, and circumstance of it, but in the genericall nature of it as an initiatory seal and sense of the righteousness of faith, interest in the covenant, &c. and so baptism too, had never been instituted: because it had been then to revive abolished ceremonies, &c. this general Law was never repealed or abolished. Say then that particular way of initiation first pitched upon on this ground work: namely cutting away of the foreskin of the flesh, and that of males of eight days old, &c. were ceremonial, yet this general covenant Law, must not run parallel with it too. I conclude then that particular way also of initiation unto covenant, and Church fellowship by Baptism of confederate parents and their seed as it is a covenant duty, of which more anon, so it depends upon external covenant interest; nor let any here interrupt the proceeding hereof with the old cavil touching covenant females; it hath been said their natural incapacity of that former way of initiation, exempted them then, and yet not now. Nor yet doth that any way invalidate the conclusion propounded, no more doth the objecting of Job. It's likely he had a family Church which was not to abide, and was a peculiarity of those times, and no ordinary visible political Church in reference whereunto we speak: So to what some object about any believers in Rome or India, &c. we say, such pearls are not ordinarily looked for in such dunghills, nor would any seek such living ones amongst those dead persons, they are not a formed matter of a political visible Church, but they are as materia informis. They are quoad homines actually without, and not within any political visible Church. The covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it, a remote right to the initiatory seal, but it doth not give an immediate right thereto, for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant only giveth this proximate right to that seal. God being the God of order, will have that his Church seal to be attained in a way of order; as of old strangers might not be circumcised, but with some submission to that Church order explicitly or implicitly, and so now; the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seal is committed to the visible Church, Matth. 28. 19, 20. so that what ever right any have to the seal, which are not of any particular visible Church, yet they must come by the use of their right in a way of order.

Object.

Yea but the Catechumens were in covenant and visible Church estate, yet were not presently baptized.

Answ.

If they were in covenant and Church estate, they had then and thereby right so far forth to the seal: but there might be some other actual causes why such adult new comers on from Paganism, might be suspended a while, the use and actual benefit of their right; yet that hinders not but that in covenant Infants, in whom there are no such actual impediments, that they should be suspended, much less wholly denied, as by Anabaptists they are, either any right, or use of their right to Baptism.

SECT. VII.

6.

ANd because in this particular, some stress of the main case is put, 1. I shall endeavor yet further to confirm it, that covenant interest carrieth a main stroke in point of application of that seal, to persons interested therein, and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect.

First, then it is the ground work given to the general Law, about an initiatory covenant duty, scil. application of some enjoined initiatory seal, and therefore must be of like force in the particular branches and ways of such initiatory sealing, as circumcising then and baptizing.

Secondly, the covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant, now it is the form of a political visible Church body; giving therefore, both a Church being as I may say, as natural forms do a natural being, and withal the privilege of a member of such a Church body, suitable to its memberly estate, as is this of the Church initiatory seal, even to the least member thereof, although they are not yet so perfect in all actual energy of complete members, and so neither in all actual privileges of such complete members. I suppose what ever others deny this way, yet our opposites do not deny, that Church covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such; so that till that be, they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations, or acts of peculiar Church power over each other, more then over others, over whom they can have no power unless they had given explicit, or implicit consent thereto: as reason will evince.

Thirdly, even in doubtful cases, where the extent of the command is questionable, yet interest in the covenant casts the scoales. As for instance, in strangers which proved religious, albeit not of their family servants, and so under the Law, Gen. 17. 12, 13. they might be circumcised, if they desired other Church ordinances, &c. yet were they else free, unless in such a case of their own desire that way, Exod. 12. end. Hence Cornelius a godly Gentile, living near the Jews, yet not circumcised, as Acts 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Chap. 11. 3. 14, 15. 18.

Yea but if the command bound them, why were they at such liberty? and if no binding command for their circumcision, why were they circumcised? suppose Exod. 12. gave some liberty to the Church guides that way, for such strangers as more usually dwelt amongst them; yet such as 1 Kings 8, 41, 42, 43. which came from far, in a mere transient way, for some temporary religious worship at the Temple, as that proselyted Eunuch, Acts 8. 27. those were surely circumcised, else how admitted to temple worship? since that was counted an abomination, for any other so much as to come there, Acts 21 28. and if circumcised at any time by any of the godly Church guides consent, what gave them right to it? not the commandment, Gen. 17. 12, 13, 14. no nor that Exod. 12. what was that to an Eunuchs case and others which never sojourned with them for any space? were they then unlawfully circumcised? no verily, no whisper of that in Scripture, God allowed of that passage in Solomon's prayer, touching the strangers temple service, 1 Kings 8. and 9. explained. It was then their external interest in God's gracious covenant, which gave rise to that application of the seal, and not the commandment; contrary to what▪ some say, that not the covenant but the commandment of God only, was the ground of circumcision.

Fourthly, it appears from the nature of an initiatory seal of the covenant, which must be as large as the covenant, and so reach all the parties comprehended actually by virtue of covenant; according as such children are, as before declared: especially since it is the seal of God's people, and visible Church as before shown, given first for the Church, in giving of pastors and teachers only to the Church, which alone can administer the seals in ordinary dispensations, Matth. 28. end, and giving them withal to the Church, as from her to be dispensed by her officers, to such as desire the same. Now God's people are known, either by actual personal profession and confession of their own, as adults are; or by God's promise, and by parents avouching God as theirs in covenant and their children's, Gen. 17. 9, 10. thou shalt do thus and thus, and thy seed also; to which he submitteth afterwards, and so his also with him, and after him, besides the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended, as it is a covenant and Church seal, is covenant and Church interest. Hence called by the name of covenant, when yet it is but a Sacramental sign and seal of it, Gen. 17. 13. Acts 7, 8. that is first held out and sealed as the convoy of all other desired good, 2 Pet. 1. 4. But especially in that initiatory seal, the signatum of the covenant, is of more considerable weight, then the external Symbol, ceremony and circumstance: either of cutting or washing absolutely, or relatively considered. If washing of a person in the name of the Trinity be a clearer, and easier Symbol then that of cutting the flesh, yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed, both by the one and by the other, And to show that the covenant is the main thing considerable therein; hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the groundwork of the commandment it self, as of circumcision, so of Baptism, and much more of the application of either, to any in covenant, Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11. Therefore, scil. because I have said I will be your God, I command you to do thus and thus, not because I have commanded you, that I therefore promise to do this for you, or do you thus and thus at my command, and then on, therefore I will do so and so for you. So the Gospel prophesy and promise is prefaced, and put in the preamble to that injunction of their Baptism, by John, Luke 3. 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. Hence the Gospel, and so the covenant of grace, h • ld out as grounding Baptism, Acts 2. 38, 39. And children's covenant right, was held out as one branch of that Gospel, as we proved; and from the same principle, that they were also to be sealed by Baptism; yea albeit the Apostles urged repentance, yet the seal is propounded as to the promise; Peter said, Be baptized, for the promise is to you; and this was no mere moral motive but a Scriptural groundwork enforcing it, as it was a Scripture groundwork virtually enjoining and requiring them to repent; for the promise is to you, so Act. 10. Peter saith there is no let to their baptism; and thereof he maketh the visibility of that covenant grace, although common to reprobates also in those first times, his groundwork; gathering thereby, that they were not now as formerly profane, unclean and outlaries from the covenant, as Ephes. 2. 11, 12. but clean, and nigh as they themselves were. Washing of regeneration is not grounded on anything in us or without us, so much as on God's grace, and so covenant favor, Tit. 3. 5. Hence also by Baptism persons are not sealed into anything in them so much as into the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, even into the covenant name of grace, whereby he is known, and into covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinity, to which every baptized person, prove he elect or reprobate, yet is thus externally sealed. That fellowship with Christ as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgment of verity, or charity such; it is all but covenant grace and blessing. Of old the consequent cause of the seal was grace in them and theirs; but the antecedent cause was God's covenant grace to them and on them, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. and Deut. 30. 6. and so now, that part of Abraham's covenant was not then appliable to Infants, scil. Walk before me, &c. but yet that was then appliable; I will be their God, I will circumcise their hearts, and that sufficed them, as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now; in a word the seal, is a seal not of nor to the commandment, but covenant; this therefore is the main and principal in the application of it.

It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force, in the fruit of the initiatory seal, and the application of it, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. and why shall not the external interest in the covenant, have chief influence into the external interest, as well of the application of the initiatory seal? by external interest in the covenant, persons so interested come to have external interest at least, to the final causes of Baptism, as covenant mercy and blessing, the Spirit, Christ's resurrection, &c. Tit. 3. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. 1 Pet. 3. 21. and therefore as well so far inrighted in the initiatory seal of it, whether they are adult or Infants.

CHAP. VIII.

7.

THat the covenant privileges of grace are even to be expounded in the favor of the principal, or less principal counter-parties unless any exception be made of persons or privileges by him, which was the covenant maker. It's so in all other royal patents, and grants of princely grace, and bounty, and so here in this, which is of that nature: unless any will say it was no privilege of divine grace to have so peculiar and distinguishing covenant, to be made with first reference unto that people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's race; & that it was no privilege to have the same visibly confirmed upon them, and theirs after them; the contrary whereof hath been granted by some which oppose us and hath been before cleared: What though they many of them made no good use thereof, yet the privilege was peculiar, and precious; Hence Exod. 19. 16. Deut. 7. 6, 7, 8. Amos 3. 2. hence such peculiar judgments brought on them, and theirs for gross contempts and rejectings thereof, Dan. 9. 12, 13. Rom. 11. 20. Matth. 21. 43, 44. and 23. 37, 38, 39. Acts 13. 40, 41, 42. 45, 46, 47. 1 Thes. 2. 15, 16. fulfilling that prophesy, Zach. 11. from 6. verse to the end. Hence that of such peculiar use, fruit and efficacy in many others of them, Rom. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4. and 2. 25. and 9, 4, 5, 6. Royal grants, patents, crowns, immunities and heritages may be basely used, and forfeited and lost, yet are they peculiar privileges; so here, but of this before. As touching exceptions, we see if God will except Ishmael and his race, for being such a Church seed, as with whom the covenant privilege shall abide, he is so excepted: and it was accounted a sore punishment to him and his, as if the contrary were a choice privilege, Gen. 21. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. with Gal. 4. 22, 23, 24, &c. by allusion; before that he was ecclesiastically discovered, the covenant is sealed upon him personally, but before ever he have children, he is discovenanted, and dischurched for his wickedness, by God's hand; &c. Gen. 21. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, &c. and that was his punishment that he is a discovenanted, and externally dischurched and open excommunicate person when he came to have children, and so they have no benefit. Cain's external discovenanting, and dischurching in a parental as well as personal way, was his sore punishment, Gen. 4. 12, 13, 14. with 6. 1, 2. his posterity have the common name of children of men, and not as those of Seth, children of God; such exceptions did God use some way or other, to express where he intended not this covenant privilege; Verily so long as God's gracious covenant made with Church reference, to enchurched confederate parents, and their generations to Abraham and his spiritual seed in their generations for an everlasting covenant, his mind of grace touching an external initiatory sealing, establishing and ratifying the same to them, abideth: nor may any change, or repeal the same, or infringe, or curtaile the latitude of it, unless himself do it, as it is in all other royal grants, and laws standing in force, until repealed by them, by whom granted and made; hence that sign is called by the name of the covenant, as virtually in it, and annexed ordinarily to it; extraordinary times as those before, infringe not the ordinary course, as before shown; hence even that sealing said to be for an everlasting covenant; partly in that it was a seal of that covenant so enduring, and partly because presidentially and in the genericall nature of it, to abide, the Church and covenant people of God combined, being never after to want an external initiatory seal of the covenant. Hence also among other causes God instituteth baptism, first for the Jewish Church, and so continued the use of it to, and amongst Gentile Churches; there was no interstitium, nor was it ever accounted a branch of the exhibition of New testament grace and a privilege of covenant enchurched parents, to have their children want, and be deprived of any external covenant, and Church interest; but rather that initiatory sealing of enchurched parents, little ones have ever been accounted by all true visible Churches to be an external way of exhibition of the grace of God and Christ. Surely, there being so many passages mentioned formerly touching this part of God's mind of grace once, if they were intended to be invalid in any such way now, and yet God never expressed his mind for repeal of such substantial branches of his mind of Grace, towards his people and Churches; there are so far stumbling blocks laid before them to occasion mistakes: For who will not take the same for granted, which considers the same advisedly, as indeed the Churches of old have done before? And when was it a fitter time to make exceptions of Infants, then when the inchurching of the Gentiles is mentioned, Matth. 28. 19? Why should even then the old phrase of nations be used, if no intent at least of the specifical parts of the nations to be enchurched? what though circumcision be left out, yet the species of the persons circumcised are plainly included? If all nations be to be blessed in Christ, that sort of persons in the nations, scil. little ones, as well as that of adult persons are included: how else come any of either sort to be blessed in Christ, or saved by him? so in this case, Matth. 28. 19.

SECT. IX.

8.

THat the children's federal interest and right; it is firstly the confederating parents privilege. Hence, given as an encouragement to Abraham to walk in faith and truth with God, Gen. 17. 1. In that God also would be a God to his seed, verse. 7. and the like was spoken in way of encouragement also, unto those Israelites and proselytes, Deut. 30. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, &c. And the like course is taken by the Apostles after Christ's ascension, Act. 2. 38, 39. Hence, the covenant blessing of Jacob, pronounced in a prophetical, as well as parental way upon the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, and their children after them, scil. that the name of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as covenant and Church fathers, must be called on them, albeit they had other personal names, as of Ephraim, &c. Now this is yet called Jacob's blessing of Joseph their father, Gen. 48. 15. he blessed Joseph, scil. in his children's covenant blessing, verse. 16.

SECT. X.

9.

THat visibly believing and covenanting parents, they are enjoined the use of the initiatory covenant and Church seal, in reference to their children's initiatory sealing together with them, according as they are outwardly capable thereof. As it is their privilege to have it so, so is it their charge and duty to take wise, faithful and seasonable care that it be so done. Abraham alone is not to be circumcised, but his seed also, which are naturally capable thereof, are to be so initiated & sealed unto covenant and Church fellowship. It was only Abraham to whom God then appeared, and declared his covenant and mind of grace touching his and his seeds sealing, yet Abraham is not spoken to in the one or other respect, as to a mere particular man, but as to a common and representative person also, embracing and owning a gracious covenant, and the general condition at least of it: As on his own particular behalf, so on the behalf both of the choice seed of his loins in their generations, together with the rest of his Church seed by Isaac in their generations: as also with general reference, in the essentials of both covenant and condition of it, unto his spiritual seed in their generations, after Christ's ascension, which were to be of the Gentiles, and of the Jews: both before their rejection, and upon their re-engraffing into visible Church estate. Hence in mentioning that particular way of initiation by circumcision, first pitched upon, plural phrases are used, when Abraham only is in presence. The covenant which ye shall keep, And each manchild amongst you, And my covenant shall be in your flesh, And it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you, verse. 10, 11, 12, 13. Abraham must see all this performed, and he did so, so far as it could be done at present, verse. 23. Abraham enters into this holy bond, and thereby the obligation became of force upon his children which were not then present. Hence, the parents act of neglect, is temporally at least corrected in the little child, even as the parents bond was the child's obligation, Gen. 7. 14. Hence too, that God might further evince it to be mainly the parents duty, even godly Moses the parent is endangered for the neglect of the sealing of his child, Exod. 4. 2. 4, 5, 6. where by the way, let it be noted, that albeit upon some ceremonial grounds, the mind of God being that way made known, their marriages of old with heathens became so far unlawful, that even their children also were discarded, yet was it not morally and of it self of that nature, even amongst the members of that Church, that the children of such Church members, begotten upon heathen wives, not of the Church, were unclean, and not to be sealed by that initiatory Church seal. For God himself is angry with Moses here, because his son by that Egyptian wife was not circumcised. And long after it was counted offensive if the son of a Jewish wife, even by a Grecian husband, were not that way initiated, Acts 16. 1, 2, 3, which is the very controverted case, occasionally mentioned, 1 Cor. 7. 14. But to return to the proposition before laid down.

From the same ground mentioned it was, that when Peter moved his hearers to be baptized, he groundeth that motion, not barely upon their own interest in the promise, but withal upon their children's joint interest with them, Acts 2. 38, 39. Be baptized, for the promise is to you, and to your children: why putteth he that groundwork so largely, but to show that the visible initiatory seal of the promise must be as large as the promise? Their children's baptism is virtually called upon too, as well as their own. The parents are to take care of their baptism as well as their own: the children being capable of external baptism, that new way of initiation into covenant fellowship, as well as themselves. As they were also to carry home, as it were, the same charge upon the same ground touching repentance; urging that upon their children, as they should be capable of it, from the same covenant ground, as themselves had been urged thereto. Noah alone must not be baptized in that extraordinary and typical baptism, but his children with him must in like sort be baptized, Gen. 7. 1. with 1 Pet. 1. 3. 21. God will have all these fathers, some whereof at that time mentioned were babes, yet in respect to after ages were fathers, to be baptized in that extraordinary baptism in the sea, and in the cloud, 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. Exod. 12. 44. If a stranger-servant be circumcised himself, he may eat the passover: for he was not so bound as the Jews, by command to either circumcision or the passover; but he is to circumcise his males, with that reason annexed: For no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. What is the meaning hereof? Is it thus? else none of those his males or male children; for they are most properly his, and in the case of stranger, which was an household servant, reason will tell us, such a one had no servants of their own, none of these being uncircumcised, should eat the passover? No verily. For 1. That was not the case mentioned, of such a strangers desiring that his males should eat of the Passover, but that himself might do it, if he, not if they, will eat of the Passover: and the Text is clear otherwise; let his males be circumcised, and then let him, not let them come near and eat the Passover. 2. The rule touching one that eateth the Passover is there laid down; Let him eat the Passover, to the Lord, scil. with holy actual obedience to the Lord's mind, and aims at his ends, &c. which Infants are not capable of performing: which by the way, note against such as tell us, the Jewish Infants did eat the Passover, when as the law herein is expressly said to be the same to Israelites as to strangers, and what that Law was we have now seen, verse 48, 49. compared. But who then is the uncircumcised person, which may not in this case eat the passover, if not the male children? Verily, the stranger parent mentioned, which albeit he be circumcised himself, as is supposed in verse 44. yet if it be the case of one circumcised himself, which hath male children to be circumcised; albeit as personally circumcised, he might eat, verse. 43, 44 yet in this case of desiring the Passover, but refusing or slighting the mention of circumcising his males, he is as if himself were uncircumcised in that resp • ct; his contempt and disregard of God's covenant mercy to be sealed upon his children, maketh his circumcision to be uncircumcision: and the covenant of grace, by which himself especially came to have any right to the initiatory seal: That is not wholly sealed if he neglect the sealing of his children, jointly interested in an external way together with him. In which respects he is as one uncircumcised; he may not eat the passover. Hence, when the Lord was to express his covenant, in reference to the initiatory sealing of it, as on Abraham, so on his Church seed in their generations, he then and never before, that I find, delivered the Evangelical covenant in that form, I will be a God to thee, & to thy seed after thee in their generations, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. And Abraham now hath that propounded, as a groundwork of initiatory sealing, thou shalt therefore keep my covenant, thou and thy seed after thee. And then and not before, is his name changed to Abraham, and he hath then & not till then, the name of father of many nations. As if herein God made him as a common person, as before I said, as well in reference to us enchurched Gentiles, as to the enchurched Jews, and proselytes: in point of covenant interest, and engagement from covenant interest, unto the receiving of God's initiatory seal by parents and children. And the reason is consequential: If parents and children be considered, as one covenant party on the one side, admitted to covenant grace externally at least, with God the principal covenanter, or covenant maker on the other part: Then, if the parents only be signed with the initiatory covenant seal, and the children which are capable of that seal are neglected, as opportunity is offered, to be likewise sealed; the whole covenant of grace is not sealed unto them so far, not completely, as I may say sealed on themselves. The circumcision of Abraham, his a lone, was not that covenant or the sign of it, but with respect to the circumcision of his seed also. The circumcision of his seed also, was that covenant of God, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. In Abraham's initiatony sealing unto the covenant, that covenant, I will be a God to thy seed, as well as to thee, was sealed, and so his children's right with his own, is thereby sealed in part, but not completely, and fully without their sealing also, as capable of it. So in the children's being circumcised, not only their own right in that, I will be a God to thy seed, was externally sealed, but Abraham's covenant right in that, I will be a God to thee, was also sealed. So sweetly were they both knit up in one common girdle, and that marked with one and the same mark of God, Jer. 13. 11. As the covenant was one, & not two covenants, sealed on both, Gen. 17. 11. So their sealing was one collective and joint condition of the covenant, v. 8. And what I say of Abraham and that his seed, the same was true in Abraham's spiritual seed in their generations, those proselyted household servants, for such proselytes they were, as hath been shown, with their children; and such families de jure at least, the rest were to be afterwards according to that p • tterne family of Abraham's.

Some in way of reply to the answer given by some famous Ministers of Christ, to the objection about women being not circumcised, yield, that if a virtual sealing or baptizing were all that they would prove:

But why virtually, and not as well actually? since their interest in the covenant, and general condition of receiving such an initiatory seal as God shall appoint, and they be capable of upon that covenant ground, doth jointly concern both as hath been proved: yea do not such in their exposition, which they rightly give of having a thing virtually, gr •… t as much, that if they have baptism virtually in their parents, they have a right as well to receive baptism actually themselves? For he is said, saith one learned antagonist, It's granted, that an Infant may be sealed or baptized virtually in his parent, that is, as is expounded, he hath the thing [Baptism] by another as by a proxey, scil. by, or in his parent, which might receive the same thing, scil. Baptism, by himself. Surely, all will grant, that any man's Attorney receiving in his absence such a conveyance or such a sum of money, or the like, the man himself doth indeed virtually receive this by his Attorney, but yet if he himself were personally present, he might very regularly and lawfully receive the said conveyance, or sum, actually himself, so in the case mentioned.

SECT. XI.

10.

THe Churches or Church officers in admission of believers children to the initiatory seal of Baptism, one way of solemn coming into the fellowship and family of the Trinity, Matth. 28. 19. they are not to expect a convincing ground, that this or that child to be baptized is internally & savingly interested in the covenant; but it sufficeth, that that sort or species of Infants, scil. such like Infants are in deed and in truth of Christ's kingdom. For when Christ would give a reason, why those Infants offered to him to bless them should come to him, he giveth this, for of such or such like, even in respect of saving interest also, is the kingdom of God, Luke 18. so, when the Lord prefaceth that coven • nt ground unto the Application of circumcision to Infants, he saith not, he will be a God to this or that child of Abraham's loins, in the internal and saving interest and efficacy thereof, but to some of that sort, included in that indefinite promise, I will be a God to thy seed, it is sufficient, that all such have assuredly an external right in that covenant, and so to this seal of the fellowship of it; wherefore we may not exclude any of them, lest any of the children of the Kingdom, which be the peculiar heirs, thereby be indammaged, or endangered. Better 99. who happily have not so peculiar a title thereto, be folded up in the Church, then that one of such Lambes▪ be left out in the wide Wilderness; the proportion of that case, Matthew 18. holds in this.

CHAP. II. Sect. I. The Explication of Rom. 11. 16, 17, &c.

LEt us now go on to some proofs of that general truth propounded, removing objections intervening, and then come to the particular of baptism. Let us then a little more fully clear that place, Rom. 11. 16, 17. so far as it concerneth the matter in hand. Our opposites in this point, would have the place only to be appliable to the personal estate of this or that believer, Jew or Gentile, and of the personal way of their inserting by true faith. But we affirm, that as the Chapter in other parts of it hath reference to the Jews or Gentiles in the fruition or deprivation of covenant privileges; it is in a collective, and not merely a distributive way, so are those Verses mentioned taken in the like collective reference. And first, as the discourse hath relation to the Jews, either in their admission or exclusion from Church privilege; it is in a collective, not bare personal respect, as appeareth by these reasons.

1. In that those are intended, whose fall was the occasion of the Gentiles salvation, and their casting away was the life of the world, verse 11. 15. and on whom God shown such severity, verse 22. now none will restrain these to this or that particular persons casting away, but must understand it of the people, whether parents or children.

2. In that those are intended, of whom it may be verified, that they are in such sort, and so long cast away as is from the first coming in of the Gentiles to their fullness, which is the space of many ages. Now none will say, that this can be affirmed of one and the same person or persons, but must apply it to the people, parents and children successively, hence expressed by that collective name of Israel, verse 25.

3. In that those are intended of whom it may be verified, they are cast away, and yet to be reconciled, verse 15. cut off, and yet to be re-engraffed, verse 20. 24. enemies, yet beloved, verse 28. which cannot be verified of this or that person, but must be taken of that people.

4. In that they are intended, whose receiving in, scil. to actual fruition of covenant and Church privileges from which they are now de facto excluded, v. 24. will be to the enchurched world as life from the dead, verse. 15. which must be taken collectively of that people, not distributively of such a person, or persons amongst them.

5. It is intended of those whom God from the first chose unto himself, which yet all the space from the coming in of the Gentiles, till their fullness, abode enemies, verse. 25. 28. compared. Now none will restrain this to such or such elected persons to whom blindness could not happen so long, yet afterwards be removed, as the phrase, until, showeth: but must be applied to God's act of election of that people, as some judiciously observe upon the place; many thousand persons of this people, lived and died, and •… ill do live and die in this while: The space being yet not accomplished in their sins. Then it seems, some that are subjects of election may live and die in their sins. Yea verily, this absurdity must follow, if you take election, verse. 28. strictly in reference to such and such persons among them, and not largely in reference to that people. There is a twofold act of divine election, the one more general, whereof the body of such or such people is the adequate subject, by this act God subjecteth such a people from all other people's to himself; and yet sundry particular persons amongst such a people may perish: Thus the people of the Jews were, collectively considered, enemies to the Gospel, yet as touching election beloved, for their covenant fathers sake, verse. 28. of this electing act of God, see Deut. 7. 6. The other more particular and special, whereby God maketh, as I may say, a second draught, and out of such or such selected people culleth such or such particular persons to be saved by Christ: Now such as are the subjects of election in this sense, can never perish, and in this sense, the election among the Jews attained it, and the rest were blinded, see Rom. 12. 5, 6, 7. see John 10. 3. 11. 14. 27, 28, 29. Apoc. 13. 8.

6. In that it was intended of those, to whom the Gentiles are opposed, and in whose stead they are inserted; and against whom the Gentiles must not boast, verse. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 17, 18. But it were improper to oppose in such sort, such a world as they are called, verse 14, 15. compared, to such or such particular Jews.

As the Jews are thus collectively considered, so the Gentiles coming into their Olive estate, are taken in a collective sense, therefore called the world, verse. 15. the Gentiles, verse. 12. notions not to be restrained to the grown sort of them, but necessarily including the species of Infants among them. Hence also, the collective notion of Thou and Thee often used, verse. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. 24. And that this singular is not distributively taken of someone or other Gentile, but of the people of the Gentiles, he therefore in other verses speaking to the same people mentions them plurally, Gentiles, verse. 11, 12, 13. 25. Hence, the phrase Ye, and Your, applied to them, verse. 28. 30, 31. Besides, they are still set in opposition to the Jews which fell, verse. 11. 12. which were cast away, verse. 15. and broken off, verse. 20. 24. 28. Now none will say, that those refuse Jews are taken distributively, but collectively, as was proved, and much less that the Jewish parents only, excluding their children, were understood; so then, if the opposition be suitable, and direct, the opposite parties must be collectively taken also, and Gentiles children received in with their parents, as opposed to Jewish children excluded with their parents. Nay they are not only opposed, but the Gentile body is received in instead of the Jew-body broken off, verse. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in ramorum defractorum locum, Beza on Rom. 11. 17. and verse. 19. They were broken off, saith the collective Gentile, that I might be graffed in. The Apostle yields this as truth; well, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] as if he would say, it is true; now grown ones among the Jews were broken off: who came in their stead? grown Gentiles. True, but Jewish babes and little ones too, amongst other branches and sprigs, are broken off, that Gentiles might come into covenant and Church estate in their stead. What Gentiles? grown ones? nay room is made for them in the breach of the grown Jews. Verily then such a like species of Gentiles unto those rejected Jewish sprigs, scil. Gentile babes and little ones, must necessarily be thus inserted and admitted into that covenant and Church estate out of which the other were broken. So then, as Jews were, so Gentiles are considered in this Chapters discourse touching communion in federal and Church ordinances and privileges, under the notion of Olive fatness, &c. not in a bare personal way, but in reference to people of both kinds, and persons of all sorts, and species younger or elder, which is a strong argument that God never intended to limit the benefit of his covenant grace to grown ones, or parents personally, but rather extends it to them in a parental way at least. Hence when that commission, Matth. 28. 19. was given, for this end, it is in the old term and notion of nation, a large word, and subject. God delights to enlarge his grace in these times, and his very intent in Matth. 28. is enlargement of Gospel mercies. The more cross are their minds to God's thoughts who from that very place would conclude a straightning such a Gospel mercy as this mentioned, was and is both to parents and children, and for which they have nothing equivalent instead thereof. The Apostle it's confessed bringeth in Rom. 11. 16, 17. as an argument to prove the receiving in again of the Jews, scil. unto actual fruition of all covenant and Church privileges, verse. 15. For if the root be holy, so are the branches, verse. 16. and so verse. 28, 29. To the same purpose now, if the covenant with godly ancestors be so forcible to fetch in such Apostates after so gross and long a time of their desperate revolts from, and contempts of covenant grace in Christ; is it not much more of force to the receiving in of the babes of next believing parents unto the visible fellowship of covenant grace? God forbid, that any should obstinately gainsay it.

SECT. II.

BY root, I. S. saith in that, Rom. 11. 16. is meant Christ personal, and yet the same author elsewhere would have it meant mystically considered; and elsewhere, of union and communion with God in ordinances; and elsewhere of Abraham in his faith; and elsewhere of believing parents in part; for he saith not only believing parents are the root, &c. not only [in part, then such parents are the root.] But indeed this author refuteth himself, in that he knoweth not where to fix. Abraham in his faith as latherly, and eying the covenant in this latitude, as to him, and his seed of Isaac by propagation, and to the believing Gentiles with their seed by proportion, thus he might be a root in his faith; but if Abraham's faith be considered in a mere personal respect, so neither Jews nor Gentiles are properly, said to be inserted into that, but rather into his faith with its object the covenant. It is improper to say of the Gentile that they stood in it, scil. in the root of faith, by faith, or that the Jew was broken off from Abraham's personal faith by unbelief. Abraham's faith was a saving faith, if this therefore had been in them all, or they in it, they had not fallen as many Jews and Gentiles privileged by external covenant right, did and might; or supposing the root to be meant, not of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but of Christ, as Mr. B. also affirmeth, who is elsewhere called a root, Apoc. 22. 16. and 5. 5, &c. if they had been in him, by any proper and invisible union, neither those of the Jews had been, nor so many of Gentiles could have been broken off, as they were, & whole Churches of these are, witness this Church of Rome, to which the Apostle wrote this. But otherwise, if understood of impropper and visible union with Christ, scil. a visible union with Christ mystical; thus indeed many such may fall away finally, as did these. Hence that John 15. 2. now in this sense parents and children Inchurched, whether Jews or Gentiles, by being in the holy root of those covenant fathers, they are visibly in that holy root Christ, or Christ mystical, as was shown. I. S. will and doth confess the first fruits, of whom yet the same holy effect is affirmed, Rom. 11. 16. to be these fathers, and why not then as well the same fathers to be the root? since the context cleareth it, that the Apostle intendeth the same of the selfsame persons under divers Metaphors. Either then Christ is the first fruits, as well as root intended, or those fathers are the first fruits, as well as the root mentioned. Verily covenanting Abraham in reference to his seed is called a rock, whence that Church, as a Church was hewn; for in that sense the Prophet speaks to them, Isaiah 51. 1, 2. yet is Christ the rock of the Church too in another sense; and why is not Abraham then a covenant root to such Church branches, as that from whence they in that sense do spring? And what I say of Abraham, is as well to be referred to Isaac and Jacob in the same respect, as being other veins, making up this one root, the Instrumental means and cause of the mercy offered and exhibited both to Jews and Gentiles, in regard that to them all this large covenant was made over in a radical way, see Gen. 17. 2. 7. and 22. 18. compared with Gen. 26. 3, 4, 5. and 28. 13, 14. whence such frequent mention in Scripture of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in reference to covenant blessings, yea their names are pleaded in prayer for that end, Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. see more 2 King. 13. 23. and Mich. 7. 20. &c. This was not in respect of any personal holiness of theirs, or barely in respect of their personal faith, but it was by reason of that large covenant made with them in this reference, as the places quoted show; see further for this end, Luke 1. 71, 72. Rom. 15. 8. Deut. 4. 37. and 10. 15. with other like Scriptures. Hence too, they are made here a radical means of the Jews receiving in again, Rom. 11. 15. grounded on this reason, verse. 16. compared with verse. 28. Whence also, the Jews which are called holy branches, by virtue of their holy root, verse. 16. they are termed natural branches too, scil. of that root, and Olive tree, verse. 24. not natural branches of Christ as the root. Our very opposites will say, that were improper to affirm; nor merely of Abraham, but Isaac and Jacob also; nor is it proper to call one Abraham [fathers] verse. 28. or first fruits, verse. 16. Now as to Jews, so to Gentiles, were those covenant [fathers] and root; God saith to Abraham and Jacob distinctly that he would bless all nations, and families, as in their seed, so in them, Gen. 12. 2, 3. In thee [ Abraham ] Gen. 22. 28. in thy seed, and Gen. 28. 14. in thee [ Jacob ] and in thy seed How in them at all distinct from the seed Christ, who is the sole author, worker, and meritorious cause of all covenant blessing? Verily in respect of the covenant made with them, in reference as to the nation of the Jews, and the families therein, so to Gentile nations and the families therein, to be by virtue of that covenant partakers, at least visibly, of the covenant blessing. Hence we Gentiles are said to come and sit down with those fathers, Matth. 8. 11, 12. as inserted branches are in some sense seated and settled in and with the root. Hence likewise, this root is said to bear the Christian Gentiles collectively taken, and for that cause the Gentile is not to boast against the Jew branches: branches of what? of the root mentioned: what root? Christ? That were improper to affirm: but rather, of those fathers.

SECT. III.

THe Olive tree, some take it of the Fathers also in opposition to the other wild Olive tree out of which the Gentiles were cut, verse. 24. scil. Their wild ancestors, or ancestors estranged from the covenant, Ephes. 2. 12. The Jews indeed are cut out of these fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as covenanting in respect of any present actual benefit of the covenant, but yet are not cut out of those fathers as begetting, as it is evident, they are still Abraham's stock; which by the way observe against that distinction, by which some use to avoid our arguments in this business; They say Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were only a root to the body of the Jews, as natural and begetting fathers, and not as spiritual and believing fathers, or fathers by faith embracing the covenant made with the Jews also. Surely such men would frustrate the ground of the Apostles discourse here, supposing so sad an exclusion of the Jews from a former sweet and sappy Church estate, yea such as into which the Gentiles could not come but by a preter-super, yea contra-natural way, verse. 24. if they were in those fathers as begetting fathers only, so are they still their natural children, and then not cut off from them at all, contrary to this express Scripture. Others would have the Olive tree, to be meant of the visible Church distinguished from the root, verse. 17. see Jer. 11. 16. spoken of the Jews in their Church, as well as civil relation: into which as into their own Olive, by that general covenant right, Rom. 11. 16. 24. they shall be re-engraffed, in so far as they are federally holy, verse. 16. scil. intentionally, in so far is a Church right their own; with which latter respect of the Olive I fully close; but of this more afterwards.

By [engraffing into the Olive] seems to be meant, an actual interesting, and instating into the visible Church, or into those covenant fathers in reference to the Church, whence also ariseth the actual fruition thereof. By Olive fatness mentioned, verse. 17. must needs be meant such covenant or Church blessings, privileges, and ordinances, &c. whereof all sorts of Church members, even such as may be fatally cut off, may partake of as well as others: which are not the graces of the Spirit, for they flow not immediately from the Olive the Church, nor from any of the best of the sons of men, but rather they are the seals and other Church ordinances visibly dispensed to persons according as they are capable of them. These are the instrumental causes of the bright shining, at least in visible profession of Christ, unto the whole Candlestick, and all the greater or lesser branches and parts of it, Zach. 4. 2, 3. 11, 12, 14.

SECT. IIII.

TO draw to a Conclusion. 1. Then look how the Jew-branches were set into their Olive and root mentioned, so are the Gentiles which come in their stead, Rom. 11. 17. 19. But they with all their buds and sprigs, scil. children, as Isaiah 44. 3. and 18. 5. and 61. 9. and Psal. 128. 3. they are called, were set thereinto, therefore in like sort are the Gentiles with their children inserted. Amongst them were three sorts thus inserted. 1. Growne ones truly believing, as were godly proselyted Gentiles. 2. Growne ones, which did not prove truly believing, as many of the proselytes. 3. The children of Jews, and of both those sorts of proselytes, some whereof afterwards made holy improvement thereof, others abused and rejected their covenant privilege: and so is it with us now.

2. Look how they were by unbelief broken off, so are the Gentiles taken in by faith; but they both parents and children were broken off through the unbelieving rejection of the covenant expressed by the wicked parents only, therefore the Gentiles are inserted with their children, albeit the parents only express a believing embrace of the covenant. Gentiles children are not indeed expressed by name in this inserting: but yet the Gentile is collectively spoken of as was proved, and so must needs include at least the children of such inserted Gentiles; as in the cutting off of the Jews, and casting away of them, their children are not mentioned, except comprehensively, here, or in Matth. 8. 11. and 21. 42. yet all grant that they were intended, and so in this case.

3. Look how the Gentile in case of apostasy is cut off from his Church estate, and union and communion in the Olive root and fatness, and look as he is not spared in case of his unbelief, so was the Gentile graffed in, verse. 20. 21, 22. But in that case of unbelief and apostasy, the Gentile, both parent and child is cut off from federal grace and Church privilege; witness the case of those which at first fell off, when first the Asian and other Churches, as of Rome, &c. were unchurched: Therefore so was the Gentile parent and child graffed in.

4. Look how the better part of the Jews, which did not thus actually & obstinately reject the covenant and Gospel of grace, & Christ the foundation thereof, did then, when the Apostle wrote this, Rom. 11. 17. remain still in their root: in such sort, are the Gentiles with them, partakers thereof: But those Jews parents and children abode in that covenant estate: Therefore Gentile parents and children so partake with them. Of those Jew parents none will make question, and of their children, is no ground to doubt: which being once in covenant in their ancestors, yea and parents right also, and not being then of years to reject Christ, how come they at present to be cut out? surely not for their parents unbelief, for they receive Christ, not for others rejecting Christ, for what's that to them? not for their own actual rejecting of Christ, for they were not then of years to do so.

5. Look how the Jew shall again be graffed in, in such sort were the Gentiles at first graffed in, but they parents and children with them shall be graffed in; therefore so were the Gentile parents and children graffed in or enchurched. The major is evident by verse. 17. 19. 23, 24, 25, 26. compared: The minor is as evident by the same verses compared. For as they were broken off by unbelief, so are they re-inserted by faith: now the former was by the parents unbelief, that young and old were cast off, as was proved; therefore by faith in the parents, young and old are reinserted, else, as was said, parents and children lost this which was a special and comfortable blessing by parental unbelief, which they never recover through the like parental faith. Besides, it hath been proved, that the Apostles discourse, both of the Jews casting off, and of their receiving in, is still of them in a collective sense, and not barely personal, and so their children cannot be excluded, but must be included. Little ones are not indeed named in their re-engraffing, no more then in their cutting off, yet as in the one, they are necessarily understood, so in the other. Besides we have before proved that the Jews children are interested in these promises of grace, yet to be fulfilled, Isaiah 61. 9. and 65. 20. and 23. Their offspring are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, with them, or as well as themselves: So Ezek. 37. 20. to the end, and Jer. 13. 19, 20. Their children shall be as aforetime: how? in a common wealth, and civil way merely? nay rather in a Church way, as aforetime: now aforetime, who dare deny, but their children were eyed as in covenant, Acts 2. 38, 39. And as parts and members of the Church, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. 36. and therefore were they sealed with that seal of the covenant, Gen. 17. Hence some godly learned Divines in their Commentaries upon the Canticles, expounding that Cant. 6. 11. 13. and Chap. 7. and 8. of the Jewish Church yet to come; they expound that Cant. 7. 2. mentioned of the Churches navel, that wants not liquor, to be understood of Baptism, as that heap of Wheat, to be meant of the Lord's Supper to be administered amongst them. Now • s the navel is of special need and use, to such as cannot receive nourishment, as grown ones do, at the mouth, to convey secretly corporal furtherance to the Babes bodily life and welfare; so this Church navel, not wanting such an enlivening supply, it will be amongst them accounted and improved as of need and use to be a divine means, as well as seal, of conveying secretly gracious influences tending to the Churches Babes spiritual welfare.

6. Look of what Olive fatness in the substantials thereof, and in what sort those branches did partake of the same, and in the same sort do the branches taken out of the wild Olive partake. But those branches did partake of the fruit causing fatness of Olive, and Church ordinances and privileges, not as shut up, or residing in the greater boughs, parents, but thorough them and by them passing to their lesser sprigs or children springing from them. Therefore of such fatness do and must Gentiles partake. And this way was their fall an enriching of the Gentile in-churched world, Rom. 11. 12. scil. as this was to be conveyed, as a covenant heritage, from believing parents to children. Else were it poor and sad with believers. As with other parents in other heritages, if what they have in such sort, they cannot leave with, or instrumentally convey unto their children; as godly Joseph is a fruitful bough in reference to his flourishing branches, not in a mere civil and natural, but in a covenant and Church respect, Gen. 49. 22, 23. so is it with other such parents as he. It's contrary to natures Law, that any communicable sap should be engrossed to, or shut up within the greater boughs, and not to be withal conveyed instrumentally to those sprigs that are upon them; so is it here, in respect of this communicable sap of federal and Church right in Church Olive boughs; It is contrary to the Law of the tenure of the covenant of grace made to parents with respect to their children in and with them, that this Church fatness should not be conveyed to them. So far as the greater boughs are engraffed into this visible Olive Church estate, their sprigs also which are on and in them, are set in with them, by the same Church act of engraffing. If Olive roots as such, should not convey instrumentally their sap and fatness to the Olive boughs, as such, and those boughs in like sort to their sprigs, Olive trees would fail in an ordinary way: so in an ordinary way must Churches fail: if this ecclesiastical conveyance instrumentally of Church and covenant sap from parent to child be denied.

SECT. V.

Object. 1.

THe Jews being federally holy, as Rom. 11. 16. showeth, and yet not having right to Church privileges, baptism, &c. as is evident in these refuse Jews at this day; it shaketh your foundation, that persons because federally holy must have a right to Church privileges.

Answ.

Federall holiness is ascribed to persons two ways, either as they are collectively or distributively taken. Collectively, and so it is here ascribed to the body of the Jews, as one whole nation, which if considered distributively of all the parts, and of each person in that nation, so it is not intended of them. That we may a little illustrate this, from what is here said in this Chapter, they be said to be broken off, scil. from the rest, verse. 20. cast away, and so unclean, profane, and not holy, verse. 15. yet are they said to be holy by virtue of the root, in and of which they be branches: so are they said to be cast away, and yet such as shall be received in, verse. 15. they are said to be enemies concerning the Gospel, and yet beloved of God, verse. 28. What? are the self same persons said to be holy, and not holy? rejected, yet to be received? enemies, and yet beloved? no verily: But when they are said to be holy, and beloved of God, &c. it is true of the whole body of the Jews collectively taken, in respect of the choycer part which is federally holy, properly so called, and beloved of God, by virtue of the covenant made with their fathers; as on the other side, when it is said of the whole body, that they are cut off, cast away, and that they are enemies, it is meant of the whole collectively in respect of the refuse part, for not all wholly were cut off in the Apostles time, but some of the branches were broken off, verse. 17. And blindness did happen to collective Israel, but not wholly, but in part, verse. 25. In both which, that which is proper to the parts, is applied to the whole of which they are parts, by a synecdoche. To come then to argument, it is true, that the Jews, collectively taken for the whole nation, containing the choicer part intended, they are federally holy, scil. in respect of that choice part, and yet it follows not that the Jews distributively taken, for those Jews living at this day, supposed to be a refuse part of that whole, should be properly said to be federally holy, and so neither to have right to Church privileges; so that the instance crosseth not us, who speak of persons federally holy, as well distributively, and not merely collectively considered. There is therefore a fallacy, a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter.

Rep.

Suppose we take this of the whole in respect of the choycer part of the Jewish nation, this choice part then, at least, is federally holy, yet they have not right to Church privileges, as being not yet engraffed into the olive, nor possibly, in actual being in the world.

Therefore persons may be federally holy, which yet have not right to Church privileges.

Answ.

We again distinguish, persons may be said to be federally holy, either seminally, & preparatively, or actually: in the former sense, persons not yet existing, may be said to be in covenant with God, or such as God makes a covenant with, and consequently to be federally holy, Deut. 29. 14, 15. neither with you only do I make this covenant, but with him that standeth here with us before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not with us, this day. Mark it, God saith not, I [will] make this covenant in the future, but in the present tense, I [do] make this covenant with him that is not here this day, that is, with persons unborne; these being expressly taken into covenant with God, and their covenant right laid up and included therein, in such sort, as that which in its season should actually be exerted, these persons albeit unborne, and not actually existing, yet in this seminal and preparatory respect of the covenant, they have thus far a covenant right, and so far also a Church right together with it: so here in these unborne Jews as they are federally holy in that seminal respect. Hence, the Olive or Church here, is called their own Olive, Rom. 11. 24. How is the Church now their own, but in respect of this seminal Church right?

Federall holiness actually taken is that which is actually subjected and exerted in a person existing, whether parent or child in which sense God made his covenant with those Jews, and with their children that were before him that day. Deut. 29. 14, 15. And in this sense, the Apostle speaking of the federal holiness, especially of children actually borne of covenant in-churched parents, saith they are holy, scil. actually, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Now therefore to apply the Argument, it is defective in the consequence of it, thus, Persons not in being which are federally holy, only seminally and intentionally, they have not actual Church right, nor can actually be baptized; therefore persons existing and living which are federally holy, actually, they may not be baptized; this followeth not: one may as well reason thus. Those with whom God made a covenant, Deut. 29. 14, 15. who were not borne, not there that day, had not actual right to circumcision, could not be uncircumcised: Therefore those children which were there that day with whom also God made his covenant, Ibid. they had not actual right to circumcision, might not, could not be circumcised: this every rational man will say is a non sequitur.

Object. 2.

This Rom. 11. 16. is spoken of the natural branches, which have an hereditary covenant right, as natural branches of that root, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And therefore not pertinent to the Gentiles, and their children which are not branches of that root.

Answ.

Albeit the believing Gentiles, and their children are not of that root by nature and propagation, yet they are in that root by grace and by proportion. The Jew-branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentile might by grace be graffed in, scil. in their stead, Rom. 11. 19. Look then what covenant and Church right the Jewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way, the same hath the enchurched Gentile for his children through grace.

Repl.

This were to make way for all children of Christian Gentile nations to have right to Church privileges.

Answ.

It sufficeth that thus far it holds, that as all and only Church-members children were ecclesiastically privileged among the Jews, so all and only Church-members children are ecclesiastically privileged among the Gentiles.

Object. 3.

The Gentiles are said to be engraffed, not by a natural way, as being of such parents, but by a way contrary to nature, and therefore what is this to the federal estate of Gentile Infants, as coming of believing parents? and so in a way of nature?

Answ.

It is most true, if applied to the first parties amongst any Gentile people, which in the Apostles time or since, enter into Church estate, living formerly in a Pagan estate, and not having any of their ancestors other then Pagans, or such as were cut out of the wild Olive tree, scil. Ancestors pagan or outlawry from all covenant and Church estate. Rom. 11. 24. Ephes. 2. 12. But if it be applied to other, which come of such persons, so transplanted from that wild Olive, to this good Olive estate, as branches or sprigs of such Olive boughs, or gracious ancestors, then is it not fully verified, that these are only in a way contrary to nature, partakers of the fatness of the Olive. As they are considered together with their gracious ancestors, as all of them of other pagan ancestors, so they are all engraffed in a way contrary to nature, even merely by divine Grace, but as they and their gracious fathers are considered apart, their fathers as nextly descended of pagan ancestors, these their children as nextly springing from fathers visibly believing, and enchurched, so their covenant and Church estate, comes to them principally by a way of divine grace, and instrumental by birth descent from enchurched ancestors: and in this latter respect therefore such children may be said, to be inserted by a way of nature: for look as the Israelites of old, before their cutting off were, and others of them hereafter will be, by virtue of their holy root or covenant fathers, holy branches as natural branches: scil. branches springing naturally from them, or borne of them, Rom. 11. 16. 24. compared: or as those Israelites, were not sinners, or outlawries from covenant or Church, as were those of the Pagan Gentiles, but Jews, or ecclesiastically privileged, even by nature, or natural descent of such ancestors enchurched, Gal. 2. 15. so must the proportion hold in the children of Gentile in-churched parents. Though even this also is of grace, that they should naturally descend from such parents, Gen. 49. 26.

Object. 4.

The Gentiles come into and abide in Church-estate by faith, Rom. 11. 20. But children have not faith. Therefore this Scripture concerns not them.

Answ.

1. The Gentiles that so stand by faith, are collectively taken as including also their children with them so abiding, until that these their children come to reject, as did the children of those godly Jewish ancestors, their covenant right: And observe it by the way, how tender God was of covenant children: They were never excluded, until they came, after many generations, so wholly to degenerate, as Rom. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28. showeth, and then, but not till then, they are rejected, so is it still. God is tender of unchurching and discovenanting any that come of godly ancestors, till they grossly and obstinately reject their own mercy. But if they grow up to that obstinacy, then they cut off the gracious covenant, entailed as from themselves personally, so to their children parentally, as did those of old, Rom. 11. 20. and as those of Rome, Corinth and Ephesus, &c. have done since.

2. This faith mentioned is not a bare personal faith respecting this or that particular Gentile, but such as is in direct opposition to that unbelief of the Jews, by which they were broken off, as that opposition, Rom. 11. 20. showeth; now it is evident that their unbelief was the obstinate rejecting of the covenant of grace, as it was held out in Christ to them, and theirs jointly, and not as barely made to themselves personally, Acts 3. 25, 26. and 13. 46, 47. Matth. 21. 41. 42, 43, 44. Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. and 10. to the end: see Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. &c. and verse. 20. So verily is it in the faith of the Gentile opposed thereunto. It is a faith that looks to God's covenant, as in reference to families and kindreds of the earth so embracing it, and so being quickened, and comforted by it. That precious fruit of faith must hold proportion to the nature of the seed thereof, scil. the words of promise, 1 Pet. 1. 23. now the words of promise run not barely in a personal way, but in a parental, economical and plural way, as well, Jer. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25, &c. our faith is, or de jure should be enlarged according to the latitude of covenant, as was before proved, Rom. 10. 8 &c. By what hath been said, their gross mistakes appear, which say, that none are the subjects of this lump but elect ones: That the branches were such only which were in Christ by faith, and he in them by his spirit; for neither Jew nor Gentile branches, many of them were such, as appears by their being broken off: nor is that assertion sound, but absurd, and cross to the very text: that the Jews own natural root and Olive tree whereof they were natural branches, only by faith was union with God, &c. since that way of being branches only by faith, is nowhere called natural; nay in the same verse, Rom. 11. 24. speaking of the first grown Gentiles inserting by faith▪ it is said to be contrary to nature, nor is inserting which is only by faith, more natural to Jews, then it is to Gentiles. Neither is that true and sound, that no other holiness inrighteth any in any privileges of grace, if understood of Church privileges now in question, then holiness of justification or sanctification: since many of those natural branches, which as natural branches of that holy root, were holy federally, and did partake of the root, and fatness of the olive before their rejection, as well as some better Jews did afterward, yet they were not justified; for which compare, Rom. 11. 16. 24. 17, 18, 19. so likewise the Gentiles, which came to partake of that Olive fatness in their stead, ibid. yet were fatally cut off many of them, which had never been, if they had been justified and sanctified.

Object. 5.

Doth not the Apostle only speak here of the invisible Church, under the notion of the Olive, which sometimes was amongst the Jews, and therefore called their Olive; the Apostle reasoning about the elect remnant, Rom. 11. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. and making the tree to be the Church of believers, still standing, and some branches broken off, and others graffed in, and so it might seem the grafting in to be inserting into the invisible Church, by election and faith?

Answ.

I deny not but that the Apostle discourseth about the elect and invisible members of the invisible Church, verse. 1, 2, 3. &c. and therefore proveth fully enough one principal thing propounded, scil. that the invisible elect membes of it, or the elect seed, and branches of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, did not, could not fall away finally: but it will not therefore follow, that he speaketh only of the invisible Church in the whole chapter; or that he discourseth not, as well of the visible Church, & of the Church seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yea it will appear by good reason, that in that part of the Chapter, where he discourseth of the Church, as an Olive, communicating its fatness to all the branches of it, he principally intendeth the visible Church, as visible.

For 1. The objection acknowledgeth, that it is the Church of believers still standing and some branches broken off, and others graffed in: now none that were in the invisible Church, by election and faith could ever be broken off: Yea but they might be in the Church in appearance, or visibly, as branches may be said to be in Christ, and after broken off, John 15. 2. Not to answer this with an exposition of that according to some to be meant of Christ considered with his body the visible Church, as 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. here is more said of these, scil. that others came in their room, and place, Rom. 11. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in ramorum defractorum locum, as Beza noteth on that particle, they had then a real place there, and a real breach was made: neither did the Gentiles come into an imaginary place in the Church but a real: and yet they came into no other place, then into the place of the broken branches; therefore theirs was a real, not a seeming place in the Olive: the Olive then must be the visible Church, where hypocrites may have place, and not the invisible Church, where they can have none. Besides, they were such branches of the Olive, as did partake of the fatness of the Olive; not like withered branches, seemingly in Christ, which are sapless, nor did ever partake of the sap of Christ's saving grace, as these did of Church sap, hence the Gentile is said to partake in common with them, Rom. 11. 17. Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. and thou partakest in common with them in the fatness of the Olive: What did the collective Christian Gentile partake in common with them, in shows and semblances? nay in realities, in the very fatness of the Olive, of which they partooke, else it was not a partaking in common: as both partooke also in common in the root, Ibid. scil. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: not as natural fathers: for so Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, albeit they were natural fathers unto the Jews, yet not in any respect natural fathers unto the Gentiles; but rather as they were Church fathers: if they had not been Church fathers to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles, how did Jew and Gentile partake in common in them as a root; and what common Church fathers were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob▪ those fathers, verse. 28. of the invisible Church? nay verily but of the visible, of which even the the refuse Jews sometimes were.

Which may be a second argument that the Olive tree of which Abraham, as some say and yield, or Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as others: where the root is considered here under the adjunct of the visible, and not of that of the invisible Church, and so it's plainly lie verified that Jews and Gentiles were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , partakers in common in the root and fatness of the Olive, Rom. 11. 17.

A third reason thereof is in that the Olive here intended is that whose fatness it is that is communicated to the branches: yea to such branches as were broken off, as were many refuse Jews, or might be broken off: as sundry of the Gentiles which came in their stead might be: whence that, verse. 21. yea ver. 22. otherwise thou shalt be cut off; and so many have been witnesses that Apostate Churches of Asia and other Churches. Now saving graces peculiar to the elect, flow not from any company of men, no not from the invisible Church, nor is it theirs but Christ's to convey, and communicate, they cannot spare that oil for others, Matth. 25. 9. but the ordinances, and they are the Churches properly: and such as from the Church are derived, and communicated to others whether elect, or reprobate that are members of her. Yea but what Church is that which holdeth forth, and dispenseth Church ordinances to others: not the invisible Church: all the members being homogeneal, the invisible Church properly hath not officers, if you suppose officers, you must suppose some calling, others called, and then they cease to be merely invisible, for in this act they become visible: now a Church without officers cannot administer all Church ordinances; not communicate that Church fatness of the seals: so then the Olive Church communicating all Church fatness indefinitely, and so the seals too, must be the visible, not the invisible Church. Besides since no Olive or Church fatness is to be had, but in, and from the Church: no Church ordinances ordinarily to be dispensed, but in, and from the Church: if the Olive here be supposed to be the invisible, not the visible Church, no ordinary communication of Church ordinances to any is possibly to be had since the invisible Church, being a Church only of elect and savingly called persons, and no hypocrites or reprobates being in, or of that Church: whither shall any repair for Church ordinances? there being no Church in the world, dispensing ordinances by ordinary officers, which alone can now dispense them in a Church way; that consists only of elect ones: but there are some chaff, and tares and trash and vessels of dishonor in it, Matth. 3. and 13. 2 Tim. 2. yea that Church being invisible as such is not obvious to the sense of any, which being brought to the faith would desire to be joined to this Olive thereby to partake of it's fatness: he cannot see where, nor what that Church is, for it is invisible, this will drive us all to become Seekers, not till new Apostles come, as some fondly imagine, but perpetually, yea hopelesly.

Fourthly, it's not denied by such as oppose us herein, that the Jews had this privilege, to be reckoned in the outward administration of the covenant of grace, as branches of the Olive by birth, by virtue of God's appointment, which cannot be true but in reference to the visible Church.

C.B. Object. 6.

You will hereby set up a Catholic visible Church.

Answ.

If that should follow hence touching a Catholic Church, as noting Aliquid integraliter universal, as eum dicimus orbis universus; which is not really distinct from all the particular Churches in the world considered in one: this universal integrum, the Church albeit not visible at once to any ones eyes, yet in its parts it is visible, both divisim in its particular visible members, as also conjunctim in visible congregations, Ames medul. Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 31, 32.

CHAP. III. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Matth. 28. 19, 20. and Mark 16. according to our opposites.

HAving laid down such conclusions as make way: let us now address ourselves to some further considerations of Paedobaptism itself, according as other Scripture grounds hold it forth.

And first because, Matth. 28. is much controverted, let us try whether it make more for us then against us therein, and withal take in the consideration of Mark 16. 16. which our opposites pleno & uno ore cry up as quite overthrowing our doctrine of Paedobaptism. And herein I am content that they should speak. First, Mr. Blackwood maketh the commission to be even for the very order of the words so exact, that Ministers, as commissioners must stick to them: and giveth reasons to prove the very order of the words to be moral in both places: and brings Mark. 16. for his proof, that without all distinction of Churches gathering, or gathered, thus it must be: believing in Christ must proceed baptism; this he maketh his second argument, and the same also his fourth, only varying the words a little, but the proof is, Mark 16. 16. to which, Acts 8. 12. 37. is added for proof: from which proofs also of Act. 8. 12, &c. he raiseth his sixth argument, so that all those three arguments together, also with his eighth and last they all turn upon one hinge, and have all one bottom. A. R. he also explaineth the same, in the same way applying Mark 16. as an explication of Matth. 28. the Scriptures, saith he, hold forth that Disciples, that is, believers only should be baptized: so Mr. B. upon Mark 16. only believers are to be baptized, and unbelievers by that affirmation are forbidden.

And further to prove the same, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Matth. 28. is urged by Hen. Den, A. R. and Mr. B. as in reference to Disciples, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in reference to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the nations. Besides, in that Christ added [teaching] them; as if the persons to be baptized are presently to be taught, and so not Infants. And that also preaching is to go before baptism upon the same ground. And as by that plain and well grounded treatise is added: that baptizing into the name of the Father, &c. that is, invocating the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, bringing Acts 22. for their proof, Paul is bid to be baptized, calling upon the name of the Lord: now Infants cannot call upon the Lord when to be baptized.

Now let us consider the weight of what hath been said.

1. For the order of the words as moral, in Matthew, because also in Mark, and so moral in both; for saith Mr. B. it reacheth to the worlds end, it was Christ's last commission, and it were absurd to think a man baptized before preached to, and so baptized into he knows not what. And indeed this is urged as an argument distinctly against Paedobaptism; because children understand not the mysteries of Baptism: and what hath God to do with such as know him not, nor what he offers them, or doth for them, &c? Whence I. S. urgeth it as an absurdity that we will have children baptized which know nothing of it, and so must build their faith upon human testimony. We shall now answer to these particularly.

SECT. II.

1. THen some things in this order of Christ were perpetual, as that preaching the Gospel should go before Baptism, that baptism is to be administered by such as preach: that discipled in-churched persons, are to be baptized: that in founding Churches, the first members are to be visible professors of the faith in reference to Church estate: that baptism is with water to be applied to the persons baptized, and that into the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost. Yet non sequitur, that all which here Christ held forth, is so strictly to be attended to the end of the world, as that which is to endure to the end of the world, or that what in Matthew and Mark he propoundeth it is presidentiall in all Church cases of persons to be baptized, as alike, and that without distinction of Churches then, or now, gathering or to be gathered. There is a commission given to Elders or Churches, as here was to ministers, James 5. 14. that they are to pray over the sick, and to anoint them with oil: we must now then without all distinction of times or Churches do so too by Mr. Blackwoods argument; we must stick to Scripture commission of the Lord; as this was by his spirit, according as the other was viva voice.

And let our opposites that urge Matthew and Mark, as presidentiall to all Churches and times, attend what is said in Mark 16. 16, 17, 18. if Mark 16. be the rule to us what persons should be baptized only, scil. believers, then few are to be now baptized, but such whose believing is attended with signs, that can cast out devils, speak with strange tongues, take up Serpents, drink deadly poison without hurt, or if any other are yet at least some amongst the baptized believers now as well as then, will have such miraculous gifts. For Christ speaking of some of those baptized believers, at least, albeit not of all, for all had not then gifts of miracles, and tongues, 1 Cor. 12. saith, these signs shall follow them that believe, &c. Mark 16. 17. and it was one continued speech, and touching some of the persons spoken of, verse. 15, 16. hence Mr. B. will never deny, unless his reason fail him, but that such kind of persons were proper to be found in those first Churches, and times of first foundings of Churches amongst the heathen nations, And therefore, will he nill he, must he make a distinction of first Churches gathered, amongst such as never heard of Christ, and other Christian Churches in these days.

Secondly, be it that it was Christ's last commission, yet it sufficiently appears already that what he here held forth in this gracious order about Gentile Churches, it was not therefore moral, and appliable to all times; no such signs now following any believing baptized members of Churches as did then. And if that very order of Christ's last words were so moral, and strictly to be observed: why do the Evangelists, and Paul so vary in expressions, of those last words of Christ's order touching the Lord's Supper? Matthew expresseth the Sacramental actions of Christ, about the bread and cup, to be as they were eating, Matth. 26. 26, 27. and so Mark, Chap. 14. 22, 23. but Luke and Paul say he took the cup after supper, Luke 22. 20. 1 Cor. 11. 25. Matthew, Luke and Paul make the Sacramental promise, to be uttered before the Disciples drank, even whilst Christ gave order for their drinking: but Mark mentions the promise, This is my blood of the Testament, &c. as spoken after they had all drunk of the cup, Mark 14. 23, 24. Luke addeth to what Matthew and Mark say, This is my body which is given for you: Paul otherwise, which is broken for you: Matthew, Mark and Luke say of the bread, that Christ gave it to them; yet Paul, which affirmeth what he had received, and did deliver accordingly to the Church of Corinth as from the Lord, he leaveth out that act of giving the bread; Matthew and Mark say as much expressly of the giving of the cup to them, which Paul omitteth. Matthew and Mark express that thus: This is my blood of the New Testament, which Luke and Paul express thus, This is the New Testament in my blood: Matthew and Mark say, which was shed for many, Luke which is shed for you; Paul wholly omitteth it. Luke addeth in mention of the bread, Do this in remembrance of me; but not in mention of the cup; Matthew and Mark omit that passage in both, Paul addeth it to both, and addeth that in the latter, as oft as ye drink it. What variety is here, additions, omissions, variations, &c. in the mention of Christ's last commission about the other Sacrament? surely, Mr. B. and others will confess, that if it had been so moral, and invariable, because Christ's last commission, holy men inspired, would not, had not, could not have so placed them, before, or after one another, something before, as mentioned by one, something set after the same words, by another analogy of faith, and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures, must regulate in such things here, and in this Sacramental order, and so in the other.

And because so much is put in order of phrase, and words to conclude thence, without compare thereof with other Scriptures; the order of things in acting, because in those two places, such in order of uttering, and expressing, I would argue hence. If because believing is set before baptizing, none is to be baptized, but such as believe, then because being baptized is in the same place, Mark 16. 16. set before being saved, therefore no believers are saved but such as are baptized, and so baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, and a man may be a true believer, but for want of baptism, which yet was the case of some of old which were martyrd, may be damned: yea then since Christ when preaching, Mark 1. 15. saying, Repent, and believe the Gospel, it must be concluded it is in the order of things acted, as uttered, that repentance goeth before faith, and that a man actually may repent, before he actually believeth the Gospel; and so Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth, is placed before the other, if thou shalt believe with thine heart. Ergo, a man may make a saving confession of Christ, before he savingly believe with the heart: yea if the place it self in Mark, must be so closely stuck to, without comparing it with the Scriptures of the Old Testament which were then when Mark writ, the only Scriptures, besides Matthews Gospel, existing, it would follow in the reason of persons then living, that the Gospel must be preached to Dogs, and Cats, Fowls and Fishes, &c. since it's expressly said, Preach to every creature.

Thirdly, I demand of Mr. B. whether it be absurd to say the Gospel is preached to little ones, which understand not what is said, if so, then what thinks he of that speech of Christ in the presence of the little ones which he uttered concerning them, Of such is the kingdom of God; and, he that receiveth not the kingdom of God as a little child, &c. was this Gospel, or not? surely yes to Mr. B. it is so which holdeth that Christ spake it of their interest in glory it self: here was then Gospel preached to little ones, to Infants, yet not absurdly. He dares not say that was not Gospel which Moses on God's behalf uttered, Deut. 30. 6. as hath been shown, yet spoken to little ones then present, Deut. 27. 14. and that was such, Act. 2. 38, 39. to so many as might be present, as well as touching so many as were absent. Zacharias' speech, spoken as to his babe Luke 1. And thou child shalt be called the Prophet of the most high, &c. it was Gospel preached to a babe.

But to come to the core of the objection, as if absurd to be baptized unto one knoweth not what; or as others, when one understands not the mysteries of such an Evangelical act and ordinance; I answer, Isaac's circumcision was an Evangelical ordinance as a sign of God's covenant of grace with him, and to confirm the promise of God, to be a God to him, scil. to fulfill such promises as Luke 1. 73, 74, 75. and he to walk in his father Abraham's footsteps, &c. as some acknowledge it did signify sanctification of the spirit, justification by Christ's blood, and faith in him as to come, &c. and so of an Evangelical nature, if to any, to him who was the child of promise: yet did not he then understand these things; did God then in enjoining his circumcision so young enjoin an absurdity? surely no. Christ's act in blessing those Infants, Mark 10. and Luke 18. as that also of his imposing hands on them, and embracing them, or taking them into his arms, these were no legal, nor ceremonial, but truly gracious and Evangelical acts of Christ, and very mysterious, yet not absurd, because they knew not, nor understood what he did for them, in blessing of them; Peter understood not at present that Evangelical act of Christ, in washing of his feet, yet must it be done, or it had been worse for him, John 13. 7. 9. 12. will Mr. B. challenge this act also upon the former grounds to be absurd? As for that whim of I. S. I say we lay not foundations of building faith upon human testimony more then they of old, in holding out the Doctrine of circumcision, Infants circumcised knew not more that they were circumcised in way of an ordinance, then children now do of their baptism, when they come to be grown up, both sorts know it as it is testified to them by others. Yea but there was a visible mark to be seen, which is not in baptism; grant it so, yet how knew they that it was not given them in ludibrium by enemies, or unto some false God, and worship, by some Idolatrous Priests, amongst whom they might be as captives, and they could not know that it was administered to them in a Church way and according to God's rules but by hear-say by friends, or parents? And therefore in the main of knowing both, as ordinances administered upon them, they are one.

Fourthly, Disciples only, that is believers, are to be baptized, according to Mark 16. 16. the affirmative including the negative, therefore not Infants. Let us examine this principle and principal ground work of our opposites.

1. Then it seems Scripture Disciples of Christ are only such believers, as Mark 16. 16. speaketh of, and such believers only, as that verse mentions are to be baptized: which I deny. First, the believer mentioned, Mark 16. 16. is one that shall surely be saved and not condemned, as the opposition showeth, but neither is everyone which is called a Disciple such a one, witness that, John 6. 66. and Act. 20. 30. no true believers can so fatally be rent away as members cruelly torn from the body, as the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, they were but externally in the body of Christ, not efficaciously. Mr. B. saith, a Disciple is in English a Scholar: yea but all that are Scholars at school come not to good: nor do they effectually learn what they are taught.

Secondly, if Mark 16. 16. be the rule of baptizing, then none are by rule to be baptized, but such as savingly believe, for of such a one he speaketh, in opposition to such a one as is damned. And then the Apostles which baptized so many, John 4. 1, 2. whereof sundry, Chap. 6. 66. proved apostates, and came no more at Christ, break rule, as also did John in baptizing sundry of the multitude amongst whom he knew, were many chaffy hypocrites, Matth. 3. 9, 10, 11, 12. but of that more else where.

And whereas Mr. B. challengeth us, to show an Example of one baptized without faith. It's evident many a one was baptized besides such a one, as believing, and being baptized should be saved, as Mark hath it: many a baptized person being never saved, as sundry of them, John 4. and 6. compared; yea if he mean it of some special personal confessing of faith in Christ, it was propounded to them as a future thing, which afterwards rather they were to attend, Act. 19. 4. John said to them that they should believe in him which was to come after him, and of those scribes, and no mention of so much as their confessing of sins before their baptism, John sharply reproved them, &c. and minded them what they should do afterward, bring forth fruits of repentance, &c. Matth. 3. 7. 8, 9, 10. and yet he expressly saith, he doth baptize them, &c. I indeed, saith he, baptize you, &c. but as Mr. B. urgeth us in that matter of showing any baptized without faith, the Scripture saith he is silent, so say I here, the Scripture is silent touching these Scribes confession of faith, and in Act. 16. 15, 16. the Scripture which saith Lydia's household was baptized; saith not that anymore believed but Lydia; and because this example is diversely controverted, I shall endeavor to clear it, as for, and not against us, the story is so exactly in all the circumstances of it, set down, that as I wonder of that evasion, that we are to seek the explication of this, by that other distinct story, as distinctly and independently set down from this, as this from that. The holy Ghost is exact in setting down many particular passages in mentioning the occasion of this here expressed from Acts 16. 6. to 14. and in the particular circumstances of this passage of the first success of Paul's ministry at Philippi. The person wrought upon is described: she was no mere Pagan, but a worshipper of God before, albeit not one that believed in Christ Jesus as the promised Messias, which then was the great article of faith, and full of difficulty to be believed, in all likelihood a Jew, or one of the best sort of proselytes venturing hard for Religions sake, they were not allowed the liberty of a Synagogue at Philippi: as in some other places under the Romish jurisdiction: but they withdrew to a remote place, from ordinary concourse & view: and though Sabbath solemnities were loathsome to the Romans there, yet she, with some other women adventure to spend the time in Prayer. Thither Paul repairs, and amongst them all she is wrought upon, and no other mentioned: God opened her heart that she attended, &c. if any of her household too, had been then, or presently after that, brought home to Christ; the holy Ghost so exact in the circumstances of this story, as in that other afterwards of the Jailor; it's very unlikely that he would have omitted the same here, more then in the other place. Yea after she and her household were baptized, the Text expressly saith, If ye have judged me, not if ye have judged them also faithful come into my house. If there be but one seeming example for rebaptizing, and neither rule nor example to color that wrested sense of Acts 19. 4, 5, 6. that must be currant and warrant, for that innovation, and we upbraided, if there were but one example so good for Paedobaptism, as that for rebaptizing they will yield the cause to us, and so may we to them, if this be not fuller for us, then that for them. Yea but saith Mr. B. would you baptize a Turk in his Masters faith? and what of that? therefore here were none baptized but believers unless that be granted? Non sequitur: is it not rule for us herein to make use of a Synecdoche, as well as you, when we urge you with families baptized, and so children in them? you tell us it is a Synecdoche, of the whole put for the part: the whole were baptized, that is, the grown part capable of being preached unto in the house, Acts 16. 31, 32, 33, 34. Yea but here was none preached to of this house that is mentioned but Lydia only, yet the household baptized, that is say we a part thereof by a Synecdoche, even that part w ^ch might most properly be baptized in her right more then in their own, as were her children. For so house in Scripture is oftentimes used for children of such, or such a person only, as Judge 9. 16. 18. dealing ill with Gideon's house that day, is expounded to be murdering of his 60. sons: so the poor widow, and her house, that she was providing for, and which after lived of that meal and oil, was but the widow and her son, 1 King. 17. 12, 13, 15. compared: David's house which at that time was not so orient, 2 Sam. 23. 5. was but his children, many whereof proved badly, and came to sad ends, witness Absalom's, Ammon’s act and end, &c. If Noah only believing, and upright, yet all the rest with him are typically baptized for that ground, Come thou, and thy house, even wife, sons, and sons wives, and all into the Ark; For thee, not, for them have I found righteous, Gen. 7. 1. with 1 Pet. 3. 21. if Abraham alone be a believer, yet he and his have the same seal, of the righteousness of faith of the covenant, Gen. 17. Rom. 4. if the grown Israelites have faith, it furthers that extraordinary baptism in the Sea. Less then this herein is not to be denied; yea but the rule is plain otherwise, Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. therefore the Apostles did baptize none, but believers and Disciples: Nay verily by their leave I conclude that that restriction of that word Disciple only to one, that is an actual believer in Christ, was never there intended, in Matth. 28. nor was that in Mark. 16. ever intended to be a rule of baptizing persons, excluding every other person, then such a one as there is mentioned from being baptized: and I further add to that; that it pointeth out what a kind of person shall be saved, rather then be baptized. Wherefore it is not said, he that shall be baptized, he must believe: but, he that doth believe and is baptized shall be saved: hence contrâ, he saith not, he that believeth not, shall not be baptized, but rather shall be damned, or not saved. If children be excluded from baptism, because of the former clause, he that believeth, and is baptized, they must be excluded salvation, because of the latter clause, he that believeth not shall be damned: will not our opposites themselves say, that the latter clause is taken de adultis, and not as any rule of exclusion of Infants from salvation; and I say as much in that other, as no rule thereby to exclude Infants from baptism, it is the same in Act. 2. 38, 39. if Infants because not believing, and effectually called, are excluded the promise, then by the same reason excluded remission of sins promised: yea salvation promised to them that cal upon God, v. 21. & if not therefore excluded these, why therefore excluded baptism, in defect of actual faith? if the promise of justification, & salvation, be not denied, which are the signats for want of actual faith & repentance, why is baptism the sign denied them? is the sign more then those things signified? is not faith and repentance more simply required to salvation, Luke 13. 5. Heb. 11. 6. then to baptism? As for what C. B. addeth that that, Gal. 3. 27. excludeth Infants: I deny it, if that be taken, as if each baptized person had really & effectually put on Christ: then none of the Galatian members had been such, as Gal. 3. 3, 4, 5. and 4. 11. 19. 21, 22. and 5. 3, 4, 5. he speaks thus in a Sacramental sense, as 1 Cor. 10. 4. 6. Heb. 10. 29. and such like, and so each Infant too Sacramentally puts on Christ, are buried with Christ, Rom. 6. 3. that is that which is visibly signed and sealed thereby, and that is the doctrine of the visible word of the Sacrament, holding forth what baptized persons are called upon as they are capable to attend: hence the baptism of John is the doctrine thereof: hence the doctrine of baptism, Heb. 6. 1, 2. but specially holding forth what they may expect from God; so Deut. 10. 16. and Jer. 4. circumcision, called upon them for heart circumcision, as capable of improving it, and encourageth them what to expect, especially that way from God, Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 36. 25, 26, 27, 28, &c.

As for what C. B. addeth touching the rule of baptizing, from Act. 2. 38, 39. albeit the place hath had its distinct consideration, yet I shall here add a word of answer to this which is C. B. his third argument, that if this be a rule, then none are to be baptized, but such as truly repent. For to no seeming, and visible repentance did Peter then exhort them, but to true and saving repentance, all will grant: and then unless we know men's hearts, and principles, their confession of sins cannot satisfy us when we are to baptize them, as being doubtful, and not certain, that the rule is fulfilled in that our act, and we must either do things doubtfully, and adventure to transgress rule, yea oft break rule, as by this argument John did, Matth. 3. 11, 12. and Philip, Acts 8. Yea but they professed it: suppose they did, that was not that which Peter saith, make confession of or profess your repentance, and be baptized, but repent and be baptized; therefore if that be laid down as the rule by which men must, or else must not be baptized; he that is baptized otherwise, he was never regularly baptized, as possibly it's the case of many in your churches. That which John Spilsbury hath this way I find not in the rest: he maketh use of John 3. 5. as a repeal of the Law of circumcising of Infants, and as the new law of admission, &c. but if that washing of water be meant of baptism, it will then be of as absolute necessity to be externally baptized, as to be regenerate, both, if spoken of two several things, being made as one in point of necessity: nor let any say that ordinarily it is so that none else are saved: For Christ's serious speaking, yea protesting, shows he intends more, yea more then a supposed neglect, or contempt of baptism, but simply thus, verily, verily, unless, &c. according to verse. 3. he had to like effect spoken, and taking the kingdom here, for a particular visible Church, not that of glory, which hath no ordinances, 1 Cor. 15. 24. and 13. 8, 9, 10. how stands this with his principles, that a man first be discipled and enchurched ere baptized, when as rather he must be from this ground first washed with water, or baptized ere he can be in; yea so much as see a visible Church, and so baptism is rather the form of the Church, then the covenant of grace, as I. B. elsewhere affirmeth, and reason suggesteth a Church first to be, ere Church seals to be administered to, or by it: nor need this be urged in this sense upon Nicodemus, as the way of his entrance into God's kingdom, of a true visible Church. For of such a Church was he already a member, even of the Jews Church: yea if thus meant, then not only unregenerate persons should not be of visible Churches; but it is not possible that they can get into them: for Christ saith, verily, and unless, &c. he cannot, no he should not, or ordinarily he doth not enter into the kingdom of God.

As for what was said of preaching the Gospel, to go before baptism, we hold it, we preach it, the doctrine of the covenant is first opened, and then sealed: we hold forth to parents that Gospel covenant of Abraham as to them, and their children, and the Apostles did as much, Acts 2. 38, 39. Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. they preaching the Gospel, wherein all sorts of national creatures were concerned, they held forth that of God's mind of grace, to that species of Infants of Gospelled Gentiles, and so by the Gospel they as well as the other sort of adult Gentiles came to partake of the promise, in the initiatory seal at least, Ephes. 3. 6. and what Gospel they held out in the audible word preached, that they sealed by the visible word of baptism.

Fifthly, to that strain touching the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as not in reference to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because of the masculine gender, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the neuter: if C. B. A. L. and Hen. Den had searched Scriptures, they would have found this enallage, or change of gender, very frequent, Rev. 2. 26, 27. and 19. 15. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , see Acts 15. 17. and 26. 17. see more of the like Acts 21. 25. Ephes. 2. 11. and 4. 17. masculines joined with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and I would ask A. R. and the rest, whether when it's said in the neuter gender, before him shall be gathered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all nations, with the masculine annexed, and he shall separate them one from another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hath not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reference to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? if not, then it seems some nations shall be gathered at the last day, which shall not be separated one from the other; if it have reference to it, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [them] in the masculine here in Matth. 28. may very well have reference to the nations albeit in the neuter gender.

Sixthly, to that argument raised hence from what is added: teaching them, that is, presently teaching them, &c. & so not Infants, it is not cogent: As much is said in effect of Abraham presently after he had circumcised the males in his house, and before Isaac was borne and circumcised, that he would command his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord: yet none will conclude that therefore, no children of his household servants were already circumcised, and that Isaac and others should not be circumcised; in that Abraham will take this course with all of his family: Are the baptized Gentiles to be taught the commands of God, that they may do them? so are the proselyted persons circumcised, and others also circumcised to be also taught. Yea Infants circumcised notwithstanding that part of God's counsel, touching such teaching; yea but Infants circumcised were not capable of teaching: true, nor are ours which are baptized, yet both to be taught, and so are, and were, according as capable thereof; and the Text in Matth. 28. 19. evinceth, that it is not a present teaching them that are there mentioned simply, but secundum quid, scil. according as the baptized persons were capable of being taught, otherwise it must be concluded, that they were presently to be all and each of them taught the whole mind of Christ, and then it will follow that that could presently be done, by the dispensers of the word, which is impossible, and likewise that the hearers were presently capable of all points of the doctrine of Christ, which is most unlikely; Christ himself did not take such a course with his own Apostles, nor were they capable of it, John 16. 12. Yea by the leave of the objectors; since they were to hold forth by this solemn injunction of Christ, whatsoever Christ had commanded indefinitely which were not merely personal commands; they must amongst other such commands of his, hold forth the doctrine of his touching the interest of the little ones, of pious minded persons pressing after, and prising of his blessing of their children. The kingdom is of such, not merely of those very persons, or babes, but of others, of like parents, &c. and his solemn command upon that ground of their interest in God's kingdom, that his Apostles should not hinder them, but suffer the approach of such unto him in any external way, whereof they are capable, and for which they are fit, as many of our Divines have pleaded thence, that they are for baptism.

Seventhly, to that argument from the exposition of baptizing into the name of the Father, &c. scil. in invocating his name, as Paul was bid to do, Act. 22. to this I say, if Paul was bid to do so, yet doth not that prove that that injunction was ever intended to be the explication of being baptized into Christ's name, that is, being baptized so, as then personally, and actually to call upon his name into which the person was baptized; when Paul in 1 Cor. 1. 13. saith, were ye baptized into the name of Paul, will it thus be expounded, that is, when you were baptized, did you call upon Paul's name? if any do so, it is new light, as they call it. For I never yet heard of that explication of it, albeit of others; but if that be the rule that the persons baptized must make their prayers personally and particularly to God, when they are baptized: then did those women of Samaria, Acts 8. make their personal prayers before the public assembly, which I suppose none will affirm, and if they will not, then the rule of baptism was not attended by Philip, which were as absurd, or that was no rule mentioned: nor was it possible that those 3000. baptized in one day, should arise each of them, and call upon the name of the Lord as they were baptized. Some would be longer in prayer, if others would be short, and who would limit or confine them just to such an expense of time, and no more: and if Peter would have parcelled out the time for that end amongst them, yet he wanted much time, for all and each of them to arise, and call thus on God's name.

SECT. III.

THe coast being thus cleared I may I hope now pass on the more freely from interruption to what I intend concerning Matth. 28. And first I say in the general, the strict of th • se words had reference to the inchurching of the first Gentiles: and so Marks relation which our opposites make parallel herewith evinceth: as Mark 16. 17, 18. doth show, unless any will say those signs and miracles endured ever since as of use in particular visible Churches; and so now hold, and will hold to the worlds end. Secondly, I say, this had reference in the general, to the Jewish nation, that when as they only were of the visible school, and under the doctrine, & discipline of Christ the Prophet of his Church as speaking by his spirit in their Prophets, and Teachers, and as acting in the Church guides and officers by some influence of his authority, &c. now not one nation and people, but all nations, the partition wall being broken down, are to be called unto the fellowship of the promise or covenant, and the initiatory seal of it; Acts 1. 38, 39. not as formerly circumcision, but baptism, not males only, but without distinction of sexes, not of such a strict day, and age, as eight days old, but indefinitely whether elder or younger, but that our opposites make bold to go so far as to say, not now, Infants, but only adult persons, they were best be on better grounds then yet I see lest the rebuke of Christ light on them also, so far forth to hinder the approach of believers Infants to him; nor will their rule of believers, Ergo, only such, hold; as before we shown: or that of the affirmative including the negative; no more then the affirmative, He that calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, or, He that labors must not eat, includeth each its negative, that he which calleth not on God's name, as no Infant doth, or he that laboreth not, as no Infant can, shall not be saved or eat, and so all Infants must perish, and famish. And when I say it hath reference to the Jewish nation, I intend it only thus far; that look as none but covenant, and enchurched parents and their children were initiatorily sealed then by circumcision, so no others are now in ordinary Church administration to be baptized then the enchurched parts in and of the nations. Thirdly, I say, Christ prefacing that ground to this commission, scil. his sovereign power over not his general kingdom of the world, but over his special kingdom of his Church, especially that, which is or shall be in the whole earth; he intendeth the execution of this commission 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 to have reference to all such as may at least externally be brought under that estate and account of members in that his kingdom, according to their several capacities of either, or both the branches of the particulars in the commission. Fourthly, Discipling I take in a Scripture latitude: by nations discipled, I understand not all the numerical and individual persons in every nation where the Gospel cometh, but the specifical parts of the nations, scil. all sorts of persons in that nation, albeit not all, and every person of each sort.

SECT. IIII.

THese things premised, whereas Anabaptists do affirm, that no Infants but adult persons only are to be baptized according to any rule of Christ; I say that that sort of persons, scil. the Infants of enchurched believers are to be baptized, as well as that sort of persons, scil. Adult persons making personal and particular profession and confession of their faith, &c. and that from the force of Matth. 28. 19, 20. My reasons are,

First, Taken from the subject to be discipled, and baptized, by commission, scil. all nations, and therefore at least all the specifical parts of the nations, all sorts of persons in the nations, but not all of every sort. If it be denied that neither all individual persons, nor yet so much as all sorts of persons, scil. some little ones, and babes male and female, as well as some adult persons of both sexes: I would know why the collective nations are mentioned under that title of nations rather then under that of grown persons of the nations: when God, Gen. 12. promiseth that all nations shall be blessed in Christ, all sorts of persons, albeit not all of every kind are included, else I cannot see how any Infants can be saved, unless either some are saved which are not blessed in Christ, or if blessed in Christ, yet such as God never promised should be blessed in Christ: and if so, they have a mediator of Christ to them, but such an one as is not in respect to them, a mediator of the new covenant, yea and so have Christ, a Savour to them, to whom he is not a covenant, as Isaiah phraseth it: Chap. 42. and 49. so every man for every sort of men, Heb. 2. 9. and all men, for all sorts of men, Rom. 5. 18. which are not simply all but many rather, verse. 16. compared: so the world for all sorts of persons in it, 1 John 2. 2. how usual an acceptation, and why should it here in matters of less moment be scrupled?

Secondly, taken from the nature of the commission, scil. a charge of Church dispensation of the Gospel, or dispensing of it with Church reference, Mark 16. 15. it is Gospel they are to preach, and this being Gospel, that children of enchurched covenant parents, were to be with them also taken into the fellowship of the covenant, and people of God, externally interested in it, as was proved before: and the initiatory scale being a branch of the Gospel, as well as the promise, as baptism is reckoned, Luke 3. 34. 5, 6. compared with Mark 1. 1, 2, 3, 4. such Infants federal interest in the Church, and initiatory Church seal must needs be included.

Thirdly, from the latitude of the Church reference to which this commission relateth, albeit with some different respects had to those times and ages following, according as then the Ministers were extraordinary, and Apostolical, and those succeeding were to be ordinary Pastors, Teachers: and withal with various respects had to the first foundation, members strictly considered, as such, and others: now that latitude it appears was such, as took in all the visible Churches throughout the world, unto the worlds end: From which if such Infants be excluded, an actual and privileged interest, they are excluded, as was proved in ordinary course from salvation: there being ordinarily none saved, but such as are in the visible Church, or some visible Churches in the world. And if not excluded an actual interest in some visible Church or other, in the earth; why are they excluded baptism which is here given to distinguish the enchurched parts of the world, from all other, as well as to ratify and seal up the covenant to them; there is no time set now to limit them to such a day as of old to the eighth, that that should suspend their jus ad rem, which they had as Abraham's seed, so soon as borne, from being elicited till the enjoined day.

Fourthly, from that latitude of the nation disciple which taketh in such Infants as well as others, and consequently they are reached in the commission of being baptized: For Disciples are to be baptized, as our opposites confess. For proof of their discipleship I argue thus. All those to whom the thing signified by a disciple as explained in any place of Scripture, is appliable, they are Scripture Disciples: but the former is true of such Infants, ergo the latter. The Major is evident, in that in reason significant names cannot be denied to persons to whom the thing signified is granted. And the spirit of wisdom would not in any place expound the name by the thing: if that thing it self did not give ground work, to be so named. If any reply, that it sufficeth not to have the thing signified by the name in one place, unless withal, the p •… ty be qualified with the signified thing in another: as for in •… ce, in many Scriptures it signifieth a believer, &c. this must be 〈◊〉 in too: to this I answer.

•… irst, I speak of significations of the name, as explained by the 〈◊〉 Ghost himself, and if any will refuse that they presume to 〈…〉 holy Ghost to expound his own words.

•… lie, if we may not rest in one, or other such a place, but 〈…〉 another way, why not another to that, and so ano •… 〈◊〉 •… arroweth yet more the signification then that did: yea why 〈◊〉 •… ke in all such places where in any sense it is mentioned? where 〈◊〉 we stop? and so that exposition of a disciple, Luke 14. 26. must be taken in as requisite to, according, as Hen. Den. urgeth it, a • d th • n Judas and Demas, and divers others, which forsook Christ, never hating their own lives for his sake, could not be his disciples, yet they were so: and so doth the holy Ghost call Judas, and many others, John 6. yea many that never believed in Christ himself, but did after a sort approve his doctrine, and followed him, albeit for base ends, &c. yet these were disciples and baptized as such, John 4. 12. It's spoken of disciples of Christ in the Pharisees sense, scil. persons addicted to his doctrine, &c. as Disciples of John, of Moses, &c. signify, and not of persons believing in him or them, John 9. When they asked so oft touching Christ as if they pretended to desire to learn of him, &c. saith the blind man to those Pharisees, Will ye also be his Disciples or Scholars, &c. verse. 27, 28. Be thou his disciple, say they &c. not meaning that either should believe in him; those many Disciples never believed that heavenly doctrine of his, John 6. yet called Disciples, verse. 66. Yea if the latitude of the signification of a Scripture disciple, must all meet in one, to make a complete definition: then Disciples must be Apostles, because some were so called which were such. The names of the 12. Disciples, Matthew 10. 1. and the names of the 12. Apostles, verse. 2. are one, see more, Matth. 28. 16. The eleven Disciples, ( i. e. ) Apostles. It is then enough to attribute that name Disciple to any, to whom the reason and explication of that name, anywhere in Scripture mentioned, is by the Spirit of God applied: we need not fear to follow such a leader, and speak after him, the minor then is to be proved; that such a signified thing by that name Disciple is appliable to such little ones mentioned. For proof hereof I must take up that wherein I perceive I am prevented by others; yet shall not desist to speak the same thing in substance with them; one to whom drink or water is given, in Matth. 10. 42. in the name of a Disciple, is expounded by the Spirit, Matth. 9. 41. to be one, to whom it is given in the name of one belonging to Christ. Whence I argue. All such as belong to Christ externally, they are externally his Disciples: such Infants mentioned, belong to Christ externally: therefore they are externally Christ's Disciples. And the same description of a Disciple which shall be saved holds thus, such as savingly belong to Christ are Disciples which shall be saved; but it's not needful to go so far in this case: To the saving interest and efficacy of Baptism, it is required that one savingly belong to Christ, and be a Disciple savingly in that sense: but to the external and Church interest in the use of the seal, it's not of necessity, for then none ought to be baptized, but such as are in a saving estate, which to us is a secret, and so no ordinary proceeding in man's Court; yea the very place speaks of the case: as one that giveth drink to another, because to him and in his judgment, he is a Disciple; for infallibly he doth not know him, but taketh him rather to be such a one; and therefore refresheth him. The major therefore of the Syllogism is in substance the very Text, the minor is evident, such as externally belong to the Church of which Christ is the the head, they do externally belong to Christ, &c. hence to be in his Church by external profession and to be in him, are put for one, John 15. 2 now that such Infants belong to that Church we formerly proved, in proving both that they belonged to Christ's visible Church and kingdom, and that he was head thereof also. Mr. B. frameth two answers to a like objection hence, his first we have already disproved, scil. that Infants also belong to Christ in respect of visible and Church constitution, which he denieth. His second is as impertinent, he saith Christ speaks in Matthew and Mark of Adult persons: true: I never intended to urge it otherwise; but my argument runs, that the signification and reason of the name of Disciple there given, though to grown persons, yet since what is there in that Scripture applied to such; is also appliable to such Infants also, therefore they are Scripture Disciples. So Acts 11. 26. the name Disciples and Christians are made Synomyna, in way of distinction from Pagans not of the Church; alike to what is here intended for distinction sake from the rest of the Pagan world, amongst which since the breaking down of the partition wall, I hope Anabaptists will advise better how they place believing Gentiles Babes, unless they will leave a piece of the old wall standing. Discipled persons in the Text as in reference to baptizing, implieth persons externally in the Covenant of grace, unless our opposites think other then such should be baptized. Also persons in the visible Church are baptized, unless they think persons out of any visible Church fellowship may be in ordinary dispensation baptized: for which extraordinary calls and cases our times meddle not, nor have not, as of old there were some, which yet impeach not our rule of the Church seals given to the Church, for her use and by her preaching Elders to be dispensed; he then is discipled for Baptism, which is enchurched, which is in the School of Christ and in peculiar fellowship with the other Scholars there, and in special relation to Christ the Teacher of his Church; yea such as to whom in some sense he preacheth Gospel, as to those Babes in Luke; and howsoever he teacheth the lowest forms, as I may call them, that sort of persons in his Church, that is some such, he so promiseth to teach them inwardly, that he doth so appear in saved Church children; yea so he may teach Indian Papouses now too. I answer, if we speak of his absolute power, he can do more then he ever will, as to make many other worlds, &c. but to speak of his ordinate and regulate power, so he can do but what he willeth to do, what his secret will is, not for us, Deut. 29. but according to his revealed will, we may say that those children being estranged actually from the Covenant and Church they are actually without God and Christ, and hope, but believers Infants external estate is ecclesiastically of another nature. So much for clearing Matth. 28. and confirmation of Paedobaptism thence.

SECT. V.

A Second Argument is this. All those which are the Church seed of Abraham they are to be baptized. Infants of enchurched believers are the Church seed of Abraham, ergo are to be baptized. The major is not denied I think by our opposites; but if it be Gal. 3. 16, 17. 27, 28, 29. proveth that all such were baptized in Apostolical Churches, and therefore are to be in ours. The minor hath been formerly proved in the conclusions touching federal interest, and is evident by the Apostles argument: if Christ's, then Abraham's seed. Whence I argue, All such as are Christ's or belong to Christ, they are Abraham's seed: Such Infants belong to Christ, ergo, they are Abraham's seed. The Major is true both ways, such as savingly and efficaciously belong to Christ, they are so far also Abraham's elect seed, such as ecclesiastically are Christ's, in which sense the Apostle here speaks of it, as hath been proved, they are so far also Abraham's Church seed. The Minor is true of the species of such Infants, if taken in an efficacious way of saving interest: that sort of persons as well as the other of adult persons are such; else none of them could ever be saved: unless some are saved which neither belong to Christ nor are elect; either of which would be absurd to affirm, but that is a secret, we are to look to visibility thereof as the rule of dispensation of Church ordinances. If therefore taken in an ecclesiastical sense as here it is, as was proved, so all such Infants do belong to Christ as hath been proved, and consequently are ecclesiastically Abraham's Church seed.

SECT. VI.

A Third argument is taken from Acts 2. 38, 39. thus. Those to whom appertaineth any principal ground upon which any of the Apostles have moved and encouraged grown ones to be baptized, they are according to Apostolical encouragement virtually given to be baptized. But to the Infants mentioned doth appertain the forenamed ground, therefore there is virtually an Apostolical encouragement for them also to be baptized. The Major is undeniable, unless any suppose that any of the Apostles as Apostles, as here Peter is considered, should give an insufficient ground to anything unto which they encouraged others. For to give a chief ground of encouraging and putting any upon this or that which will not universally hold where the same ground was to be found, it is to give an insufficient ground. If a Pastor ministerially urge a member thus, Brother look you, watch over your brethren, &c. for you are a brother, if this be not cogent with any other brother as a brother unto the like watch, it is an insufficient principle and groundwork, so here in the case mentioned, none will doubt but it was a sufficient groundwork to enforce the former as a duty scil. their repentance to whom he spake; and why not of the like force in the other? yea and so you will say it is where both are joined. Nay verily it must be of force, if sufficient, to enforce either apart: if both be distinct duties as reason will evince, and this be the common enforcing reason to both, it must hold as well in either of them considered apart, as in both of them jointly taken. And I would know if the Apostle had from such a ground of the promise urged one already baptized to repent only, had it not been sufficient? or suppose he had to deal with one that in his judgment had repented already: urging him only to be baptized, because the promise belonged to him, had not this been of sufficient force thereunto? no rational person I think will deny it. The minor will appear by declaring the groundwork upon which the Apostle urged them to be baptized. Now this was the only ground upon which Peter urged them as to the former duty of repenting, so to the later of being baptized: For the promise is, or belongs to you, scil. the promise of grace, of remission of sins, &c. as before was cleared. Yea but repentance is called so too from them on this ground, and that Infants are not capable of; To this we have formerly answered, why it was meet to require as we do, some testimony of repentance in offensive members of a corrupt Church, albeit a true visible Church as was that of the Jews, if they will be fixed members of purer Churches, as was that Church of Christians, verse 41. and as members thereof partake of the seals; yet we do not expect the same of their children too, under no such actual scandal, but baptize them in their confessing parents right also. Besides it appeareth before that it was a sufficient ground on which to urge the baptism of such or such a person as considered in it self apart.

Now that the groundwork, scil. interest external at least, was that interest of those persons not yet savingly wrought upon in the promise of grace that appertaineth to such Infants of enchurched and externally covenant parents, it appeareth in this very Scripture, the persons spoken to were members of that true visible Church of the Jews visibly in the covenant as we proved; the persons spoken of also were their own natural children, as was likewise proved, and of them also Peter avoweth even after Christ's ascension, and in reference to participation in the seal of baptism in a Church of Christians: That the promise [is to your children] so that the conclusion followeth that the baptism of such children is virtually called upon as well as of adult persons.

SECT. VII.

Object.

YEa but the Jews children were not then baptized, Acts 2.

Answ.

It's more then such as so speak can prove from the Text.

No, will some say, but it is not. For they that gladly received the word, saith the Text, were baptized, verse. 41. And they continued in the Apostles Doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayers, verse. 42. and 44. All that believed had all things common, 44. and sold their possessions, &c. verse. 45. and continued daily in the Temple, &c. verse. 46. which are not appliable to Infants. And what then? therefore other things there mentioned were not so too? non sequitur; what more usual in Scripture then to speak of things in a collective way of persons which are not all and each of them appliable to all and each particular person of that company, but by a Synecdoche some things are spoken of the whole wholly, but others are only appliable to some parts of that whole. It's said in this place all that believed were together, and had all thing common, and sold their possessions, verse. 44, 45. will any take this of the whole company in all the parts of it? all were not capable of such an act applied to all, as not all having possessions to sell, for some were in need rather of supply from others, verse. 45. It is therefore a Synecdoche so in the other, so all are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine and prayers, &c. as before this Infants were not capable of, and therein it is as in the other Synecdochicall, for of other things mentioned they were capable, and they were appliable to them, they had things in common too, and had supplies of clothing or food, &c. according to their need; unless any will say, that these persons spoken of had no children needing such supplies as well as themselves, or else if they had, yet their needs were not supplied, so when they all eat their meat in several houses, &c. what were the children shut out of doors if they had any, or had none of those families any children in them? Suppose they could not eat meat with such singleness of heart, yet were they not of them that did eat their meat and were refreshed with them: there were doubtless some hypocrites in heart amongst them, and they could not eat with them with a single heart, but were rather spots in their feasts of charity, as Jude's phrase is, Jude 12. yet by a Synecdoche, all did eat with heart singleness, in that some which were capable of the act doing, did so among them, all added were such as should be saved too by a Synecdoche, and in a Church sense; yea their Infants some of them were such really, and all of them in an external and ecclesiastical respect of covenant and Church interest: they were capable of that adjunct, albeit not of some others, so were they capable of being added to the visible Church of Christians, as they were of that true visible Church of the Jews before. And as all the Infants of covenant and enchurched Parents which stand right in the Church, are also in that right inchoatively members of that Church, albeit not perfectly. And inchoative actual membership of a true visible Church, doth externally inright to the initiatory Church and Covenant seal of baptism; of which two these members children were enrighted, as well as others then present. And for further clearing of this way of application of some common acts to an assembly where are children, which are not appliable to the whole company, wholly, see Acts 21. 5. bringing on the Apostle and his company is appliable to all those of Ephesus, men, women and children, but that act of praying not so properly appliable to the little ones, but rather to the grown persons present. Weeping and swearing is applied to the whole company assembled, whereof many were children, Ezra 10. 1. 5. compared, yet proper to the grown part; albeit the other of being assembled before the house of God, &c. were common, as that sin confessed on the behalf of the whole assembly, verse. 2. was understood of the whole figuratively. In respect of that part of the assembly which had so sinned, which were not the children as is evident; no nor all the grown ones, but some only amongst them, as verse. 18. 23, 24, 25. declare, so Deut. 31. 11, 12. men women, and children must be all gathered to have the Law read in their hearing, that they may hear and learn, and fear the Lord, and observe all the words of his Law: it is all applied to all indefinitely, yet sense and reason tells us, that sundry of the children were neither capable then of such observing of all God's words, no nor so much as hearing the words read at that time in such sort, as thereby at present to be stirred up to fear or obey the Lord, but some things only are appliable to the whole assembly wholly, other things now mentioned to the whole at present only, in respect of the grown part, and to the others no other th • n as involved in any such acts of their parents at most, so Joel • 14. • . solemn assembly of all the inhabitants of the land, is to 〈◊〉 convented for fasting, so chap. 2. 1. again repeated, and ver. 15, 16, 17. instance is given in the sucklings, as to be a part of that assembly for that end, and the main duty verse. 13, 14 is laid forth as required of them all, which are called to this solemn fast, scil. not merely to abstain from food, or to express sorrow by rending their garments, but to rend their hearts by godly compunction and sorrow, &c. all will yield that such things are not properly appliable to sucklings, but to some of the assembly: nor yet will any in reason exclude Infants from being of that Church assembly, for such Church use according as they were capable of anything mentioned, albeit not capable of all mentioned, Jer. 43. 4. 6, 7, disobedience to God's voice is applied to all the people, yet not properly verified in all the children which were of that people and company, Deut. 29. 1. All Israel is said to have seen those wonders in Egypt, and yet many of them that were then grown, it being 40. years after their coming out thence, verse. 5. never saw the same, much less did the little ones, which were a part of that assembly, verse. 14. yet who will conclude, because little ones were not Israel seeing the • e wonders, that therefore they were not Israel entering into Covenant, verse. 11, 12. and mark the phrase applied to the little ones, that they also entered into covenant with God, ibid. as well as God is said to make his covenant with them, verse. 14, 15. this was a covenant of grace, as hath been proved, so that Hen. Dens notion holds not concerning God being in a sense in covenant with Infants, but they may not be said to enter into covenant with him, that by the way. To return to that in hand; nations baptized, Matth. 28. are to be taught to observe Christ's commandments, but non sequitur that Infants are no part of the Churches in the nation to be baptized; so here, Infants believe not actually, &c. non sequitur, ergo, not to be added to the Church in a solemn way of initiation to Church estate inchoatively by external baptism. Both may stand together and have their truth of the whole in some things wholly, wherein they are capable as of Church estate and baptism, in others true of the whole in respect of some part thereof as actual believing. To like purpose C. B. argueth weakly in his sixth argument, that the whole city was baptized men and women mentioned, not their children too, as if therefore excluded; I may as well argue from Gen. 14. 11, 12. That those Kings took all the goods of Sodom and Lot, ergo, they took no people besides contrary to verse. 16. or if they did take people and women, yet not children too. And if Lot were first taken and then redeemed by Abraham with others, yet not ergo his children or daughters, or if then under the notion of women, yet not a word of children, wherefore either they were left behind in the City without their Parents when they were taken, or if taken with the Cities and persons, yet not brought back again, which would be absurd to affirm.

Secondly, suppose the believing Jews children were not just at that time baptized, when their Parents were thus solemnly admitted to that Church of Christians, yet non sequitur that they were not baptized afterwards. When members are solemnly admitted to complete and fixed membership in our Churches, we baptize not oft times their little ones the first day of that their admittance, yet do it afterwards as occasion is offered, and their desire thereof signified.

SECT. VIII.

YEa but neither then nor in any other Text in the Acts is it ever mentioned, that any children of any believing Jews were baptized. A. Non sequitur that therefore they were never baptized. Many things of great weight were done by Christ, and so by his Apostles which were not recorded: yet not therefore never acted by them, John 20. 30, 31. of which see more before touching consequences of Scripture. But do our opposites indeed conclude, that none of the believing Jews children were ever baptized by Apostolical approbation? Is it imaginable that among so many thousand believing Jews, at least ecclesiastically, such which are so moved and touched in the case of their children's being not circumcised and sealed that way to the covenant, that it would not much more startle them to suppose such a tenet or practice as to deny them to be sealed any way by initiatory sealing at all, as neither by circumcision, so not by baptism. Are they so ready to move contentions in that point, Acts 22. 21. and upon but a supposed denial of it, and are they no way moved so much as to put the case, & state the question to be satisfied from the Old Testament, for no other Scripture was then extant, why their Infants w ^ch were ever used to be reckoned in Abraham's covenants, & so sealed thereto by the seal then only in use, but now they are either wholly excluded any Church interest and any covenant interest actually; or if owned yet as such, yet why denied of that w ^ch is now the initiatory seal of such interest in the covenant. Yea doth Peter expressly mind them of the interest of their children as well as themselves in the promise, wishing them therefore to be baptized; and this occasioned no stirring of questions and cases why on the same ground their children must not be also baptized? other contentions about other things are mentioned, and other differences in points controvertible in those times, as Acts 11. 2, 3. and 15. 1. 2. &c. and 21. 11. and 6. 1, 2. and 15. 38, 39. and Gal. 2. 11. Surely then either the believing Jews which when worse men had that privilege of their children's covenant and Church estate and right to the initiatory seal: the case is so soon altered with them, that they think it no matter of scruple to call the denial and omission of it into question, or to assay to desire satisfaction in it for matter of judgment and practice in the case, or if starting it, why is not so great a controversy mentioned as started by some at least, that could not so wholly forget their children's good when solicitous about their own, and when so gladly accepting Peters word, especially the gladding word of promise, which was the joyfullest word he spake as belonging to them, and to their children: yea when accepting so gladly that enjoined duty upon the ground of baptism? surely controversies of far less weight are not passed over in silence, witness that Acts. 6. 1. and 15. 38, 39. and Gal. 2. 11. and 21, 22, &c. me thinks to common reason and rational heads and hearts as well as gracious. It should be rather concluded as a matter out of question, and that no such new distance and difference was put of parents in covenant and Church estate, but not now the children as formerly; of parents to be sealed by the initiatory Church and covenant seal unto Church and covenant fellowship, but not now their children as formerly.

SECT. IX.

A Fourth argument followeth, scil. In that the Infants of covenant enchurched parents which were externally interested in the covenant of grace, as invested with the covenant of a political visible Church, to whom the Seals were appointed, they were sealed as they were in bodily respect capable to be sealed in that initiatory way of circumcising, therefore Infants now according to their capacity in bodily respects of the like initiatory appointed seal, are to be sealed in the initiatory way of baptizing. For clearer proceeding in the argument, I shall lay down a few propositions. First, that the old testament is avowed by the holy Ghost in the new, to contain all things necessary for faith and practice for substance; and that so fully, that a minister of the Gospel, ordinary or extraordinary, might be furnished thence with groundwork and general rules, upon and according to which to proceed, in holding forth anything necessary to be believed, or practiced. Of the Scriptures of the Old Testament is that full testimony, 2 Tim. 3. 14, 15. See Cartwright in locum, see Luke 16. 29. 31. Secondly, that the Apostles in all other things used to hold forth Gospel services with analogy to legal Types, Rites, and Sacrifices, &c. testimonies are plentiful for it. Thirdly, that it was the Apostles use to hold forth and confirm things of most weight from the Old Testament, Act. 2. from the 14. to 41. and 3. 22. to the end, and 4. 10, 11. 24. to 29. and 8. 12. 25. 35, 36. compared with Isaiah 52. 15. and 53. 1, &c. So Acts 21. 38, 39. Old Testament grounds, yea from the promise are given them for baptism itself in the new; yea for the dispensation of all the Gospel ordinances unto the Gentiles, as thereof capable, Acts 13. 46, 47, 48, &c. Either then they had no ground, or if any, they urged them not, which is contrary to those places, or if any, they urged them from the Old Testament then only extant, to establish their practices. Fourthly, that Christ himself gave them pattern in this way of proof. Fifthly, that the people with whom they had firstly to do, were believing Jews in that way, and they were zealous for the Old Testament in the general. Sixthly, that the ancients of the primitive Churches have rarely, if at all denied the coming of baptism in circumcisions stead. Seventhly, that where a commandment of God doth enjoin any one thing upon such a ground, there the command doth require all things w ^c h are of the same nature, as helpful to the same thing; as the Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, forbids anger also as tending to the same end, scil, to murder, and as well forbidding striking, rash speaking, &c. on the same ground, as tending to murder: yea but Christ expressly forbids it. Answer, Christ doth not put anything thus upon the commandment which was not virtually in it before; he urged it, but not legislatively, as then making a law in such particulars; but, declaratively, as expounding that law and reducing particulars to their general heads of commandment. Yea but there was his sanction thereof in that reducing: True, but when explained, yet so as things in the commands before, only then clearly understood to be so; so here, look as God commanding Abraham circumcision in the flesh for that end and on that ground, that it might be an initiatory seal or Sacramental sign of the covenant, so also in the same doth he virtually command baptism with water, as being of the same nature, scil. such as fulfilleth that end, scil. initiatorily to seal the covenant, therefore albeit circumcision cease, yet the commandment thereof reacheth and partly authorizeth that baptism in the application of it to Infants for that end, as of old to those Infants for that end. Baptism is a sign I say of the covenant, and therefore either natural, and then any washing uninstituted had sufficed this way, but that such washing of water should be that sign needed an institution, and being instituted, it is now of the old use to seal initiatorily the covenant to adult or Infant externally initiated in it. Yea but Christ's institution gave a rise both to the sign that baptism should be that, and that such and such persons should be signed with it, therefore not the command of circumcision gave rise so much as to the application of that sign, to such or such persons. Answer: it followeth not, that Christ's institution gave warrant therein, therefore not the commandment of circumcision, since both consent in the main ground of both, scil. that we shall apply ourselves to the use of such signs as he shall appoint, and that in both should be the same moralls or spirituals signified, the Lord knowing that we needed some solemn external way of signification of his mind of grace, by some sign, as well as they did. Eighthly, as none may add to, so neither may any detract from any words of God's grace, wherein he hath expressed himself, unless he himself repeal the same: he once would have his covenant of grace to be to the whole Church and Church seed, and once would have it initiatorily sealed on them; he hath repealed the way of sealing, but the covenant he hath not, the extent of it to parent and child he hath not, the ordinary dispensation of it in, and from, and by the visible Church he hath not: the sealing use of an initiatory covenant and Church seal he hath not: the things mainly to be sealed even covenant and Church right. at least external and the like, both of enchurched covenant parents and children, he hath not, as in former conclusions hath been shown.

SECT. X.

HItherto that known and much controverted place, Col. 2. hath reference; the Colossian Church and members of it, as the Apostle urgeth against the circumcision teachers, are as complete in Christ without circumcision, as ever any other Church or the members of it, yea as even the best of them were with circumcision; that is the proposition he layeth down, Col. 2. verse. 10. if they had objected Abraham's, and Isaac's, and Jacob's, and David's completeness in covenant respects and Church respects: Gentile Churches and members are as complete in the substantial, and most material parts or branches of it, had the one a covenant and Church blessing and heritage as to them, so to their children; so are these complete that way too; if the ratification thereof by a solemn covenant and Church initiatory seal be the great thing they have to boast of; these are complete in Christ in that respect too: Christ hath not left his Churches and the members of them without such covenant privileges, nor without a solemn way of initiatory sealing thereto and ratifying thereof: whether as Churches or as members of it in particular, or as such members who have children to partake thereof with them; do the false Apostles then urge against them their incompleatnesse without circumcision? It's answered in the general, v. 10. they are complete in Christ; how? as fulfilling the types which were in any Jewish ceremonies only? no verily, not only so; albeit firstly and principally so; for Christ nailed them on his cross, and took them away, as such, by his death. And what need then any Church ordinances at all? we have all in Christ might some say, as 1 Cor. 1. I am for Christ, I care not for Paul nor Apollos, nor Cephas, nor for their dispensation of the word or seal of the covenant, I have enough in Christ; such a spawn of our seekers there was in those times, v. 12. Yea but the Lord Jesus in wisdom and faithfulfulnesse will have his Church and people to be graced and perfect as of old they were in substantials of the same Church ordinances and the like. The beauty of the Church was perfect through that Church comeliness, which God did in this respect put upon them, Ezek. 16. 14. not a comeliness of outward possessions, in a temporal land, in temporal jurisdictions, kingdoms, cities: what had the Church, quà Church, and as in covenant with God, as his covenant Spouse, to do with them? nay the heathen might vie with them, for as good land, as large possessions, territories, riches, honors, dominions, &c. yea but not for Church ordinances; he dealt not so with any nation besides, Psal. 147. 19, 20. Christ had as mediator and as a Priest completed all ceremonious types: yea, but as Prophet he will have it held forth and cleared by that dispensation of the Gospel, and as King of the Church he will have all also exhibited in such a way, and by such evangelical means, 2 Tim. 1. 10. the Word and the Seals, they are parts of the Gospel in the dispensation of them and by them all is brought to light: yea by them as by pipes is Christ's fullness conveyed as head of his visible body the Church outwardly, as it is by his spirit to his elect inwardly, Zach. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14. Col. 2. 19. hence the Church hath such officers given it, whose proper work it is to exhibit and communicate such things as tend to make them every way complete, Ephe. 4. 11, 12, 13. we are complete in Christ, as the signatum, but yet in baptism too as the sign. Yea but regeneration and sanctification, both in respect of mortifying and quickening grace, &c. signified by circumcision, is conferred on us by Christ. And so it was of old in him, in whom, Ezek. 36. 25, 26, 27. and Deut. 30. 6. was yea, and amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. and by his Spirit as he held all forth then in the ministry of the Prophets of old, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19, 20. so he exhibited the same to his elect among them; yet then he had covenant and Church Symbols to confirm the same and instrumentally to convey the same, and so now, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. As by the word of covenant, as the principal instrument, and the Spirit maketh baptism it self to become efficacious: so by washing too he sanctifieth his Church both as that whereby he ratifyeth it so to their faith that they have the more strength of hold and influence for that end; and as that which he blesseth as one ordinary mean also, in respect of the word of promise; to which baptismall washing is annexed as the Seal. Sanctifying and purging is the signatum and end: washing with water through the word, is the ordinary Seal, and mean; whence here, in Col. 2. 10. when he had laid down that thesis, he declareth it by two instances: partly in that we are circumcised by the circumcision of Christ, which is the fulfilling of the type, v. 11. partly by applying the benefits of the circumcision of Christ, to them and theirs, by the like, or an equal ordinance to that of circumcision which the Jews enjoyed, to wit, of baptism; else were not the Church and Saints now as complete as those of old; which as they had virtually all fulfilled in Christ to their faith, Act. 15. 11. and 26. 6, 7. Heb. 13. 8. Revel. 13. 8. Heb. 12. 1, 2, 3. So had they withal sealing ordinances, applying the spiritual circumcision of Christ to them and theirs. And so Aretius, which maketh Christ the perfect organon of our salvation, without any other equal external cause joined with him, in that respect it was by him alone, that all was fulfilled, Col. 1. 19, 20. and by himself he did that work, Heb. 1. 3. yet in point of external application, he denieth not anything we say; for in the same place in his notes upon Colos. 2. within four or five lines, he addeth it as an observable thing from the place, that baptism comes in the stead of circumcision, as is evident in that the Apostle calleth it the circumcision of Christ; scil. in a Sacramental way: under the name of the sign in whose stead baptism is set, comprehending the spiritual thing signified by a metonymy, as the covenant, scil. the Sacramental sign of it, Gen. 17. 11. 13. Act. 7. 8. the testament, scil. the visible seal of it, 1 Cor. 11. 25. So his body and blood, ibid. the Sacramental communion of it, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. or communion of it in a Sacramental sense. So that the Apostles answer is full to prove the uselessness of circumcision, which the false Apostles would have intruded upon them as necessary to the Gentile Churches, Gal. 1. 6, 7, 8, 9. and 4. 21. and 5. 11. Acts 15. 24, & 24. 25. It was a general false doctrine troubling all the Gentile Churches, ibid. but it's now useless in respect of the main thing signified, Christ to come, who hath fulfilled it as ceremonious and in respect of the external sign, and mean of application of Christ, scil. circumcision supplied by baptism: whence Gentile Philippians as well as Paul a Jew are of the circumcision, Phil. 3. 3. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were inwardly circumcised, so are they at least ecclesiastically judged to be, they were externally circumcised: so are they in their baptism, ergo, now circumcision is wholly useless. Yea but what is this to Infants? the Apostle directs his speech to grown ones: Suppose he did, yet this speech is of, and reacheth to their children as well. Else therein had they not been so complete, as those formerly which had a covenant made with, and externally sealed both to them and theirs: yea the sealing of the covenant, as we have shown, by baptizing of such as have children, is not so complete in ordinary dispensations, unless as occasion is offered the same be sealed initiatorily on their children, according to their outward capacity of the external sign. The whole covenant is as well sealed on Abraham's seed, as on himself, and not wholly sealed on either, without other, as not wholly made with the parent, but with respect to the other. It were else to cut off a great part of Abraham's Church seed, & so make Church parents more imperfect, but especially unto the false teachers argument, the answer was not else so full. Be it that Christ is the Antitype of circumcision now: So he was to the faith of them of old. Be it that Gentiles are inwardly circumcised, so were they of old: yea be it that enchurched parents are externally circumcised in their external baptism actually, and so circumcision is so far useless to that sort of grown persons: yet what is this to the other sort of persons, which used, yea they mostly, to be circumcised; and it was their parents duty to endeavor their circumcision as well as their own. If now there be no such persons to be externally circumcised also in baptism, and that their parents are under no tie in that respect, then at least circumcision in respect of them may be useful and necessary, there being no initiatory sign appointed for them. To say they have the internal circumcision, our opposites will deny, and if they have had sundry elect Infants of Abraham's seed of old. To say they are antitypically circumcised in Christ, our opposites will not affirm of all the Churches chilches children, and if only of some, as much was virtually in Christ to come for the elect Jewish babes, yea for those parents and children belonging to grace before ever circumcision was of use; to say they are externally circumcised in their parents baptism, as much might have been said that way if rightly said of the Jewish children in their parents circumcision: yet they were actually circumsed also. The Apostle argueth of a completeness in Christ with reference to baptism, which is therefore here named, as an outward mean whereby enchurched Gentiles, especially, come ordinarily to have communion with Christ, and to be complete in him, yea and as an outward way of holding forth manifesting, and proving the uselessness of circumcision to them, for it is an answer to circumcision teachers as Mr. Blackwood rightly hath it, unless therefore our opposites will exclude them all Church interest contrary to what we have proved: or that they would have believers children denied of one initiatory outward mean of communion with Christ, whence that of baptizing into his name; (or covenant followship) unless also they would have us want one Apostolical way of arguing to prove the uselessness of circumcision to all sorts of persons, which used personally to be circumcised of old, or unless they will deny that baptism is of the same spiritual use, as circumcision was, scil. to be a Sacramental sign, or seal of the covenant, and the visible interest of persons in it; which Hen. Den denieth, but others do not, and if they do we have formerly proved the contrary, I see not how the force of Gal. 2. 10, 11, 12. will be avoided in this point of Paedobaptism.

SECT. XI.

WHereas therefore divers things are brought to invalidate any binding reference to circumcision, if it be intended of any type to the substantials of it, and in it, or any forcible analogy in divers material things deduced thence, we deny the cogency of such arguments, as when Mr. B. tells us of a many differences between baptism and circumcision, and so I. S. the like, and Hen. Den the like, it will not thence follow, ergo, in nothing alike still, that one as the other is a seal of the covenant, that one as the other distinguisheth the visible members of the Church from Pagans: and this followeth not, and we assay not to make the proportion run of four feet, as the proverb is, nor to prove proportion in sundry circumstantialls, peculiar to that ordinance. It sufficeth us that they agree in their common author, Sacramental nature and end. They are both institutions of God, Sacramental initiatory signs in their natures, to be applied to persons of all sorts, as they are outwardly capable thereof, which are visibly interested in covenant, &c. albeit in their particular manner of administration, and the circumstances of time, place, sex, nation, member of the body, &c. they differ; successors are not successors if every way the same if no way different; yet I would not create differences as some do, which never were. As first, that the circumcised Babes did eat the Passover: when yet the Law to all that came thither, strangers or Israelites was one, scil. to keep it to the Lord, with spiritual respects to God's ends and rules, as Exod. 12. 48, 49. to be in heart prepared as well as to be ceremonially clean, 2 Chron. 30. 18, 19, 20. the children in that family celebration of it, asked not what mean [we] by this service, as if they actually partooke thereof, but what mean [ye] by it, Exod. 12. 26. or if such children capable of instruction, were admitted as some authors have thought, yet not Babes which could not go up to the Temple, Deut. 6. 16, 17. Nor doth the mention of the house, or congregation, which some who will not allow us that latitude of like plea urge, as keeping it, evince it; but is an usual Synecdoche: such roast, parched meat and sour herbs, &c. Exod. 12. were too harsh to go down with such Babes, Numb. 9. 3. they in the Wilderness kept the passover according to all the rites of it, yet none will say the uncircumcised males therein; for circumcision was not used in the Wilderness, Josh. 5. did eat contrary to express rule, no uncircumcised person shall eat. Secondly, that circumcision sealed Canaan, as if that were all God's covenant mentioned, Gen. 17. 7, 8. 11. 13. but of this formerly. Or thirdly, that reprobates as well as elect were then sealed, as if none but elect are now sealed: as for Esau and Ishmael, in what sense they by extraordinary revelation to this or that person being discovered and yet after sealed, how it might be and was, as was that of Judas to Christ administering the Supper and sop, a known devil, yet admitted, &c. and no crossing of ordinary rule; we formerly spake to it. Fourthly, circumcision bound, say some, to the law; What, not I hope in the rigor of it, and as the substance of the covenant of works made with Adam? was Abraham and Isaac, &c. bound thus thereby, and not rather to it as to an holy rule of life? and so are we, yea by our baptism, Rom. 2. 25. if any will Idolize circumcision or baptism to make it ex opere operato available to salvation, they then legalize it, and if that way they look for life, they must keep the whole Law, or else they perish. For in this legal sense they urged circumcision, Gal. 5. 3. a • that by which to be justified, verse. 4. As for the essential difference supposed by Mr. B. in the covenant, Gen. 17. 7. we have formerly disproved that: that also is an imaginary difference of Mr. B. that circumcision gave right to the Church, and that of I. S. It brought them into covenant; when it confirmed rather a precedaneous right in both, and seals of God use not to be appointed to be put to blanks but to the covenant, and that was with Church reference as before. Whence that Gen. 17. 7. 8. 11. nor was this any mere outward covenant sealed, but the very covenant of saving grace (as some express it) even that, I will be a God to them, or as I. S. hath it, fulfill my promise to them, naming Luke 1. 73, 74, 75. and of the nature it was on both the seeds, if I may use his phrases, even elect or reprobate: nor was there no faith required in adultis as Abraham and proselytes. Yea all sorts were thereby bound to, and called upon to endeavor after faith in Christ, a new heart, power of godliness, &c. hence Deut. 10. 16. and Jer. 4. 4. and Rom. 2. 25. 29. and 3. 30. Nor doth circumcision as it was given to Abraham belong to another covenant, but as it was given by Moses, Levite. 12. 3. between which Christ distinguisheth, John 7. 22. Nor doth the father of the families hand in circumcision, when as now it is the minister of the Gospel which baptizeth, argue that baptism belongs to another Priesthood: as long as both of them belonged; that to the ordinary appointed Minister for this time, and this to the ordinary and appointed Minister now. Nor will it follow, that the forementioned obliging reference had to circumcision will bring on us a yoke insufferable, Acts 15. 10. unless we urged circumcision it self, in the very symbol and manner of administering of it, in such sort, as urged by those legalists, as necessary to salvation, and as a work by which persons are to expect to be justified, Gal. 5. 3, 4. which none will challenge us for: nay even circumcision it self was not that yoke, as God's instituted seal of his covenant; even dissenting brethren some of them (for such I should call some of them) acknowledge as much in effect, but to urge it on the Gentiles or on their children, as simply necessary to salvation, Acts 15. 1. and adding therewith a necessity to keep the whole law, verse. 5. 24. this was that yoke verse. 10. without which both the choice Jews of old, & those at that time, and consequently others of the Gentiles might be saved, as Peter acknowledgeth, verse. 11. As much may be said to the objections made against this way of arguing from circumcision, as if there may as well follow other analogies of Priests and their garments, &c. It followeth not unless we make analogy every way parallel, which we decry. So when it is urged that circumcision don away in Christ is an handwriting, is enmity against us, is an unprofitable rudiment, is a partition wall, proper to the Jews, overthroweth Christian liberty, is that without which we are in Christ complete, &c. and therefore not binding; it is true of circumcision as urged in a legal way, hence Gal. 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. and in respect of it ceremoniously considered in the proper way of administering it, but if considered in the general nature of it as an initiatory seal of the covenant of grace, so it was not against them, nor unprofitable, &c. and we Gentiles that are complete without circumcision in the symboll and circumstantials, yet are not so without the substantials of it in baptism, which is of like nature and use so far forth as before was proved. As for the grand objection against this and against the whole doctrine of Paedobaptism, scil. That we have no command for baptizing Infants as they had for circumcising of them, nor have we any example of it: we have in the former conclusions given answer thereunto, and even in enjoining that initiatory seal of the covenant as made with such persons, God did virtually enjoin the application of such an initiatory seal as he should appoint to seal his covenant to persons externally in it, which should be declared to be of like nature and of like use in the main, as was shown.

SECT. XII.

ANd besides former Scriptures opened, as Matth. 28. Acts 2. Gal. 3. Act. 16. 14, 15, &c. wherein this objection is taken off, we may add other virtual commands and examples thereunto. When God in Acts 10. presents the present outlawry estate of the Gentiles, from Covenant and Church, according to Eph. 2. 11, 12. but now to be eaten; or such as were to be taken into fellowship, not barely civil, but sacred: as the issue of baptizing some of them shown in the end of the chapter in reference to this Gospel and Covenant or cleansed estate; what God hath cleansed, (speaking of it as already in actual existence, because as sure as if already, God calling things which are not, as if they were) I say in reference to this estate of God's external owning of them at least, Peter is commanded not to count them unclean. Acts 10. 15. Now to count them unclean, or profane, is to count them strangers from all Covenant-fellowship with the people of God, &c. All sorts of beasts, little and great, dogs and whelps, gentiles parents and child, as the Cannanitish woman and her daughter are called, Mat. 7. and Mat. 15. Whom God shall cleanse, are not to be counted common. If God therefore make an holy Covenant with such as we have proved, if Christ himself affirm such like, even such babes as are of such parents, and are devoted to Christ to be of his kingdom or Church: if he take them within his jurisdiction as Prince of his people, as was prophesied; he will take the outlawry Jews, &c. Ezek. 37. Surely he so far forth cleanseth them, and severeth them from the rest of the outlawry Pagan world, as he doth the Infants of enchurched believers, as we have proved: verily the Apostles are charged not to carry it towards the cleansed creatures of this sort, as if unclean, by refusing to admit them to such religious privileged fellowship as they are outwardly capable of, and consequently not to refuse them from baptism, the initiatory Seal of that fellowship. So Ezek. 47. 22, 23. which all will confess, and Scripture evidence will clear, hath reference to these times after Christ's incarnation, the strangers or proselyted Gentiles, with their children where ever they are cast amongst the tribes, even the Churches of the Christian Jews in the latter days, they all by the charge of God, must have lo • and inheritance with them in Canaan; What in the earthly Canaan merely? verily there is no cause of such a limitation: even with our opposites Canaan is typical also, typed out Gospel mercies covenant blessings, and privileges, Heb. 3. and 4. 1, 2, 3, &c. Surely then it's the charge of God in reference to the cho •… ce days of Gospel Churches, that where godly strangers are cast, and desire to fix and to incorporate themselves as into one people to enjoy one and the same spiritual possessions, and mansions under one and the same spiritual government of their Prince, that such strangers together with their children should be joint inheritors with the Churches, in the Churches heritage of the fellowship of such ordinances, or privileges, as they are severally capable of, as at least they are of the initiatory seal of baptism. And if others which hold with I. S. against us in this point, are of his mind, his p • inciples will further administer answer to that objection; he citeth Ezek. 16. 8. Jer. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 10 Gal. 3. 18, 19. Heb. 6. 17. Deut. 26. 15, 16, 17. Deut. 29. 12, 13. Rom. 9. 8. with Gal 4. 28 by which

which how it will stand with other things elsewhere held forth by him and some of his mind is considerable. As first, that the command of God was the only ground of circumcision, confessed to be the seal of the covenant; yea but the Jews had Church fellowship in their circumcision, all will yield as being a Church ordinance, and then the command of God gave them not alone a being in that fellowship since, ex concessis, the covenant of grace which was ever the form of the Church, &c. it's said it gave them such a being. Secondly, that the covenant wherein the Jew Church was interested, was not a covenant of grace, yet this author produceth, Ezek. 16. 8. Deut. 26. 16, 17, 18. Deut. 29. 12, 13. to prove that this covenant of grace was the form of the Church, and that by this argument amongst others, because it was ever so. Surely this Church of old was a true visible Church, to which these places have reference, and yet the whole body of the people are spoken of, as the places declare: So then the covenant made with them, by this authors grounds was the covenant of grace. Thirdly, that the little ones of the Jews were not in the covenant of grace; yea but whence then had they that Church being and right to that Church fellowship in the seal of circumcision? whence called that covenant Churches children? Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21. 23. whence else are they of that number which were to enter into that covenant? Deut. 29. 11, 12. Albeit the author politiquely leaveth out that v. 11. in citing the place, which is here produced to prove the covenant of grace to be the form of the Church, and that which giveth one a Church being, and as he argueth that to be the form of the Church, because it was of old so: so say I of the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant: that which was of old the form of the Church, giving being to Church membership and fellowship in Church ordinances, the same is now such; but the covenant as made with respect to parents and children was of old the form of the Church giving being to such, scil. in circumcision, as of parents so of children, therefore the same is now in such sort the form of the Church to give a Church being to parents and children in respect of Church fellowship in baptism, and so I conclude against that. Fourthly, that children of persons visibly in covenant with God and his Church have no right to baptism; when yet as hath been proved they have interest in the same covenant, and so consequently by this very principle laid down unto this Church initiatory seal of baptism. Yea but Infants have not the law written in their hearts, and so it's a seal to a blank: A. No more had they of old, no not Infant Isaac, nor those, Deut. 24. 11. with 30. 6. they are not therefore such as have not the covenant made to them, because they have not such a power of grace actually in their hearts; that is the execution of God's covenant, which oft times is long after, but the very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Berith or covenant it self is the promise of it, Deut. 29. 11. 14, 15. and 30. 6. compared: hence that promise called the covenant as being the most substantial part of it, ibid. and Gen. 17. 6, 7. 11. 13. they are present actual subjects of the promise of future grace, I will circumcise their hearts, I will be a God to them, &c. and that initiatory seal is to this especially, Gen. 17. 7. 11. 13. Acts 13. 8. So are not Turks and Pagans children, in foro ecclesiae; besides Judas and Ananias his baptism was in God's institution, and in respect of the Church court, and their Church right no seal to a blank; albeit God's Law was never written in their hearts, and they shall find it to their cost, both Gospel words and seals will work one way, if not a savor of life, then of death; the cup in the Lord's Supper is to all Sacramentally the testament or a visible seal of the very covenant of grace in Christ's blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. yet some drink of that cup unworthily, and because it is Sacramentally of that nature, thence are they guilty of Christ's blood, ver. 27. 80. circumcision on all sorts was Sacramentally the Covenant of grace, albeit not savingly and efficaciously such, Gen. 17. 7. 11. 13. as before was proved.

SECT. XIII.

AS for that objection of supposed absurdities, of making Christ's body to consist of dead members; forcing Christ's spouse upon him, destroying God's Church, holding people in blindness, bringing reproach upon religion, filling consciences with scruples, making men rest in their baptism, &c. I answer, they follow not exnatura rei, from the initiatory sealing of Infants with the Church seal; for if so, then without distinction of times or Churches, &c. it must universally hold: and so reflects upon the wisdom and faithfulness of God, who once at least ordered such a thing, scil. putting the appointed seal of his covenant, circumcision, to such Infants, they were members of the visible body of Christ, a true visible Church, &c. yet God did not thereby destroy his Temple, force a Spouse on Christ, fill his Church with dead and rotten members, hold people in blindness, lay a foundation of persons resting in their circumcision, kill them with scruples by it, or destroy the marks of a true visible Church: which are according to Mr. B 's. profession, and the initiatory seal of the covenant, (then circumcision) now baptism: and so Mr. B. his ninth argument is answered; his second, third, fourth, sixth and eight argument hath been elsewhere answered, his seventh argument from a mistaken exposition of Acts 19 is elsewhere answered in what is briefly spoken to that place, his tenth argument from the taking up of Paedobaptism from corrupt principles, is abundantly answered in the whole discourse; wherein better principles are held forth, and if any hold it out upon weak and unwarrantable grounds, it weakens not a good cause in it self, that it is ill handled. His last argument from universal practice to the contrary, is elsewhere answered, and amongst others, the practice in baptizing Lydia 's house is one exception; nor doth that which Mr. B. would pretend as an argument to the contrary, evince what he would have, they are not said to be the brethren of the house, which Paul there comforted, Acts 16. ult. doth Mr. B. which would make all the jaylors household to be actually believers, think, that they attended not Paul and Silas from prison? for he was now to depart the city, and hasted out of the jaylors house by the coming of the Magistrates thither for that end, verse. 39. so that there was no opportunity before to utter what they had to say at parting, but another house as that of Lydia in their way out of the city, is a fitter place for that purpose, there therefore they make a little pause for that end; after which they departed.

SECT. XIIII.

ANd to add here to consideration of 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. which to me hath been long of validity to prove this practice of Paedobaptism as then in use, nor can I yet be removed from those thoughts, the Apostles scope there was to take down their pride in privileges, and resting secure in ordinances, &c. by showing them the hazard to which they lay open, notwithstanding, if they provoked God, by an argument from a like example of Church members interested not merely in ordinary, but extraordinary privileges, yet by reason of such provocation coming to a sad end; and thus lieth the Apostles argument: Where there are like privileges of grace, there (if abused) will be like punishments inflicted: but with you and with them of old are like privileges of grace: ergo, if alike abused, there will follow like punishments. And because they might glory in those peculiar Church ordinances of the seals, which yet they were so apt to abuse, he singles out parallels to them, and therein doth not take instance from the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews, but from two extraordinary ones: wherein, if in anything, they might seem to be privileged above others. Now if there were no parallel in that material business of the children's baptism in Corinth Church; a great part of the Apostles scope of urging them from a ground of parity of privileges failed; nay this had been a good argument to have taken down their pride another way, scil. that the members of that Church had their children with them, in a glorious manner baptized in the cloud and sea, yet God dealt so with them in his judgments, and you Corinthians that have nothing any way parallel to such a baptism of your children, do you think to escape?

Object. 1.

But you will say there is no proportion betwixt them, in that this was no Sacrament at all, but an extraordinary providence.

Answ.

An ordinary Sacrament it was not, but a Sacrament it was though extraordinary.

SECT. XV.

FIrst, in that the other of the Manna and rock was not else spiritual meat and drink, and Christ to many of them really; it was then Sacramentally so, or no way to them. Secondly, why else doth the Apostle single out but these two; to the one giving the name of baptism, to the other of spiritual meat and drink and Christ agreeable to that mentioned in the end of this argument? verse. 16, 17. Thirdly, why else doth he having mentioned their being under the cloud verse. 1. come over it again, verse. 2. and add the name of baptism to it? It were a tautology if intending it of a bare providence. Fourthly, else the Apostle had much failed in his scope of deterring the members of this Church, considered as such, from Church sins and wantonness under and against Church privileges. Fifthly, else why is not the same ascribed to all the rest, to the mixed multitude which were with them, yea to the very beasts? for all shared in this as a providence, all passed thorough the Sea with them, &c. yet none but the Church have this ascribed to them; All our fathers were under the cloud and baptized, &c. the Church fathers to Paul and Gentile Church members (as such) were those Jew Church members: whether parents or children; the very babes, as then, yet in respect of after ages of the Church, to whom afterwards they were Instruments to convey Church truths and blessings, they were fathers; Paul spake this to the brethren of the Church, yet not excluding the sisters, but including them in his admonition and argument; but it's usual, that Church admonitions and Epistles do run in the name of the brethren, as being principal actors in all Church matters, and hence also, albeit the females of the Jew Church as such be by proportion included in this matter of Church privilege, yet he nameth only the males; but only members of the Church did share in it in that respect. Sixthly, hence also the phrase, baptized into Moses, not personally but ministerially considered in his doctrine; he gave them from God both a precept for it and a promise encouraging to it: or into Moses typically considered, as a type of Christ, Act. 3. 22.

Object. 2.

Was not this only a type of saving preservation from sin, &c.

Answ.

All the Corinthians had no antitype thereof in their baptism really, no more then many of them, and in a Sacramental way, that baptism to them was as that to the Corinthians, a visible seal of salvation.

Object. 3.

Doth he not speak of a sameness therein betwixt the Jews themselves, and not in reference to the members of the Church of Corinth?

Answ.

The scope of the Apostle being what was mentioned, will not bear other sense then of comparing them with the Jews in like privilege for substance, to deter them from like sins, lest they incur like punishments.

Object. 4.

By this argument we set up national Churches now.

Answ.

No more followeth hence, ex natura rei, but, as only Church members according to their several capacities were so privileged and not others: so only Church members now are to partake of Church Ordinances, we are to consider it herein quà Church, which is continuing, and not quà national Church, wherein was some circumstantial peculiaritie which vanished.

Object. 5.

You may then plead for Infants coming to the Lord's Supper, since all our Fathers did eat of that spiritual meat and drink of the rock, &c.

Answ.

The least male child of a day old, or two or three hours old at that instant (of which there were many scores its likely in that numerous Church) were in respect of succeeding Churches, fathers; yet none will imagine the word (all) to take them in, in the latter: as if they gave them water out of the rock to drink, or Manna cakes to eat so young; but a Synecdoche must needs be yielded therein: So I say (all) in the former is taken, for all the fathers simply; but in the latter for all Synecdochically: or for all such which were capable of making a spiritual use thereof.

SECT. XVI.

TO draw to a Conclusion, one argument more used by A. R. and which is Mr. B. his first argument against Paedobaptism, would be cleared it stands thus, the Baptism of Christ is dipping, the Baptism of Infants is not dipping, ergo, the Baptism of Infants is not the Baptism of Christ. Now what he meaneth by dipping, he showeth in his answer to that of washing of cups, &c. which saith he is not by sprinkling but dipping, yea not only dipping but total dipping, washing all over. The weakness of the Minor we shall consider in the latter end, and beginning with his Major. The Major of this Syllogism is fallacious, for baptism of Christ is washing, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 3. 21. and washing is as well by sprinkling, or pouring on of water, yea Christ's Baptism is such a washing as is in way of pouring out or sprinkling. Hence Tit. 3. 5. washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost, which he hath poured out on us, Vers. 6. Greek, and in urging their proof from the difference of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth sprinkling properly, Heb. 9. 13. 19 21. they forget how the holy Ghost termeth all those divers sprinklings, Vers. 10. namely divers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which are after named in the followings, Ver. scil. sprinkling the blood of Bulls, &c. Vers. 10. 13. 19. 21. compared. So then by the interpretation of the holy Ghost which is more then a thousand Authors, baptisms are sprinklings, and sprinklings are baptisms. Hence speaking to the enchurched Hebrews, as alluding to their legal sprinklings, he calleth baptism, baptisms ( Heb. 6.) in the plural number; yet Ephes. 4. there is but one baptism: & it's observable how the Author to the Hebrews in speaking of baptism alludeth and relateth to their legal baptisms or sprinklings, and therefore calleth them baptisms. Now who knoweth not, that children were sprinkled with that typical blood as well as others, to note the necessity of the sprinklings of them also with that blood? Yea since the Hebrews in Church estate; for such they were, witness that Heb. 10. 24, 25. and 13. 17. had such baptism amongst them of persons suitable to the legal baptisms with blood, why should not we conclude baptizing of their children too as well as of grown persons to be in use with them according to the type of that ceremonial sprinkling?

A. R. his reason makes rather against him too, if [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] joined with baptism signify [in] and never [with] then baptizing (saith he) must be dipping and not sprinkling. To which I reply, if [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] joined with baptizing, signify [with] and not [in] then by way of contrary, baptizing is sprinkling and not dipping: now in the very places quoted by A. R. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 put after the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth [with] and not [in] Matth. 3. 11. He shall baptize you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with the holy Ghost and with fire, and not in it; which is expounded by Acts 11. 16, 17. the holy Ghost fell on them, and Acts 1. 5. compared with 2. 17. it is expounded by pouring out of the Spirit; nay Luke in mentioning the very sign, leaveth out [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] Luke 3. 16. and Acts 11. 16. I baptize you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which (if grammatically rendered) is not [in] but [with] water. Besides, it's most suitable to Sacramental actions: which are signs to hold proportion to the thing signified; wherefore also it is so rendered in mentioning the signatum; hence mention is made of sprinkling the Nations by Christ, Isaiah 52. 15. and of the blood of sprinkling, Heb. 12. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 2. See more Ezek 35. 25, 26. Isaiah 43. 3, 4. Joel 2. with Acts 2. Sprinkling or pouring of water most fitly expresseth the main thing properly signified and sealed visibly 〈◊〉 baptism, scil. first grace; wherein the Spirit applieth, not us to the Word, or to Christ, (as in dipping the party is applied to the water, and not the water to him) but the Word and Christ to us, as first in order of nature, 1 Cor. 12. 13.

Object.

But baptizing is burying with Christ?

Answ.

It is not necessary the resemblance should hold fully unless as none is buried before they are dead, so we should be first dead with Christ in baptism, and then afterwards buried, which if in baptism too, and so to be twice baptized; but if the allusion be urged, it is for us rather, we use not to bury men by throwing them down with their faces downward, as when persons are dived with their faces under water, but by laying them in with their faces upwards; nor do we plunge them into the dust and earth, but pour and sprinkle dust and broken earth upon them. When Christ was baptized of John in Jordan it's said he went down, &c. but was he therefore by John dived into the water? Yes say you, what in his clothes? then his clothes too were baptized with him, as I may say, but how then is it said he came straightway out of the water, Mark 1. 10. and verse. 1, 2. immediately the spirit drives him into the Wilderness? what in that dung wet case as we say, is that probable? Luke saith, Chap. 3. 21. when all the people were baptized, he also was baptized: women also then were baptized openly, for it was a Church action, and if they were dived were they not stripped? how improbable is it that they were ducked in all their clothes, & if they were stripped in whole or in part, would Christ be present at such immodest spectacles? That women were baptized by John, see Matth. 21. 31. 32. compared with Luke 7. 39. and Matth. 3. 4, 5, 6. Nicephorus his story, lib. 13. chap. 19. of the flying of the women naked being beset with armed men as they were to be baptized; and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a woman when to be baptized; besides the sad plunges which they were of old put to, when they took up this course of diving baptized persons in such sort, witness that order of the fourth Carthage council, Can. 4. touching widows baptizing of women and other like acts mentioned in Justinian, besides the mischief of restraining baptism to certain times of the year in cold countries, and sundry other sad consequences of such a course, might be propounded, but thus much for the Major. The Minor of Mr. Bs. Syllogism is weak also; since some which hold paedobaptism, yet baptize by dipping; therefore we shall thus retort Mr. Bs. Syllogism. Baptism by dipping is the baptism of Christ: but with sundry Ministers, baptism of Infants is baptism by dipping; therefore with them at least, baptism of Infants is the baptism of Christ: so contradictory are Mr. Bs. reasonings to his own principles. And thus much be spoken from the solid grounds of Scripture to that part of the controverted case touching Infants Baptismal Right.

CHAP. I. Sect. I. General consideration of the eight Propositions.

HAving seen before what defensive and offensive weapons the Armory of the Scripture affords us, for the just vindication of the controverted Title of the little ones of enchurched visible believers unto the Covenant and Baptism, the initiatory seal thereof, the globe of contention is again cast by sundry, and a challenge is made, that laying by a little those spiritual weapons of our warfare (which indeed are mighty through God to cast down all the specious Logismes, reasonings of the sons of men against Christ in the doctrine of his free grace and Covenant and initiatory seal thereof) we should try it out at other weapons, even human testimonies and authorities. And besides other darings of us this way; the Author or Authors of that Pamphlet entitled The plain and well grounded treatise concerning Baptism, give out great words this way, and even conclude the victory before the fight. For my own part I must confess myself a very puny, and too too unskillful at such weapons; yet I shall (God willing) adventure to accept the challenge, and make a little trial of their skill; not doubting, but when an essay shall be made albeit by a learner, there will be some able seconds to take up the cause when I have laid it down.

But to leave Prefacing and fall to work.

The substance of the book is laid down in these eight Propositions.

1

That Christ commanded his Apostles and servants of the holy Ghost first of all to preach the Gospel and make Disciples, and afterwards to baptize those that were instructed in the faith, in calling upon and confessing the name of God. His proofs out of Scripture are, Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. Luke 24. 45. John 4. 1, 2. Acts 22. 16.

This proposition might pass for the most part as current, allowing a latitude in the word Disciples: and understanding it of such as were baptized merely in their own right, and taking that phrase, calling upon the name of God, as not always the present act of the persons baptized at the instant of their baptism, but rather of the Minister baptizing; nor doth the instance of Paul, Act. 22. 16. prove this latter. It being absurd even in adult persons to suppose it thus in that example of the Samaritan woman that they should in the open face of the Congregation when they were baptized make their personal and particular prayers, Acts 8. 12. or that everyone of those 3000. baptized that day, Acts 2. 41. made their several prayers; for if it wer • essential to the Ordinance to make such personal prayers; since there is no stint how long, or how much they should utter in calling upon God's name, the Apostles had need to have spoken severally to them, that you must not be long, the time is short, and if they had taken that pains, yet many days would have been needful to such a work: It was not possible to be dispatched that very day. As for the other Scriptures they have been else-where considered.

The second Proposition that the Apostles and servants of the Holy Ghost have according to the Commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ, first of all taught, and then afterwards those that were instructed in the mysteries of the Kingdom of God were baptized upon the confession of their faith. Proofes out of Scripture, 1 Cor. 1. 17. How this is a Proof I see not, for if he always preached before he baptized, it might easily have been replied, Yes Paul if God sent you to baptize any he sent you also to preach, for you are to preach always to all persons that you baptize, before you do baptize them: why therefore do you say you were not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, since with the one you do the other? The other proofs, 1 Cor. 3. 6. and 4. 15. are somewhat far fetched and strained, but I will not stick there. Heb. 6. 1, 2. is as well applied by Authors, Calvin, Beza, &c. as grounds of Paedobaptism, those being the heads of Catechising, containing the sum of Christian Doctrine, scil. profession of faith and repentance, of the articles of which Doctrine an account was demanded of adult Pagans and Jews at the time of their baptism, and therefore called the Doctrine of Baptismes (alluding in the plural word to the many typical washings in use of old among the Hebrews or Jews) but from baptized Infants the same was called, for when they were solemnly admitted to full Church Communion and declared so to be by the Elders, commending them therein to God by prayer. And hence the same Doctrine is called also by the name of the Doctrine of Imposition of hands. Amongst which articles of that Doctrine two are singled out as containing the rest, scil. the resurrection of the flesh and eternal judgment; See Calvin and Beza, in Locum. His next proof, Heb. 10. 22. I let pass. In the next proof Acts 2. 36, 38. 41. I observe how craftily the 39th. Vers. is left out unmentioned, wherein the strength of argument on our part doth consist, Acts 8. 36, 37, 38. and 10. 47, 48. and 16. 31. to 34. But why is that example of Lydia here left out, and her household, but that it speaks too broadly, that albeit the Apostles sometimes required confession of some persons which they baptized, yet not always of all sorts of persons, as that one example witnesseth? His other Scripture is that Acts 18. 8. but of all these consideration is elsewhere had. This Proposition with the limitations formerly mentioned may pass, supposing it not understood exclusively, that such as they baptized were such, therefore they baptized none other but such, which is a non sequitur.

3 Proposition:

That after the Apostles time by the ancient fathers in the primitive Church, who observed and followed the Ordinance of Christ, and the example of the Apostle, the people were commonly first instructed in the mysteries of faith, and after that they were taught they were baptized upon confession of the same.

This Proposition, sano sensu, might pass also, understanding that that was the Ordinance of Christ, and practice of the Apostles so far as concerns grown persons baptism: but yet that was not all intended in the one, nor practiced by the other. And the Proposition it self implieth as much, saying commonly it was so, the people being not as now many are, in a manner wholly professing Christ, but rather wholly Pagan and Profane and Idolatrous; but always it was not so even then; for their little ones which were not brought to the faith were also baptized.

4 Proposition:

That by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, the children both of the faithful and others, were commonly first instituted in the faith, and afterwards upon acknowledging and confessing of the same they were baptized.

This Proposition is full of equivocal terms, it may not therefore pass without some Animadversions: for it may so be interpreted as to stand with truth, yet so also as to be utterly false. [Primitive Church] may be understood of the Church in the same immediately following the Apostles time, or as in some of his Authors, for the Church that succeeded more then an 100. years, yea possibly 200. or 300. afterwards. Rupertus Tiuliensis saith it was the custom of the Church of old that they administered the Sacrament of regeneration only at Easter and Pentecost, &c. which if it begun in Victors time, to whom that restraint of the time of baptism, unless in case of necessity, is attributed as the Author of it about the year 290. Albeit Rivet in his first Book Critici Sacri, cap. 8. citeth the Magdeburge historians centur. 1. cap. 8. as proving the Decretals ascribed to Victor to be spurious; or if not then, but some time in the third Century, yet it sufficeth to show in what Latitude of time Rupertus his expressions run when he speaketh of what was the use in the Church of old. And in the primitive Church, in this Latitude, it's probable there might be sundry which upon corrupt grounds might defer both their own and their children's baptism too, as appears by the Orations of Gregory Nazianzen stirring up as to come more speedily themselves to be baptized, so to offer their little ones at the most, if no danger be towards, (in which case he adviseth the same sooner) when three years old, if so long deferred, yet then to offer them to baptism, which was before they could be able to make such an acknowledgement of the faith, or confession of their sins. But more of him afterwards. [Children of the faithful] if he intend such children as were knowing and able to understand truth taught them, so as to be apprehensive of their sins, &c. It's true, they used when any were received into Church fellowship, which had such adult children at that time, those to instruct in that way before those children were baptized. But if understood of little ones not capable of such an issue and effect of such instruction, those they used also then to baptize before such instructions. And for this let the Authors own testimonies which he quoteth, Proposition 7. of Origen, Austin and Gregory the fourth witness. For we now speak not to that, whether it were only a Church custom and tradition, &c. we shall speak to that afterwards. But suppose it were only a Church custom and tradition, yet its proof sufficient that it was so anciently in use as there is mentioned, that even children were baptized before they were thus instructed, as the cited places declare, of which more hereafter.

5 Proposition:

That according to the institution of the Lord Christ, and the Apostles and ancient Fathers right use, the Teachers required faith with Baptism, and that he that was baptized must himself acknowledge and confess the same, and call upon the name of the Lord: for which Matth. 28. Mark 16. Acts 8. are again urged, of which before; so Acts 19. 2, 3, 4, 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. not now to speak how pertinently this last place especially is brought or not. The proposition if understood as adaequately expressing all that Christ ordained, or the Apostles practiced, and the Fathers after them, which baptized regularly, as if none else were baptized but such as came in such a way, is denied as false.

6 Proposition:

That Christ neither gave commandment for baptizing of children nor instituted the same, and that the Apostles never baptized any Infants: this Proposition in the terms of it is false, as before hath appeared when we proved, that a consequential command of Scripture is Christ's command, and that such a command there is for the baptism of children. The other part also, that the Apostles never baptized any Infants, is as rash and false.

7 Proposition

is of the same stamp, scil. that the baptism of Infants and sucklings is a ceremony and Ordinance▪ of man brought into the Church by Teachers since the Apostles time, and instituted and commanded by Councils, Popes and Emperors.

8 Proposition,

labors of the same Frenzie, sc. that young children or Infants ought not to be baptized, and that none ought to be brought or driven, or compelled thereunto. Proved by Scripture, Matth. 28. 19. Mark. 16. 15. These three Propositions might have been all put into one, but that the Author or Authors would speak many things; so might the other five Propositions have been reduced to fewer heads.

The unsoundness of these Proprositions in the Authors sense I hope hath been cleared to humble and pliable minds in the former discourse.

CHAP. II. SECT. I.

WEe shall now trace these Authors in their quoted Authorities.

Proposi. 1.

Jerome upon Matth. 28. 19. is quoted Proposition 1. and 8.

This whole testimony is intended by the Author of grown ones, in what way adult Pagans are to be baptized, and of their receiving of baptism, so as to have the saving benefit of it. But to make it his mind to intend exclusion of Babes is to make him work and practice things against the light of his own judgment and conscience. The Author confessing in the eight proposition, that his proofs are out of ancicient & later teachers, who have and do maintain the use of baptizing children, and Jerome is one he quoteth. As for Jerome's judgment this way, see his first Tome, his 7th. Epistle, scil. ad Laetam, where having said before that the good and evil of little children is ascribed to the parents, he addeth, He reckons that there is wickedness in it carelessly to neglect such an ordinance, that tendeth to their spiritual gain in their children's good thereby furthered. Now if Jerome thought there were no Law for children's baptism, why is there any transgression, yea so deep charged upon the neglectors of it, that it is scelus in his account? So in his second Tom. 1. 3. Dialogorum adversus Pelagianos ad finem; he proveth infants baptism to be for remission of sins, as well as for entrance into God's kingdom; so that this Authors words are wrested against his own intention.

Let us see whether the next be better dealt withal, scil. Athanasius in his third Sermon contra Arrianos:

If Athanasius had said thus in the Authors sense, yet the fallacy had still been the same to conclude à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. But let us look upon that place and weigh the words of Athanasius, there speaking of the unprofitableness and vanity of Baptism by Arians; he proceedeth thus. (the Authors render the word quovis modo by slightly ) (this clause the treatise leaveth out) that by teaching a right faith might arise (the treatise saith true faith might come) by initiation he means baptism as the words before these show. In these words. So that that speech, with the faith of Baptism the entire initiation might be perfected, is that with the faith or doctrine of faith rightly held out, the Ordinance of Baptism might be perfect or valid, which he calleth the right faith, as the words before mentioned show: So that he doth not here intend fidem quâ credit aliquis, sed fidem quam credit, he meaneth it of the object, not the habit of faith; and of the qualifications of the persons baptizing, to make their act valid, not of the parties baptized. For none will say that an hypocrites Baptism, because he hath not true faith, is not true Baptism: The essence of the Ordinance not depending upon man's faith but God's word. And that he intends no other thing as it appears by the premises, for if you take his next words following the same, it will be evident. Truly, saith he, even other heresies, and those not a few, do in seeming words pronounce that rite of baptizing, but being not right in judgment, nor retaining the sound faith, they possess and bestow an unprofitable water, as destitute of the Deity of Religion, so that they which are sprinkled by them, are rather polluted through corrupt Religion, then redeemed. Here therefore is an ancient Authors words wrested to another sense then the scope of his discourse tended, and some words left out which served to declare his meaning, and other words so palpably mistranslated that the Reader is grossly abused thereby as well as the Author.

SECT. II.

THe next testimony is of Haimo upon this Text of Matthew.

This labors of the same fallacy as that of Jerome’s testimony, à dicto secundum quid, ad simpliciter, what the Author spake in reference to Adulti, it's applied as his mind thereby to make baptism of children besides or against rule; when yet the same Author upon the 14. of Romans, speaking about the case of their dipping of children, he mentions Cyprian as practicing dipping of children in baptism but once: He looketh then at that way of baptizing Infants as a lesson which Cyprian learned of God. He then surely thought baptism it self of Infants to be taught of God, and no breach of a rule of God: We speak not this as allowing Haimo 's judgment about Immersion, and much less that of trina Immersio, but to clear the Author from that intention which the treatise would father upon him, or at least by producing the man's writings in one place, would make him against h •… s own light to write things contradictory in another: Thus is this Author and the Reader with him abused also.

SECT. III.

THe next Author cited in this Treatise is Erasmus, both upon Matth. 28. and Mark 16. to like purpose.

and Proposition 3. This later one would think might have expounded the former, that he intends it of adult Pagans, and not of others in Christian Churches, such as ours are whose foundations are already laid and established. And Proposition 6. He doth not say, it's not so much as probable nor is it to be gathered by consequence that they did so: wherefore his testimony is no proof that the Apostles never did baptize Infants, because it's never mentioned expressly. It's never expressly said, that I remember, that the Apostles or Evangelists when they Baptized those in Acts 2. and 8. and 16. 18. that they called upon God for a blessing upon the Ordinance, but will it follow that they did not sanctify the Ordinance by Prayer? Proposition 7. he is quoted as a proof of that Proposition, Lib. 4. de ration concion. saying Here the Authors use their old art of subtraction and addition. His words are thus. The first speech of Erasmus is wholly left out, which is cross both to that peremptory if not impudent conclusion expressed in the 6th. Proposition, and this set down in the 7th. if even Erasmus his judgment be adhered to, for if it be probable that Paedobaptism was of Apostolical institution, then it is not so peremptorily and with such plerophory to be asserted that it was never ordained of Christ, or practiced by the Apostles, but is an ordinance of man. And whereas it is rendered, and think that the same is to be received inter placita Scholasticorum, &c. there is no such connection or expression. But it is a distinct sentence. With the same moderation, &c. many School tenets are to be received, &c. scil. they are also not to be condemned which doubt of some School tenets which are not so express and clear from Scripture. He doth not say that Baptism of of Infants is to be thought placitum Scholasticorum, but speaks of other instances of things probable. Nor doth he speak of bare School Notions which have no bottom at all in Scripture, and which cannot at all be proved from the Scripture as the Treatise saith; which cannot be proved, but which cannot evidenter probari per Scripturas. True it is, Henry Den he saith that Bellarmine taxeth Erasmus with that opinion of denying children's Baptism; but in Erasmus his preface to his Paraphrase on Matthew, he rather condemneth the carelessness of Priests, in so much that many Christians are in respect of knowledge rather as Pagans; and at best are rather in titles, customs, and ceremonies Christians then indeed: And adviseth that children after they have been baptized, and come to riper years, that they be well instructed in what their sureties have promised for them, and called to account how they profit thereby, and whether they do avouch and own the promise made by their sureties, and if so, then at some time or other that they in the open Congregation expressing it, be then with some solemnity approved. And if they reject this motion, then to be debarred the Eucharist, until they change their mind: So that he seemeth not to disallow Paedobaptism, but carelessness afterwards. This I speak that none may be rendered worse then they are, be they Papists or others. Albeit I would not much weigh the expressions of Papists this way, to whom bare Church traditions are equivalent to Scripture commands, express or virtual.

SECT. IIII.

THe next Author is Bullinger in his Decads expounding Matth. •… 28. Docete omnes Gentes, &c. make Disciples of all Nations, &c. What then doth Bullinger intend baptizing Infants as not here enjoined? Nay in the place quoted in his Decades of Sermons, Tom. 5. Decad. 5. Serm. 8. he brings this as an Argument for Paedobaptism, God hath commanded to baptize all Nations, and therefore Infants, for these are comprehended in the words all Nations. Bullinger is again cited as a Testimony for the proof of the second Proposition in the same place speaking upon the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 1.

For the Lord commanded his Apostles both to preach and to administer the Sacraments. Bullingers words are, That clause is expounded, but that teaching should go before baptism, &c. Here I want my construing book; but I will follow my translators; sed quod, but that, doctrina, teaching, praeferret should go before — Risum teneatis amici? But if the translators had learned common rules and read the place, they would have clearly discerned Bullingers meaning to be far wide from their purpose, scil. To prove rather the priority of the Gospel to baptism in dignity and excellency, then in order of dispensation. For besides that the common Grammar construction of that passage, sed quod doctrinam praeferret, will bear no sense so well as that mentioned, his words immediately preceding also clear the same. And it is yet more strange that this which Bullinger brings as his third Argument to prove Paedobaptism to be of God, the Authors of this Pamphlet bring as a testimony to their purpose against Baptism; for Bullinger subjoins to the words before: As for Bullingers expressions out of Austin, contra Iulianū quoted in the 7th. Proposition they prove that the Carthaginian council did indeed ratify Baptism, but not that it came in first by that council. Nay the testimony cited of Austin against the Donatists, lib. 4. cap. 23, 24. useth that as an argument, that it was of Divine authority, because not instituted by any councils. And Origen's testimony there cited, Proposi. 7. proveth it to be in his time, which was 200. years before that Carthage council, in the time of Innocent the first: Yea Origen proveth it to be at least a Church custom long before from the time of the Apostles. Bullingers testimony in his Decads as proving the 7th. Proposition, scil. that Paedobaptism is an human ordinance (when in that very Sermon of his there quoted in this Treatise, he by many arguments from Scripture proveth it to be of divine authority) is also abused, and shamefully misconstrued and perverted, as is evident. The next is Beza who is also quoted Proposition 7. in his annotations upon Matth. 28. 19. for they are Beza 's words, Invocato nomine Patris, &c. And these Translators should have done well to have rendered the Latin properly. But all is in the meaning of the words. The authors of the Treatise urge it for a proof of the persons bapzed calling actually upon the name of God, when they are baptized according to Christ's institution, & bring Beza for their proof. Quaeritur therefore whether ever Beza intended that in his words. Surely no, for it's known well that Beza stoutly maintaineth Paedobaptism as an ordinance of Christ. Now Infants when they are baptized cannot actually call upon the name of God; therefore if Beza say the former, that the rule of Christ requireth it of all that are to be baptized according to his mind, that they should call upon God at the time of their Baptism; he must affirm the later against his own light and conscience; which to do with so much deliberation as he that writeth things upon study must do, were a crime of a very high nature, and God forbid any should charge so worthy a light in the Church with that.

SECT. V.

BEza is again cited for confirmation of the third Proposition in his Annotations upon Matth. 3. 6.

which how different from that of these translators let others judge. It followeth in the book, Those words before Baptism, and that reason annexed, for in that the Sacraments, &c. is not in my book, scil. Beza 's Annotationes majores in N. Test. Printed Anno. 1594. But to return to the testimony, Beza intended that John baptized no other of that species of persons Adult, then such as made that confession — but not simply the Baptism of any other persons of another sort, scil. babes; he that is so careful that any should take advantage to deny that children are not rightly baptized, because not dived wholly under water, that he the rather (as he saith upon Matth. 3. 11.) doth note such things about the particle [In] omitted Luke 3. 16. surely he intended not, by affirming such things in reference to Johns hearers thereby to exclude children's Baptism. Hence that added that such confession was required of the Catechumens in the ancient Church. Now then what manner of persons they were which he affirmeth made such confession of old, such like persons for age he here intendeth. And no more doth he intend exclusion of Infants from Baptism, by affirming the necessity of confession in Johns hearers unto Baptism, then by affirming that the same was required of those Catechumens mentioned. Let us then see Beza 's mind further therein, which we may readily do in the third place of Beza quoted in this Treatise Proposition 4. where Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now your children are holy, he is thus cited as saying: And this testimony is brought to prove the Proposition that in the primitive Church the children both of the faithful and else ( scil. and of Pagans or Jews) were commonly first instructed, &c. and then baptized; so that Beza 's mind in that clause, whereas everyone ought to be instructed, &c. is made, and every child whether of the faithful or Infidel should be first instructed before he be baptized, and in that sense, his second error he blames of such which permit all children to be baptized, is as much as if he should intend it as an error to permit any children at all whether of faithful or infidel persons to be baptized before instructed: So that Beza is by this made a direct Andipedobaptist, as they term it now for modesty sake. But you shall not have Beza thus on your side before we hear him in his own words, who having before spoken touching the cause, why we admit the Saints children to baptism, scil. because they are comprehended in the Covenant, &c. he addeth, ( scil. whether of visible Saints or Infidels as appears by what he said before, and by what followeth, which thing ( scil. such promiscuous baptizing of all sorts hand over head) Beza refuteth three things from that clause mentioned and explained — now your children are holy, and one of them is this fourth Proposition of the Authors, and yet by the Authors he is brought to refute only two things. First, he refuteth Catabaptists denying baptism to believers children. Secondly, he from the same ground refuteth them which maintain the baptism of all children whatsoever, scil. that are not children of visible Saints, for if they be such children he counteth it rather an error to deny their baptism. Again in citing the last part of Beza 's words, the Authors craftily make it as an opposite sentence to that before. Thus secondly, those that permit all children to be baptized, &c. whereas everyone, &c. as if it were a contrary speech to the former, permitting (all) children, &c. whereas none (at all) were to be baptized of old, but such as were Catechumens: when Beza maketh this later a reason of the former, as before we shown. Besides the Authors shamefully change and mutilate the last words: whereas everyone ought, &c. intending every particular person, Infant or Aged, when Beza 's words are expressly — in that all adult Infidels ought first to be Catachumens before they were to be baptized. Now who is there which doth not even feel this palpable guile and falseshood in the setters forth of this Treatise in this particular? But not to forget what we noted touching Beza 's other testimony on Matth. 3. this place cleareth Beza 's intent. There speaking of adult persons it may be affirmed such must be as the Catechumens of old in point of confession before baptism, and yet the same Author never intend by that assertion to exclude children of such as do make such confession of faith and repentance from baptism. Beza which holdeth this forth here, yet here also refuteth that as error in Catabaptists to deny Paedobaptism: So that still here is the old fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter dictum.

SECT. VI.

THe next Author quoted Proposition 1. scil. Strigelius upon Acts the 8th.

I have not, and therefore cannot examine the same: Albeit this sano sensu hinders not us; in that when parents offer their children to baptism, the name of the Lord Jesus is confessed and acknowledged.

The next testimony is of Luther, Proposition 1. whereupon Gen. 48. he is said to affirm —

and in another place as quoting Heb. 2. 4. Rom. 1. 17. Heb. 10. 38. Mark 16. 28. Act. 8. 36. and Rom. 10. 10. to prove that and Proposition 3. he is quoted again in his book of the Civil Magistrates as speaking like words, and saying, And Proposition 5. Luther upon giving and receiving the Sacrament, Tom. 3. is said to write, and Proposition 7. in his book of Anabaptism, he is said to acknowledge, that This place also doth A. R. quote in his second part of childish baptism, pag. 8. And Proposition 8. Luther is again quoted as speaking thus in his Postils. Now as for these testimonies of Luther, I not having nor being able to procure near hand the sight of all his Tomes, I shall not be so able to discover the legerdemaine which I verily suspect in citing his testimonies as well as those of some others. Yet Luther's meaning in the words mentioned Proposition 1. may well be expounded by that mentioned Proposition 3. and so according to his judgment rather establishing Paedobaptism then weakening it; for he holdeth that God at present, when they are baptized, worketh faith in them, and therefore the rather such are to be baptized. Luther in his 4th. Tome expounding that Hos. 12. 3. Another answer of his see in his second Tome, lib. de captiv. Babyl. title of baptism. He saith (having spoken before of faith as requisite to the application of the promise) For conformation whereof he brings that example, Mark 2. 3, 4, 5. And in his 7th. Tome in his Homily of baptism, he reckons that — to which saith Luther — ( scil. albeit grown ones, when baptized if then hypocrites.) As for Luther's other two speeches mentioned Proposition 7. and 8. I somewhat wonder if he should utter them as here expressed, that in that book styled Lutheri Antilutherana opera fratris Joan. Apobolymaei alias Findeling Minoritae, they are not mentioned; the scope of the book being to gather up all Luther's (seeming) contradictions. And he instanceth in the other de captiv. Babyl. before mentioned; it's strange that he misseth those if thus written, since it's evident both by that expression in Luther's greater Catechism, Tom. 3. when he saith, So in that famous story of the concord between Luther and the Divines which followed him, and the Divines of upper Germany at a meeting at Wittinberg, Anno 1536. according to a certain form of Articles of agreement together with the explication thereof annexed by Martin Bucer, and after the agreement subscribed, about the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper: the next Article to be so composed and explained to all their content was that about baptism. The Article was this: The explication of the Article annexed. unto which as to the rest subscribed Martinus Lutherus, Doctor Witebergensis, Johannes Bugenhagius Pomeranus, Doctor Philippus Melanchthon, Justus Menius Isenacensis, &c. And on the other side M. Martinus Bucerus Minister Ecclesiae Argentinensis, Wolsangus Musculus ecclesiae Augustanae Minister in verbo, and divers others. I have set down this story the fuller as it's mentioned amongst Bucer's works in that I shall have frequent occasion to refer to it.

But to return to Luther, he is one that holdeth baptism not simply necessary to salvation, as that without which one cannot be saved, (as is further expressed in the explication of that Article) but as necessary unto Infants by virtue of divine precept. Surely if he had no scruple in this point, as it's said all agreed herein without doubting, &c. he never imagined that which the Authors of this Treatise would make him to affirm, that baptism of Infants came in four or five hundred years after Christ's time as an institution of Popes or councils.

I might have mentioned that passage of Luther's (to the former two testimonies touching faith required to baptism) which he hath in his Preface to his Commentary upon the Galatians.

But this is certain that Luther taking the Doctrine of baptism of Infants as unquestionable rather argueth thence to prove that Infants have faith (which was a tenet of his own) then that faith is required in them to their baptism. Thus Infants unless that they have faith it will be said they are not to be baptized, but all grant that Infants are to be baptized, therefore Infants have faith.

CHAP. III. SECT. I.

BEda is the next Author cited Proposition 2. upon Acts 19. as speaking thus:

I looked on the place, and there is no such thing there, and supposing it might be misquoted, I looked him upon the 9. 16. 18. yea 2. and 8th. (as well as my time would permit) and I could find no such testimony of Beda 's, so that this is a forged testimony. And as for Beda 's judgment in the case; in this second Tome lib. 4. fol. 50. expounding the place, Mark 16. qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur —

SECT. II.

AUgustinus is the next quoted Author, and first Austin ad Salcotinanum is cited Proposition 2. as speaking that

As Peter saith to the Jews Acts 2. &c. but as for the name of the Book or Epist. I find not. The Authors or Printers I suppose mistake the name; I find reference made in the Decretals set forth by Petrus Albignanus Trecius (for as for those set forth by Gratian, I neither have them nor can meet with them) unto Austin ad Salectinanum, as using these expressions, Omnis qui jam suae voluntatis, &c. If there be any other passage of that nature as is mentioned in this book of Austin's, yet by this his intention therein is cleared. Among Austin's Epistles I cannot light of any such under that name mentioned there in his 108. Epist. Seleucianae, but that rather doth strengthen then weaken the Ordinance of Paedobaptism.

Augustine is cited again in confirmation of the 4th. Proposition in his Sermon ad Neophytos, that is, say these Authors Juniores or young men, but they misunderstand the word. It is neither of the single words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but its compounded of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and as for one whom they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is according to Soudas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, one that is newly coming from Gentilism (or Judaism, saith Cornelius à Lapide ) and having embraced the Christian Religion is by baptism planted into the Church of God, albeit neither yet sufficiently established in the doctrine of the faith, nor so fully approved in life. The like description others give of such in reference to 1 Tim. 3. 6. but to come to the matter of the testimony which is as followeth

and what of all this? because persons which were converted from Paganism, or Judaism, were asked such questions, therefore none other were baptized but such, and in such a way; non sequitur: or because this was commanded by Christ, therefore this was all he commanded in Mark 28. 19. it followeth not. Austin who was of another mind never imagined such a conclusion would ever be drawn from his words. The author not naming the Sermon nor the season when preached, I will make bold to help out therein, that such Sermons used to be preached at Easter, one of the solemn times then set for baptizing of persons; but that it may appear that only such were not then in the assembly, albeit the grown persons were those to whom especially such speeches were directed; compare this with that of Austin in his 4. Serm. in octav. Paschae adneophytos, where he saith, And these old men, young men, striplings, all are also Infants. By this testimony we may perceive a larger interpretation of the word Neophytos, scil. any one newly planted into the Church, whether Infant, youth or other, any one who was as new borne Sacramentally in baptism of what age soever. And that at the solemnity of Easter and Pentecost: Of which Rupertus and Boemius speak, baptism of Infants was not brought in for mortalities sake upon the change of the old use of baptism at Easter, and Pentecost, but was in use while yet those limited times stood, and long before, this corrupt use of limiting the time of baptism was in force, of which more anon. Yet also this I deny not but that corrupt addition to Paedobaptism being in use in those times of asking questions to the child by the sureties, &c. this answer might suffice that even Infants too were in that number of young plants mentioned, which did answer as is there said by their sureties.

Austin is again quoted for proof of the 7th. Proposition, de baptismo contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. & de Genesi ad literam lib. 10. cap. 23. now then let us examine what Augustine saith there, and how pertinent a proof it is of the proposition, he calleth it there, saith the Treatise,

— and thence concludes by the witness but let us hear Austin speak for himself at the first hand, and not take a report of his words at second hand, lest it prove a slander: thus he speaketh in the former place, and immediately (Chap. 24.) addeth — where first in the very place quoted he saith not, that it was a tradition of the Church only, or from the Church, but was delivered to the Church: and least any should imagine that this was delivered to the Church by any corrupt teachers since the Apostles times, Austin in the next Chapter within five or six lines of that in the 23. Chapter mentioned, giveth his arguments to prove that it could not be delivered to the Church, but by Apostolical authority; first, in that it was never instituted by any councils; secondly, because it was ever held by the Churches, scil. since there was any Church planted by the Apostles: and I think his arguments are weighty, other things which were of such note (as this of Paedobaptism was if innovations) either they may be proved that they came in by such or such councils or authors, or it may be proved, that there was never any such thing in use before such or such a time, which in this case will be hard for any to undertake to make the same good by convincing testimonies or arguments.

But to return to our Authors, they bring in this testimony to prove that baptism of Infants was instituted by councils, what forgery is this? they make him their witness to prove it to be an ordinance of man, the witness proveth that it's of divine authority: What notable juggling is this? Will they never leave this trade? Let us examine the other place where Austin saith that it is a Church custom, if our Authors speak truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the place quoted, the words there are as followeth,

Yery good then will they say, this place is full for us. Nay stay Sirs, be not too hasty to interrupt the witness, whilst he is speaking; let him speak all he hath here to say, scil. nor were it at all to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical tradition, &c. and that in the other place quoted, is of Divine authority he makes account, which is delivered to the Church by the Apostles. As indeed it is, unless that any think that the Apostles in their Apostolical ministry erred, and delivered that to the Church, as the mind, meaning and intent of Christ, which he never meant. And Austin hath the very same words, as here in his third Epistle ad Yolusiam: Nay lest there should be any stick in the words, traditum ab Apostolis, and Apostolical tradition, he peremptorily affirmeth, (speaking of the Churches authority in this case of Paedobaptism) lib. 1. de peccat. merit. & remiss. cap. 16 —

But our Authors here will not leave Austin thus, but they will make him speak for them ere they have done, therefore he is quoted again in the 28th. Epistle to Jerome, to confirm their 7th. Proposition; Content, we will hear anything he can say. What saith Austin there? Nay pag. 32. our Authors are silent, and only quote the place, not the words, and leave us to find the sense out, as Nebuchanezzar did his dream and them to interpret it. But let me assure them Austin doth rather confirm the contrary, in that Epistle, then otherwise; clearing both the spiritual ends of Christian parents, in hastening with their children to Baptism: and ratifying Cyprians judgment touching the case of Paedobaptism, that he therein did not frame some new decree, but held the most firm belief of the Church that way. And possibly the Authors by adding this testimony of Austin to that of Cyprians Epistle, and on this say, that Cyprian ordained children should be baptized, they bring this to confirm it, which doth indeed confirm it, that Cyprian held this, and ratified this — but not as the first Author of it, (which perhaps the Treatise would make the world believe) but rather as that which the Christian Church had ever firmly believed. According as Austin in his 10th. Sermon of the words of the Apostle speaking of Paedobaptism, saith,

Yea but pag. 33. our authors ci • e some words of his in his 28th. Epistle to Jerome, and to the same purpose Austin and the Bishops of the Milevitan council, wrote, as condemning such as think Infants can be saved, without Baptism. All this if they intend it, of the necessity of Baptism in respect of God's precept, in opposition to contempt and neglect: and of salvation promised in such sort, as with reference to this, as one ordinary help and seal thereof, leaving extraordinary ways and secrets to the Lord; Charity would think favourably of their words, especially since as much in effect is in this sense held forth, Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. But be it that Austin superadded his own Stubble and Straw, yet that hinders not, but the bottom and foundation of that Ordinance was good and sure; you will not say because Papists hold baptism to be of necessity to salvation, that therefore baptism of grown persons is no Ordinance. That other speech of Austin's — that as those were circumcised which were borne of circumcised parents, even so should they be baptized which are borne of parents that are baptized, is sound and good, and no proof of that 7th. Proposition, that Paedobaptism is an human Ordinance. Thus we see Austin hath sped no better then his neighbors.

SECT. III.

MElancton is the next witness, who is called in to give evidence to confirm the 2d. 6th. and 7th. Proposition. I am sorry that these books cited are not at hand, so that I cannot so well discover the ill dealing, which I suspect; upon the 1 Cor. 11. 15. he is said to affirm;

For baptism is a Sacramental sign of repentance. It's evident that Melanchthon here speaks of the baptism of grown ones; those in the Church which had repented were baptized — and so in like case of baptizing adult persons, repentance should not be separated from baptism. But to Melanchthon himself, it is a non sequitur, that therefore Infants ought not to be baptized, because they cannot repent; witness the answer he maketh in his Common places unto that objection against Paedobaptism. Loco de Baptismo Infantum. It is most true saith he, As for that definition of Baptism, that it is a Sacramental sign of repentance it is imperfect, nor yet will it follow thence, that none else should be baptized, but such as actually repent; no more then in that circumcision was a sign of Heart circumcision, and therefore of repentance, Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Deut. 30. 6. that none but adult persons were fit to be circumcised.

Melanchthon is again quoted Proposition 6. for saying there is

And if he did say thus, doth this prove, that there is no command at all, because not plain or express, scil. in so many words: you shall baptize children? there is a command to be deduced from Scripture, by necessary consequence, in Melanctons judgment; witness the four arguments which he draws from necessary consequence of Scripture to prove it, Loco de Baptismo Infantum: and witness his hand subscribed at Wittenburg, amongst others, to that Article with its explication touching Paedobaptism, as necessary in respect of divine command, as before we mentioned, Proposition 7. Melanchthon in his answer to the Anabaptists Articles is quoted, but no words mentioned, that he should speak, unless the Authors cite him for mentioning the story of Cyprian and the other Bishops determinations about Paedobaptism, which were impertinent, in as much as Origen is here quoted for saying, that Paedobaptism was a tradition of the Church. Now Origen was before Cyprian, and the Church whose tradition it's supposed Origen saith it was, was long before Origen, so that Cyprian did not first ordain Infants Baptism, the Authors themselves being Judges. I have not that book of Melanctons, and I cannot divine what his words were, unless they were mentioned. And I wonder if they were for their purpose, they set them not down. I conclude then of Melanctons testimonies, as of the rest, that they are wrested.

CHAP. IIII. SECT. I.

IUstin Martyr (as the Authors of ignorance, or the Printer by oversight calls Justin Martyr ) in his oration ad Antoninum Pium;

— Mr. Blackwood addeth — that of Justin also, Now whereas the Treatise brings this to prove the third Proposition, that the people were commonly first instructed, and then baptized, &c. Mr Blackwood is more peremptory in that matter, making this testimony contrary, and so inconsistent with any other testimony in the questions ascribed to Justine, and concludeth hence, that in Justines time Paedobaptism was not in the world. Let us therefore consider whether this apology and that which is recorded in it, be so demonstrative a proof of such a conclusion.

— that proveth that all such persons were received to Baptism, but what? Ergo, none but such were baptized? non sequitur. It's said, Rom. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of Lord shall be saved, therefore all such shall be saved: True, but not ergo none other shall be saved. For Mr. Blackwood grants Infants may be saved. One might better have concluded from Justins speech in that apology — — moderation, love, righteousness, &c. that they believed that God loved no Infants, for they could not imitate — God in justice and love, &c. yet I suppose Mr. Blackwood would be loath to think so of those believers in Justins time. And so when he there saith: therefore they had learned, that the kingdom of glory belonged to no Infants: For they could not live so: here Mr. B. will not think that exclusive particle [only] concluding against babes, to whom he holdeth the kingdom of glory doth belong, and why then is a particle far less exclusive, so conclusive against Infants? When Justin in that Apology cometh to speak of the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper — he saith, but he saith not so in the other — none but such as believe what we teach to be true, &c. are washed or baptized, &c. Mr. B. might have considered that the occasion of this Apology was to take off aspersions cast upon grown Christians, as for their babes they were not eyed by the adversaries, as capable subjects of such crimes charged on their Parents. Hence that speech in this Apology — So that it were impertinent to mention their religious way of devoting and offering up their children to God, they were not accused, no apology is needed for them; but it's meet to apologize only for the persons accused, and declare what manner of persons they are, and how they devote themselves to higher and holier uses, &c.

Let the reasons be weighed which Justin here urged, why they baptized persons adult, and with him that urgeth those for reasons, it enforceth more then probable grounds to convince, that Baptism of their Infants was in use. For having spoken of that their being new borne, as they were, (that is Baptized) he gives these two things as reasons: Dixit enim Christus, Nisi renati fueritis, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum; & adds — rationem ejus rei hanc accepimus ab Apostolis, quoniam prima nativitas, nec scientibus, nec volentibus nobis ex complexu parentum, humoreque, genitali, &c. First, the necessity of regeneration in and by Baptism (as the ordinary way.) [For so he understands John 3. 5. whether rightly or no, I dispute not, but to him it was so and that sufficeth.] Secondly, the native pollution and original sin (for that he intends by nativity] received from their parents; which are reasons valid as well for baptism of Infants as grown ones too, and with any, to whom they are reasons for Baptism, and are the very reasons used by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, and others, whose judgment was for baptism of Infants, as well as adult persons.

Yea but there is no mention made here of Infants baptism, no nor was it suitable to the occasion of the Apology, as we said before, and yet it followeth not, that it was not practiced then, because not expressed. Mr. B. saith, he sets down here the practice of the Church, both for word, prayer and administration of the Sacraments, and that ex professo. Yet Mr. B. may perceive that there is no mention of any doctrinal instructions held out at the baptizing of persons, or at the administration of the Lord's Supper, occasioned by the joining of new members to them at other times. Afterwards indeed when he cometh to speak of the manner of their carrying it on the Lord's day, he mentioneth something that way, but nothing in speaking of occasional meetings for solemn closing with baptized persons at other times. Yet I think Mr. B. would be loath to conclude the word was not taught, when the Sacraments were administered to any. If he omit a thing which is professo, he was to mention, what wonder if he pass over in silence a matter of which he had not then occasion to speak? Tertullian de corona militis saith almost as much in substance as Justin, and it is as well urged against Paedobaptism, because he saith, when we come together to the water, we do promise there to renounce the Devil, &c. Yet it is evident Baptism of Infants was in use in his time; why else doth he condemn it, and would not have their Susceptors run hazards by becoming sureties for them? So that this is but a fallacious way of concluding à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. Something more we shall add of Justin occasionally afterwards.

SECT. II.

RAbanus is the next witness to Propos. 3. which saith

he was Anno 840. when none questions the constant use of Paedobaptism, and so the intent is not touching what is to go before their baptism, but what was to precede the baptism of Pagans or Jews turned to the faith. Rabanus de institution Clericorum hath that passage of the 4th. Carthage Council; These are no contraries but may very well stand together with Rabanus, that those that are to be baptized be so prepared thereto, scil. if adult, and yet Infants also not capable of such preparation may and are to be baptized, wherefore this is still but racking of Authors to make them speak that which they never intended.

SECT. III.

BAsil is the next Author brought in, Contra Eunomium l. 3. saying,

Faith must praecede and go before. Mr. Blackwood enlargeth the testimony in words to like purpose. — which shows saith Mr. B. at what time persons were wont to be baptized, not in their Infancy, but when they were men, if the faithful — if one that is made godly▪ by grace be to be baptized — he must first profess his faith: ergo, none other is to be baptized, if brought to baptism in any other way — non sequitur; yea but that doth plainly resist the tradition of wholesome baptism — For baptism is the seal of faith, &c. saith Basil. What doth resist the wholesome tradition of baptism? Paedobaptism without actual faith expressed? — Basil intended it not, but if one that is made godly by grace (being changeable by nature) sometimes by negligence fall from grace, &c. and so hold forth any other thing then is consonant to the doctrine of the Trinity confessed in Baptism; This is resisting that tradition of Baptism, he doth not intend by tradition of Baptism a rule that only actual confessors of the Trinity must be baptized. Let him expound himself; for in his fifth book against Eunomius pag. 119. speaking of that form of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he calleth that the tradition, scil. touching baptism, if by his description he intend the seal of faith, scil. the Covenant and doctrine of faith, it hurts us not, if of faith whereby we believe, it is an imperfect description of baptism. Baptism, saith he, is the forgiveness of sin, &c. if he mean it, that it is so really to all that are baptized, then Simon Magus and Ananias had not perished in their sins, if he speak it, that it is so Sacramentally, that may be affirmed of Infants Baptism. As for Mr. B 's exposition that Basils other speech, I will lie and swear, and when full of evils &c. then receive Baptism, showeth the time when persons were wont to be baptized; I wonder at his collection, doth he think men should sin to the full, till they are even weary, and then come to be baptized? is that a fit time, when they have served the Devil to the utmost, and been his old sworn trustees, then to list themselves under Christ's command? Verily if Mr. B. think so, Basil did not, for he rather reproveth persons for deferring their Baptism, as if a man might bemire himself in sin as much as he would, and then at last one washing in baptism would make all clean, which he thus sarcastically derideth.

Aretius had no such thought of Basils judgment in this case, who yet had reason to know Basils mind, better then Mr. B. or I. And he in his Commentary on Luke 18. brings in Basil as using this argument amongst others — Infantes capaces sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ergo etiam participes sunt ipsius Baptismi. — Basil then had other arguments for Paedobaptism: but this was one, Infants are capable of salvation sealed in Baptism, therefore are they also partakers of Baptism.

SECT. IIII.

EUsebius testimony lib. 6. hist. eccl. touching Origen's and others being Catechists at Alexandria, might have been spared: none denying but that Adult Pagans, or the adult children of persons baptized, were to be so catechised (thence the name of Catechumen in Authors usually so taken.) But that hindered not, but that children also were baptized in Origen's time, witness Origen's words in his second Tom. Hom. 14. upon Luke: little ones (saith he) are baptized unto remission of sins, &c. The Authors stories to confirm the third, fourth, and fifth Proposition might have been also spared, as not concluding what they intend, that in those times no Infants were, or were to be baptized. Some were adult Pagans, which came in upon their own right only, and were amongst the number of such Catechumen, whose baptism were prevented by Martyrdom, as the woman the Treatise mentioneth, Proposition 3. and Evirenitana the Virgin, Proposition 5. and sundry others mentioned by Cyprian de baptismo haeret. quoted by Mr. B. in his Preface. Some adult Pagans, which after instruction, actually came to receive baptism of which the treatise mentions examples, as Clodoveus king of France with his 3000. Soldiers, also those learned men, Virinus Marcellinus and Justinus in the time of Decius Quirinus the Roman Captain under Trajan Hermingildus, Anno 700. in the days of Tiberius the second, Torpes in the days of Nero, Nemissius in the time of Pope Stephen "and of Valeria •… and Gallienus Emperors and Basilica in Gallienus his time, Mauro, Honoratus, Ragatianus, Hilarius, Victorinus, Apronianus, Tobia King of Persia, Claudius the Roman, and his wife in Pope Gayus his time; they might have more instances too, but these are more then enough, unless pertinent, proving what is not denied, that adult Pag • ns were first catechised ere baptized. But what then? ergo none else but such baptized? Non sequitur. If we were now to deal with Indians in such sort, we would take the like course, yet maintain Paedobaptism to be an ordinance of Christ. Cyprian which mentions that of the Catechumen, yet who more strong for Paedobaptism then he? Austin who l. 8. Confessionum writeth of Victorinus his open confession before his baptism, yet who pleads more for Paedobaptism then he? some were children of Christian parents, which yet were not baptized, till grown, as Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, Gregory, Nazianzen, (added by Hen. Den ) Constantine the Emperor, Theodosius the Emperor, Lu • gerus, Pancratius, Pontius, Nazarius, Tecla and Erasma Tusca, a certain brother mentioned in Eusebius.

And what of all this? ergo, children of enchurched Parents ought to stay unto adult years, before they be baptized, because these did so: Non sequitur. A facto ad jus non valet consequentia. Nay then they should stay, till near their death, because Constantine, Theodosius and others did so; which to our Authors would be a non sequitur. Yea, or at least we must stay till 30. years old, because Jerome, Austin and others did so, or what is the sequel hereof? Is it this, ergo none other which came of Christian Parents were in those times baptized, till grown up to full years of discretion? — I wholly deny it, if the Authors had brought as many more instances,, unless they could say and prove it, and so it was with all other children of Christian Parents, their induction is not regular. It is evident that the baptism of such persons was deferred through corruption in the persons, whom it concerned. Some out of groundless supposals of a necessity to conform to Christ's baptism, who was baptized at 30. years old. Whence it is that Gregory Nazianzen refuteth that ground of deferring baptism. Others thought it might be some defilement, yea defacing to their children's baptism, as well as their own, if they sinned after baptism, and therefore thought it good to be deferred. Others had a superstitious conceit of an excellency of being baptized in Jordans waters, above others which occasioned Constantius deferring his Baptism, Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Constantini, Theodoret lib. 1. Hist. Eccles. c. 35. some parents were discouraged from bringing their children to baptism through the covetousness of the Ministers, requiring (as then the use was) so much for an offering from and for any persons which were baptized, which occasioned delays in many. Whence that Canon of the Council of Ell • bertinum cited in Trecius his Decretals;

SECT. V.

BEsides many other causes mentioned by Gregory Nazianzen in his 40th. Oration de baptismo, where he blameth not only the deferring of elder persons that are at their own dispose, but the deferring of the baptism of children by their Parents, and because Gregory's testimony is made use of by the Treatise in confirmation of the fourth Proposition. Its meet it should be cleared, whether he be more ours or yours. I deny not but he giveth his advise out of case of danger of death, the children's baptism be deferred, till they are three years old, this was his peculiar fancy in this particular, but yet this is not to speak for the Anabaptists tenent, which say a man must first be of years of discretion, able to hold forth his knowledge in Articles of Religion, besides his faith in Christ, and repentance of his sins, &c. this a child of three years old is not able to do, we say that unripe children before capable of professing their knowledge, faith and repentance are to be baptized, and such a one is a child also of three years old. And I wonder our adversaries urge not a speech of his in that oration speaking of persons that cannot receive baptism, he reckons as some grown ones that cannot through some sudden exigent albeit they desire it: so others which cannot by reason of their Infancy, but he intends that of such as cannot come of themselves, unless by others help: and especially Infants, which cannot come merely in their own right. And he speaks of persons who if not baptized, they themselves are exempted, from guilt of neglect or contempt, albeit not of loss by it; as his words evidence speaking of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which being unsealed or unbaptized are without sin, although they suffer loss or hurt, but do not act: it unless they are not without original sin, that is not his meaning, but they themselves sin not therein personally in neglect or contempt of God's Ordinance, (and therefore albeit he had inveyed so much against the sin of those whose baptism was deferred, he hereby cleareth them from that blame) but he accounteth that even those babes are sufferers in this omission, and at a loss, that in others right, and by others help they are not brought to baptism, albeit by reason of Infancy they cannot of themselves receive baptism▪ and that this is his meaning let his words declare; ibid. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

where he toucheth upon another cause why Christian Parents sometimes deferred their children's baptism, scil. a distrustful fear of hazzarding their babes health if dipped, as amongst many the use then was in baptism; so then he chargeth the matter not upon the child but upon the parent in point of guilt if not baptized: and observe he accounteth it a wickedness, not thus to devote them from their tenderest years, their first birth ( ab ipsis unguiculis, as the word is) unto the Lord in baptism, and that sin taketh occasion to put it self forth very much in case of Infants, whence Parents are tempted to defer their children's baptism, and imputeth it to the weakness of their faith) which if stronger might arm Christian parents against any seeming discouragements, he maketh the practice of Infants baptism a matter of faith in Christian parents, if they had faith enough they would not defer the same, and ibid. answering the query about Infants baptism, that it were better they should be sealed without knowledge then die without baptism, he giveth his reason from circumcision, which was wont to be administered the eighth day after the child's birth, and in the same Oration he said, and speaking of pretences to put off baptism he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; it reacheth all degrees of ages, all kinds of life, it arms one against assaults which may be occasioned by any of them, scil. by Satan: and ibid. speaking in answer to such as pretend Christ's age when baptized; Hence his description of baptism under divers notions, calling it a gift, because saith he its given to them which have contributed nothing before hand thereto: grace, because its bestowed on such as are indebted: baptism, because sin is buried in the water, scil. Sacramentally: and now let all judge to which side Gregory Nazianzen most propendeth; he himself was baptized at above 30. yea but he approveth not of it as lawful in any case to defer it to above three years, and in some cases, scil. of hazard of life, to be administered before; surely if he had thought baptism of a very babe unlawful as Anabaptists do, he could not be ignorant, that upon no pretence of any hazards of life any sin was to be committed. Austin, Jerome, and Ambrose were baptized when grown up men, yea but when they better understood the point they disallow neglect of children's Baptism, as the parents sin, as Jerome in his Epistle to Laeta, and Austin frequently, and so Ambrose all one for Paedobaptism as an ordinance of God, and so as counting it sin to neglect it.

SECT. VI.

BUt to return to our stories, we know what Origen, and Austin have said, what was the use of the Churches from the Apostles time as well as what was done in their time; wherefore if we had no instances of children baptized that would suffice; But story will furnish us with instances of children baptized within the compass of time wherein this Treatise presenteth us with instances.

Polydore Virgil in his second book of the History of England speaking of King Lucius, saith,

unless no part of Lucius his people, which Johannes Balaeus more fully cleareth, in his book of British writers, Centuria prima cap. 27. where he reciteth the occasion why Lucius sent Eluinus and Meduinus (two prime men) unto Eleutherius to be this — And Lucius sent thither the more speedily, because he heard that the name of Christians begun everywhere to be enlarged, and that many of the Nobility, (especially at Rome ) together with their wives and children, had sworn unto that Christian faith ( scil. were baptized;) for that was that he writ about as before we had it, that he and his, might be reckoned amongst the number of Christians; and baptism is a solemn obligation of the party baptized unto the Christian faith.) Afterward when the Pagan Saxons had overrun Britain and Religion began to be worn out again, Gregory the first sent over Austin, Anno 596. where after he had preached amongst the heathen Saxons, he baptized 1000. men, women and children in a River. History of Britain pag. 214. Inas also King of the West Saxons with his Counsel made Laws touching the orderly living of Ministers and Infants being baptized within 30. days. Beza 's hist. Dr. Usher also in his book of the Religion of the ancient Irish, cap. 5. saith that the Irish did baptize their Infants, without any consecrated Chrism; and that corrupt use of Chrism we know was very ancient indeed. And before Clodovius King of France was converted, whilst he was yet Pagan, his gracious wife Cleotild daughter of the Duke of Burgoine, having a son by him, it was baptized by the same Remigius Bishop of Raines, (which afterward baptized him being converted as the Treatise saith) at which Pagan Clodovius was at first displeased. Afterward she brought forth another son, which by the Kings consent was in like sort baptized; after which Pagan Clodovius being put to the worse by the Almaines, vowed, if he got the victory he would embrace the Christian faith, to which his wife had so oft persuaded him, and proving conqueror did so, and was baptized by Remigius. Fabian, 1 par. of his History c. 97. the Century writers give other Instances Cent. 6. cap. 6. mentioning out of Gregorius Turocensis, the young son of Chilperick: also of Theodebert borne to King Childebert as baptized, as also Theodorick another child of his baptized, also of a young son to King Egilolph baptized; other instances might be given out of Nauclerus, the authors of this Treatise mention Constantine's baptism, when so old; but why do they not mention also his son Crispus too, which was baptized as well as he by Sylvester Bishop of Rome saith Nicephorus hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 23. the authors mention Clodoneus his Baptism but not his children, and Constantius, but not his sons baptism, do either discover their ignorance or guile.

SECT. VII.

THe next Authors testimony to the third Proposition is that of Polydor Virgil de Inventoribus rerum, li. 4. cap. 4.

yea but before the old time of baptizing grown persons at Easter, (which was certain hundred years after Christ ere that custom began) children were baptized (as is confessed they were) in Origen's time, and before, by a Church custom; for then it was the custom before this custom came up here mentioned to baptize children. And let us hear whether Pollidor Vilgil in the very quoted place will not say as much, for he there expressing his judgment for Paedobaptism doth quote Cyprian as speaking of it as [from the beginning] now if that were à principio, even from the beginning of the Christian Church; Paedobaptism was ancienter then this old custom, and for this also Polydore there citeth Ambrose lib. 2. de vocatione gentium.

SECT. VIII.

BEatus Rhenanus upon Tertullian is next, who is said to write

they leave out the word [ fere ] almost, or for that most part, &c. and the reasons he gives why it was so, scil. because thousands of Pagans daily flocked then to the Churches, then the Infants being compared to those Pagan parents, and children which could conceive of what was taught them, yea and those adult Pagans thus flocking in by thousands daily, no wonder that it be said that it was then the use for the most part that those who were baptized, were at their full growth, and adding the other causes of deferring baptism, no wonder Shamier (who yet speaketh of Paedobaptism) speaks of so few children of old baptized.

CHAP. V. SECT. I.

TErtullian lib. de baptismo cited also by Mr. Blackwood more amply, thus:

but herein the treatise dealeth more plainly then Mr. B. who leaveth out that saying cited in Tertullian; Suffer little children to come to me; upon which he glosseth, as followeth in Mr. B. — Ibid. for no less cause are unmarried persons to be delayed in whom the temptation is prepared, &c. the Treatise urgeth this testimony to prove that de facto children before they were instructed were not baptized. Mr. B. seems to urge that de jure they ought not: As for the first, it's rather a strong proof that Paedobaptism was in use in the Church; in Tertullian's time: for supposing Tertullian against Paedobaptism, his testimony is the more valid, enemies will not flatter us; if they were not baptized, why doth he mention their susceptors or sureties — which ran hazards by being their susceptors? Tertullian was not so sottish to oppose an Imaginary abusive practice; if no such thing were in rerum natura in his time; why doth he affright persons from being susceptors by the hazards they run in their children's liableness to death, and to distempers, and by the latter, their outbreakings into sin to deceive their susceptors expectations, if no such thing? it had been dangerous to start such a novellisme: if never before practiced. And indeed Origen contemporary with Tertullian (according to Osi inder and Funccius account) he saith in the place quoted in his 14th. Hom. on Luke that little ones were in his time baptized.

All the question is then de Jure, how far the testimony is valid to prove that Infants should not be baptized; some make account that Tertullian was not simply against baptism of Infants, scil. if of believers, but of baptizing Infidel Infants, then offered to baptism, as it might be supposed of unmarried persons, if Infidels, to delay Baptism; others think he intends to deny the absolute necessity of Baptism in case children are like to die, then to baptize them out of an opinion of such necessity of it, albeit afterwards that hazard of mortality being over, they might be baptized, and it's probable enough out of their doubling of the word necesse (si tamen necesse fit) &c. and truly if Tertullian was against it in his judgment, it was one of the dotages of his age, as was Montanisme, denying second marriages, witness his book de Monogamia: and he forgot himself if that was his intention, to deny children's right to baptism; since that in his book de anima cap. 21. speaking before that every soul hath an evil spirit in it, he addeth,

that is, shall not be holy, and then addeth immediately cap. 22. as his conclusion, and so long unclean until recounted scil. in Christ. And in his book against Marcion lib. 4. p. 92. but behold how God loveth little children ( sc. of the Church) in that he teacheth and brings that as another argument of it: that God was so gracious to the Egyptian Midwives for sparing of the Jews children, so that he speaks not this of all children but of those of the Church, as also that which he saith de anima, he speaketh it not of all sorts, but of the children of the faithful, as is evident. And hence I will make bold after Master Blackwoods example to make some observations. 1 That Tertullian accounted not all children alike in point of birth — cleanness, but some clean, others unclean. 2 That he accounted that holiness of children mentioned 1 Cor. 7. to be no civil holiness of legitimacy, or creature holiness of holiness to use, but a holiness of a higher nature: such as implieth right, at least external, of entering in God's kingdom: making this of being holy to be one with that, or to include it ( scil. according to men) and to include as much as to be accounted in Christ, cap. 22. the beginning. 3 That children, of believers come to be holy in this sense mentioned, not by instruction of discipline merely of which they are capable when they come to years: but by being borne of either parents sanctified or the faithful, or persons laying hold on God's covenant, &c. (for he maketh being borne of either parents sanctified and children of the faithful, &c. one) they are holy as well by prerogative of seed (saith he of which they are partakers as soon as they are borne) as by institution of discipline. 4 That he maketh this the force of the Apostles argument to persuade to retain marriages in question in regard of such pledges of hope, children thus holy springing from married persons whereof one at least is a believer, &c. 5 That therefore Zwinglius was not the first author as some say of that interpretation, that by the sanctifying of either Sex by that other being faithful, children come to be holy with holiness of privilege, hence that of being holy by prerogative of seed, scil. quat. covenant seed. And from the other place it appears that Tertullian judged the children of the Jews to be not in a bare carnal covenant, or beloved with a mere common respect of God as others, but in the judgment of his charity he accounts them beloved, with a special love of God: so as to become patterns to such as are always great in God's favor as well as otherwise. Now how these things will stand with Tertullian's denying them baptism, I leave to all judicious and sober minds to determine: he may forsake his own principles in this as in other things, he did; but if he hold to the same he must be ours and not yours.

But let us suppose Tertullian's judgment against paedobaptism: he is not the first that gave erroneous counsel, and held erroneous tenets: though he be the first that ever advised (so far as I find in authors) that infants baptism should be delayed, and his judgment may not carry it, but the grounds of his judgment if they are Scripture proof; and first he acknowledgeth the argument, taken from Mat. 19. Suffer little children to come unto me, to enforce baptism of these there intended: albeit he expounds that of their coming to Christ by baptism to be understood of their coming, when they are grown up, when they know Christ, when they ask it, when they understand the right of Baptism, and can pray and fast. But Mr. B. (which cleaveth to Tertullian ) and others of his mind, deny it to be any ground of baptizing any. 2 He counselleth (as the treatise hath it) that unmarried folk should have their baptism also deferred, whilst they yet suffer tenttaions; the Treatise indeed saith, young unmarried virgins: but Tertullian's word is, Innupti, unmarried persons, of what age soever, now how do Anabaptists like Tertullian's counsel herein? Suppose a person never marry, what, must he never be baptized as never yet suffering this temptation? or suppose young persons of 20. or 30. years old, judged to be believers, but yet not married; they belong to God's kingdom, but have not yet suffered such temptation, must their baptism now be deferred upon this ground of Tertullian, because not married, or not yet going through such temptations? I trow not; then Tertullian's counsel about delay of baptism is not good it seemeth.

3 He counsels delay of baptism of any to Easter and Pentecost (albeit therein he speaketh not so peremptorily as in the other) Was this good counsel to put baptism to such set times of the year, when yet no time is set in the Scriptures, both John and Christ's Disciples, and the Apostles baptized at any time of the year. I suppose this counsel will not down with them.

4 He counsels delay of Infants baptism (for it was but his counsel at the most as it was in the other) answering therein that argument, which even in his time was used for paedobaptism (not first by Zwingli ) scil. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, &c. Yea (saith Tertullian ) let them come indeed, but dum Adolescant, &c. when they are grown up, &c. he yieldeth it to be a ground of their coming to Christ, and that by baptism as one way of their coming to him; but not of their coming so soon, but rather when they themselves could ask it, &c. this is his gloss upon the place: but how absurd is this gloss, as if Christ's intent in rebuking the Disciples for hindering those babes from coming to him, were thus? Ye do very evil to hinder those babes from coming now to me for my blessing (like them in like case) because they (and others like them) should rather come when they are more grown up, when they know me, when they themselves (and not as now their parents only) can ask and desire it at my hands, &c. But why then are these Disciples rebuked for seeking to put by their coming so young, and not themselves desiring to come? nay then verily the Disciples rather were in the right, which would have had them staid longer, and not Christ which urgeth it as an argument for coming at that time, and accordingly at that time fulfilleth the parents desire in blessing of the babes: but none herein surely will own Tertullian. Another testimony of Tertullian's is urged to confirm the fifth Proposition, scil. that de corona militis.

So far in the Treatise, but the Authors leave out what followeth, ibid. All this proveth what the Adulti did, and what was required of them at their baptism, but this disproveth not, but that infants baptism was in use, and that they did promise as much by others: for why else did Tertullian give his counsel (as is supposed) against the same? Yea, that (notwithstanding Tertullian's argument there) baptizing of infants without requiring from them personal confession of faith, was a right use of the institution. Yea I wonder the Treatise bringeth this Testimony to prove the right use of baptism according to Christ and his Apostles: what were those oblations for the dead by the persons baptized, and those superstitious crossings, forbearing of washings and speech, eating milk and honey, &c. were these according to the institution of Christ and example of the Apostles? Surely no.

SECT. II.

THe next testimony is taken from Counsels and Decretals, either ex concilio Gerundensi concerning the Catechumen (or those that are instructed in the faith (saith this Treatise) It's ordained that they should all come at Easter and Pentecost. This is the proof of the fourth Proposition, that the children of the faithful, &c. as if the Catechumens were only the children of the faithful, when all adult Pagans were such: and say that Adult children too of persons joined to the Church, but formerly Pagans were amongst the Catechumens, yet not their babes, babes were baptized both before the superstitious [limiting] or order of limiting the time of baptism as we proved, and whilst it was in force too as we proved out of Austin, Sermon four in Octavo paschae ad neophytos; yea the concilium Gerundense Can. 3. hath these words, de parvulis, &c. concerning little ones new borne, its ordained,

that even the same day they are borne, they if they be brought may be baptized; so that this is the old trick of concluding à dicto secundum quid ad simpliciter, neither is any other conclusion to be made from the next proof ex concilio Laodicensi, which is repeated in confirmation of the fifth Proposition, and the former answer is full to this objection, which was even now mentioned: so ex consilio Martini, and Nicolai Popes (which is again urged, Proposition fifth) the Catechumen must first learn the Creed, what is intended to adult Pagans by your counsel is prevented, to conclude against the children, babes and all, contrary to Martins intent who was Anno 646. long after the unquestionable use of Paedobaptism, and Nicolaus was after him. No more was intended by that quotation in the Decretals as appears by Austin in the places formerly quoted. Concilium Bracharense is quoted, but not which, first or second, &c. nor what words; and so concilium Anterse in like fashion, but why are not the words mentioned, if for their purposes? but lest such blind whisperers, and items beget suspicion, it's likely the authors if they ever saw the Canons intend it of that Canon Concilii Bracharensis primi, that 20. days before baptism let the Catechumen all and several learn of the Priest, to which the former answer sufficeth. Trecius in his Decretals urgeth as much, ex secundo Concilio Bracharensi, yet the same council also ratifieth Paedobaptism, ordering ( Canone septimo ) The like answer sufficeth to that quotation of the fourth Carthage council in confirmation of the fifth Proposition; those that are to be baptized are to give in their names, & after long abstinence from wine and flesh, and frequent examinations, with laying on of hands, they are to be baptized. It is the 75th. Canon. Now that the Council never intended, as if Infants baptism were not valid, and warrantable which could not be thus examined, see the 48th. Canon of the third Carthage Council (which according to Isiodore in his sum of the Decretals, was the year before this) wherein the Council doth ratify, even the Baptism of children by Donatists (for so the Canon is expounded in Caranza his sum of the Decretals, and in Albignanus tertius his edition of the Decretals) this sin being rather in the parents (not that they offered them to baptism, but) to offer them to be baptized by such Heretics, & the fifth Carthage council (which according to Isiodore, was two years after the 4th. council; but according to Johannes Wolfius de rebus memorabilibus, centur. quarta, both the fourth and fifth Carthage council was kept the same year, scil. Anno 399.) wherein there were 74. Bishops (as in the other there were 97. Bishops) Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, being President, in which council Canon 6. they ratify Paedobaptism (as this treatise also mentioneth Proposition 7.) It's not then imaginable, that the council that the other day (if our Authors guess right) was against Paedobaptism, and yet presently be so quite altered, as to establish it; yea but Mr. Blackwood, in his preface [to storming the two Garrisons of Antichrist,] would seem to make an argument against paedobaptism, as then in use from the 14. Can. Council. Nic. and Can. 4. and 6. Council. Ancyran. in which Canons the Assemblies were divided into hearers, Catechumen, and Offerers, or persons in full communion, till cut off by death, on censure, yet he cannot tell he saith, whether this division were in use before the first Nicene Counsel; probably its thought, since the Apostles time; so that to conclude that according to his exposition of the Offerers, children being not of that sort, nor of the Catechumen, they must be of the third sort, of the profane rabble of hearers; this is far fetched, and he suspecteth the foundation of it, scil. that division, whether so ancient, as from the Apostles; so that he can build nothing thereupon; nay by his leave, he must thrust out Infants, little children not capable of being called Auditors, in the Language of the ancient (which he cannot be ignorant, understand it of adult persons) nor of being Catechumens, if not amongst the third sort of Offerers, where are they then? Surely, no part of the Congregation, when yet in Joel 2. Assemble the Congregation, gather such as suck the breasts, &c. children then are upon Scripture grounds, as well as common reason, parts of the Church Assemblies: nay hath not Mr. B. made a rod for his own back, since the Assembly being divided only into those three parts, and Scripture, and reason, making little ones part of the Assembly, and yet neither hearers, nor Catechumens (as reason will tell him) therefore they must needs be of the third sort, scil. Offerers in those times, they were then in full communion, witness Cyprian (as some urge it to enseeble Cyprians testimony for Paedobaptism) and Cyprian was above 70. years before the first Nicene council: yea, children were Offerers too in respect of that which was offered at their baptism, witness the Canon of the Elebertine council, as the little ones of old were said to bring an offering in their hand, when their parents only did it for them, Deut. 16. but Mr. Blackwood urgeth the seventh Canon of the Council at Constantinople, declaring how they Catechize them they are to baptize; he telleth us not what Council it was, but saith it was in Theodosius his time, so it might be, and yet we not know by what Character, which it was, divers of them being then called there, Wolfius puts Theodosius at Anno 383. and Anno 382. the third Constantinople Council Anno 383. the fourth Anno 402. the fifth the same year that the Milevitan council was; and Anno 403. the 6, 7, 8. now the 6th. council of Constantinople provideth that none should have chrism and baptism administered to them, unless it be such as firmly hold forth the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, &c. excepting such, who by reason of age cannot speak, and provideth, Can. 7. that such as be witnesses to Infants in Baptism should be sound in the faith. Councils use not to be cross to themselves, in so little space as to order contrary things, that only adult persons should be baptized, and no Infants, as Mr. B. expounds them, and yet again, not only adult, but Infants shall be baptized, that is not square dealings. And I wonder that Mr. B. foreseeing the ratifying of the 46. Canon of that Laodicean Council before mentioned by that at Trullo (which was the Emperors Palace, at Constantinople, where the Council used to sit) in Justinians time, Can. 78. a Councils that was for Paedobaptism expressly, would enfeeble his argument from thence in that a Council of such Fathers judge that Canons establishing both this and that, scil. catechizing before baptism, and baptism before catechizing, are not contraries, that he which holdeth the one denieth the other, but subordinate, which may both stand together, according as the persons to be baptized are either adult or Infants. This Mr. B. foreseeing maketh him (its likely) frame such a poor excuse, as that its like, upon some abuse or neglect it was reestablished by that Council of Trullo, but its like not, rather if it were anything of the controversy. Yea, but some object the Covenant of Theodor Balsamon, and Zonaras upon the sixth Canon of that Grecian council at Neocesarea Anno. 315. concerning a woman with child, that she ought to be illuminated (or baptized) when she desireth it, because in that matter ( scil. of baptism) she that brings forth hath nothing in common with the babe which is brought forth, which may be shown in confession, that it is proprium uniuscujusque institutum, ac propositum; which they are brought in as so expounding, or rather inferring thence, that an Infant might not be baptized, because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine Baptism. Zonaras I have not, but I looked upon that Patriarch of Antioch, Theodor Balsamon, who hath these words in his Scholia upon that Canon. Some (in the council) said that women with child which came from the Infidels, to join with the Church ought not to be baptized, but to stay till the babe they went with were brought forth, lest that when she were baptized, it might seem that the child in her womb was baptized with her, as being altogether united to her; whence it will come to pass, that after the babe is borne, either it may be not left unenlightned (or unbaptized) or if it be baptized, it may be thought that it is rebaptized. This he maketh the occasion of the Law of that ancient, not Latin, but Greek council; which was a good while before the first Nicene Council. And it is very remarkable what was the occasion, it was double, as is evident. 1. That they might avoid the mischief of leaving babes unbaptized. 2. That they might avoid the other of rebaptizing; two grand hinges of Anabaptism: these were such mischiefs (as it seems) in their eyes, that they would not have expressions, let fall by them, that might any way occasion the same, so that both these in those times were rather inter borrenda then recipienda. But let us hear what Balsamon addeth further there, speaking of such Infants, that they could not make promise, &c. for how it is with the babe in the womb none can inquire, nor be surety for them (saith he) but Infants ( scil. that are borne) do affirm by those which are their susceptors, and are accounted to be actually enlightened (or baptized) with divine illustration, or divine baptism, they then accounted baptism of Infants no Antichristian baptism (as the Authors of this Treatise, and (as John Spilsbury, Mr. Blackwood, and Henry Den do) but divine Baptism, the Baptism of the Lord, wherefore I conclude that this testimony is grossly abused by Hugo Grotius.

SECT. III.

THe next Author quoted, is Rupertus Tritiensis l. 4. de divinis Officiis c. 18. both for the confirmation of the 4th. and 7th. proposition, the same is urged by A. R. also to like purpose: but by this authors leave, that there be no guile hid, I shall make bold to transcribe the very words of Rupertus Abbas Tritiensis, of which the Treatise mentioned some pieces, scil.

by this that hath been said, that which the Treatise, and A. R. intend to disprove is rather confirmed, and the guileful wresting of the testimony discovered; for besides what hath been before shown, that Infants baptism was before this custom of baptism at Easter and Pentecest came up, and likewise whilst it was held up, Infants being then, and there baptized, as well as at other times, as by Austin's testimony, Serm. 4. ad Neoph. appeared, this testimony also tells us, 1 That baptism of all sorts of persons, in case of weakness and danger, at other times was in use of old. 2 That sucklings as well as grown ones were accounted under the notion of the offspring of the Church, begotten by the word, scil. in their parents, which being begotten thereby, in their right also their children were in churched with them. 3 Confession of faith with full belief by others instead of sucklings, was counted as their confession; the lactati, as well as the grandescentes are said to make such confession of faith, which they could not do, but by others. 4 That there were present at this solemnity a multitude of Infants, as well as grown ones, which did Sacramentally die, and rise with Christ of old. 5 That they baptized not of old all sorts of children at such times, but only the Infants of Christians, and that upon the grounds of mortality and other weakness, and hazard, was there made a change as well in respect of the grown part of the multitude, as the Infants only. 6 That the change that was made upon the grounds of mortality, and increase of the multitude, was not in respect of the subjects; that afterwards Infants should be baptized, whereas only grown ones before were baptized (for both sorts were before and after that custom came up, baptized as we proved) but it was only in respect of the place where, and season when, that whereas of old they used to come to someone great City, and that at these seasons of year only; now passim everywhere, and at any other time they might be baptized, only some few that were borne a little before these solemn times, (as Rupertus in his other books mentioneth) were reserved to be then baptized, to grace as it were the solemnity. And this may fully answer that testimony which this Treatise Proposition 7. and A. R. also urge out of Joannes Beemius de moribus Gentium speaking to like purpose. So then Rupertus Tritiensis, and his companion are both as much abused herein, as other witnesses produced, or rather traduced.

SECT. IIII.

THe next witness is Cassander a stout adversary to them, yet fetched in by the Authors of this Treatise to prove the 4th. and 7th. Proposition, Cassander in l. de Infantium baptismo is said to say:

as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth. And Proposition 7. Cassander in his book de Infantium baptismo saith, that as much saith A. R. in his Childish baptism. But say Cassander spoke as Proposition 4. he is said to do; yet that proveth not that children of the faithful were commonly first instructed ere baptized, because some believers deferred baptism, or Tertullian, and Gregory counseled it, much less that this was well done according to Christ's mind, for we have seen upon what unsound principles they did it: and as for the Council of Tertullian and Gregory, it hath been before weighed of what force herein. As for the other speech of Cassander that Paedobaptism came in use by the Fathers 300. years after the Apostles time, it maketh me stand and wonder at the impudent forehead of error, and yet I might wonder the less since it's but just with God that they which hold lies should also tell lies. I read Cassander with as much heed as I could, to find out whether there might be any color of ground of such a speech of him, but could not find out any like it, unless that which he saith be this way wrested, scil. but clearly to evince the falsehood of that speech before cited to confirm Proposition 7. the very title of this book contradicteth the same. George Cassander of Infants baptism. And according to this his work that he propoundeth, he bringeth in very notable testimonies of the ancients, both Latin and Greek, that lived in that space for the proof of Paedobaptism, that any that had not s • ene authorities before might have been thence well furnished for this purpose, and after the testimonies produced Cassander closeth thus. Who seeth not now the grossness of this falsehood in fathering that upon Cassander, the very contrary whereunto is his business there to evince?

SECT. V.

THe next testimony is of as grand an adversary to Anabaptism as any, and that is Zwingli, who is quoted to confirm the 4th. and 6th. Proposition, he is said to affirm that there is no plain word in Scripture whereby children's baptism is commanded: his meaning is no more then thus; that it is not in so many words said, you shall baptize children, as, neither the first day of the week shall be to you the Lord's day, or Christian Sabbath, &c. but the principal place, (and for the other two quotations, they are to no purpose) is that mentioned in his book of Articles, Act. 18. whose words, because the treatise is so often tripping, we shall set down verbatim, who there speaking of Confirmation saith, although I am not ignorant (as it may be gathered out of the Ancients)

this custom of teaching I wish were used, and recalled now [namely that baptism being given to Infants, they may be afterwards taught when they come to age as they are capable of instruction from the Word of God] this the Treatise leaveth out. Zwinglius his judgment was, that the main in the child's right to baptism was the Parents Covenant estate, whence the child being federally holy, which else had been unclean, had its main title to baptism, so that in case both parents were visibly Pagans, or Idolatrous, &c. they were not to be baptized, when yet in his time many such were baptized. And thus I take it is that which he intendeth, that since in Ancient times, albeit sometimes every little children of Infidels, (as may appear) were baptized, yet not so commonly as now such like children are baptized promiscuously hand over head, (for which some as it appears by Beza upon 1 Cor. 7. 14. have pleaded, albeit he counts it their error, ibid. ) and since in those times Catechising (as it appeareth) of children was too little in use; Zwinglius maketh that use of the Catechising of children of old, both of persons joined to the Church (which were capable of instruction when first their parents joined in Church estate) before their baptism, which was one sort of children so catechised, and of the exposititious children of Pagans also, those children of their Pagan captive or slaves, which were another sort of children catechized before baptism: Zwinglius wisheth that albeit it were not in his time used, as neither before baptism to such like children, so neither after the baptism, neither of such children, nor of others of visible believers, which ought in Infancy to be baptized: yet now catechizing of children might be in more use. Assuredly Zwinglius was strong for this, that baptism of Infants was no practice taken up after the Apostles, but by the Apostles: no bare old custom taken upon human grounds: but his judgment was directly cross to the Proposition, he is brought as a witness to, that Christ did not institute Infants baptism, &c. witness his many arguments from Scripture for it, and his judicious answers to the evasions of the adversaries, to that truth. And as much may be said of Oecolampadius his companion, who is cited to confirm the 6th. Proposition; whereas in the first and second book of the Epistles of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius they give grounds from Scripture to the contrary. See l. 1. Epist. Zwingli. ad dilectos fratres. I will now tell you from what grounds of Scripture I judge Infants to be baptized, &c. and l. 2. in his Epist. Bercktold and Francis, Preachers at Berne, he saith peremptorily; contra Scripturas ergo fecissent Apostoli si Infantibus negavissent baptismum, the Apostles therefore had done contrary to Scriptures, if they had denied baptism to Infants. See more of Oecolampadius his mind too herein in his Epist. to Zwinglius, and in that to the Preachers at Berne: here therefore are two more witnesses abused in this Treatise.

SECT. I.

BUt let us hear what any of them say, if we have not heard it before; As for Hilaries testimony of his own baptism, it's not material, we mentioned him among the Authors instances of Adult persons baptized, Proposition 3. as for his interpretation of baptizing in, or upon the name, that is, upon confession of the beginners, it's as easily rejected, as urged, unless his grounds were shown or were Scripture proof.

SECT. II.

THe next witness is Ambrose de spiritu Sancto. l. 2. in our Sacrament there are three questions propounded and three confessions made, without which three questions no man can be washed, if Mr. B 's answer be good to that part of Tertullian in the beginning of his book de baptismo, mentioning, that a man without cost, or pomp, is let down into the water: Observe saith Mr. B. that he speaks of a man, not of an Infant, so I might as well say here, he speaks of a man's baptism, not of an Infants, which then also was in use, but that I fear somebody would sit upon my skirts presently, and ask me whether an Infant be not sub genere isto subalterno hominis, whether an Infant be not homo, and I ever thought before Mr. B. helped me with that distinction, that when the Scripture saith it's appointed to all men once to die, &c. Heb. 9. that Infants also were there counted men to die as well as others, not to mention other places of Scripture, or authors for the use of the word that way; and I wonder Mr. B. when he supposeth Rom. 5. 18. makes for his fancy of general redemption of children, whether of Pagans or Christians, then Infants are men, on whom the free gift cometh, and yet here homo demissus in aquam in Tertullian must be only a grown man, not Infants, as if Infants now were not homo: but this answer must be better grounded, or else I shall keep my opinion, that as an Infant is homo; so Tertullian's testimony there speaking indefinitely of any baptized person, man or woman, Infants, youths, or riper persons, &c. he doth bear implicit testimony in that very place to Paedobaptism, as in his time. But to return to Ambrose, I say that in Ambrose his time such confessions, and questions were, and Infants were baptized too, that corruption being then in use of adding to Infants baptism interrogations to them that brought them to baptism, which answered in their names, and made confession in their stead. For others were baptized in Ambrose his time and before, then such as could personally answer or make confession, yea, and that it was Ambrose his judgment, that it was the mind of God that others should be baptized, then could make such confessions, witness that among other places of Ambrose, which he hath in his 5th. Tom. in his Homilies upon Luke.

SECT. III.

BUt it will be here objected, that that custom of susceptors in Infants baptism, and the interrogations, and questions that were put to them, or others in their stead, doth show, that of old none but grown persons were baptized upon confession of faith, for that when Infants are baptized they must also make confession by others. I answer, if the very use of susceptors in baptism were an argument of force against Infants baptism of old, it might as well be of force against the baptism of adult persons too upon the same ground, as then in use; since they also had of old their susceptors: when Pagans desired to be baptized, they had those which instructed them before hand, and when they were baptized they presented them to baptism, and undertook for them also. Stories are plentiful in instances, that after that corrupt custom of susceptors in baptism came up, adult persons had susceptors as well as Infants. Epidophorus at Carthage of the Church of Fausty had the Deacon of the Church to be his susceptor. Magdeb. hist. cent. 5. c. 6. Justinian the Emperor was surety for Gethes King of the Herulians, when baptized, and divers others the Centurists mention as do other Historian; nor doth it follow because such confessions, and answers were made by such as brought Infants to be baptized, that therefore it argues only adults used to be of old baptized, rather it argues that of old it was the doctrine of the Church, that Infants were baptized principally in others right, which offered them to baptism, namely, their godly parents, or such as took them as their own adopted children, to bring them up in God's fear. Hence even after the corrupt and abusive practice of susceptors came up; Stories are not wanting to tell us of Christian parents which were susceptors to their own children: witness the Story mentioned by Fabian in his 5th. book c. 114. Andovera wife to Chilpericus having a little daughter born in her husbands absence did by the persuasions of the Bishop Fredegrand become witness to it herself at its baptism. The Centurists mention the same Story out of Ganguinus. Hence also Austin in his 14th. Sermon upon the words of the Apostle, speaking of Infants Baptism saith, if baptism profit the baptized, I demand whom it benefiteth, the believing or the unbelieving? but God forbid I should say that Infants are not believing, I have but now disputed it before. He believeth in another which sinneth in another, scil. in the parents which alone convey sin to the Infant: It believeth then and it's baptism is valid, and it's joined to the faithful formerly baptized. This the authority of the Church our mother holdeth: This doth the sure Canon (or rule) of truth obtain.

Thus far forth then it was looked at as a doctrine not only which the Church had in it, but which the Scripture, the rule of truth contained in it: that in the business of Baptism at least the faith of such as conveyed sin to the child, even of the parents, was instead of its own personal faith, so far as to make its baptism valid and beneficial to it.

SECT. IIII.

THe next witness is Arnobius upon the Psalms, which Perkins putteth at the year 290. but because Perkins in Praepar. ad Demon. Probl. and Rivet in his Crit. sac. makes it a spacious book as mentioning on Psal. 119. the Pelagian heresy which came up above sixscore years after Arnobius his time, I shall not attempt to fight against a shadow. Albeit the place being of the way of Adults Baptism concludeth nothing against what we maintain.

Ludovicus Vives is the next who in his notes upon Austin de Civitate Dei l. 1. ( cap. 26. saith the Treatise, but it's rather) cap. 27 as Hen. Den. more truly quoteth it, affirmeth that in times past

who having learned what it concerned desired the same: But whether he that lived but in Henry the eighths days, or Austin whom he expounds which lived above twelve hundred years ago, had better reason to know what was done of old, let any sober mind judge.

To the same purpose Walefrid Strabo who lived about the year 800. seemeth to speak, but Origen who was in the year 201. according to Osiander, or 230. according to Perkins and Usher, he mentions Paedobaptism as from the Apostles, as well as Austin doth. And so doth the Milevitan council in the year 402. (according to Wolfius ) say as much, that the Catholic Church hath always understood Infants to be defiled with Adams sin, and according to the rule of faith to be on that ground (namely amongst others, for it's known sundry other gounds were of old urged for Paedobaptism, as that Matth. 19. 13, 14, 15. Suffer, &c. For of such, &c. urged in Tertullian's time 200. years before, as appears by his assaying to take off that ground in his book De Baptismo before mentioned) baptized. See the 1. Tome of Councils.

SECT. V.

THe next witness is Bucer in his Annotat. upon the 4th. of John, set out Anno 28.

I have looked that very book (and a book distinct from his greater book on the Evangelists) and there is no such words; It's a mere forgery. Bucer is again cited Proposion 6th. saying that Christ hath nowhere plainly commanded that children should be baptized. If the speech had been just thus, yet it's evident his Intent was not that children ought not to be baptized by virtue of God's command, which is the direct conclusion subscribed to in the explication of it at Wittenburg by him and others, as before: but that the command was not in so many words expressed, but by necessary consequence to be concluded. His book entitled The groundwork and cause, I have not, though like testimonies have been answered before.

SECT. VI.

THe next is Ruffinus in his exposition upon the Symbol, that those at Rome and Aquila that were to be baptized must first acknowledge and confess the 12. Articles of the Creed. Here Ruffinus is as one against Paedobaptism. By others when Origen's authority is urged upon Rom. 5. for Paedobaptism, then it is spurious and the words of Ruffinus. Now how should one behave himself amidst this contradiction of the antipartie? Well, we shall ward off both Blowes as they come God willing. As for this testimony, as much is in the Treatise and the same place brought out of Austin in his 8th. Book of Confessions, that albeit the Authors conceal the name of the place where Victorinus was to have made confession of the faith, as the custom was; namely, at Rome. Yea but how then saith Austin lib. 4 cont. Donat. cap. 13. 14. that it was ever the use of the Churches, and that delivered from the Apostles to baptize Infants? Verily both are subordinates and not contraries. According to the subjects mentioned, if speaking of Adults, then the former is true; if of Infants, then the latter is as true. Albeit it's as true after the custom then in use in Ruffinus his time that Infants did make confession by their sureties; as according to God they did and do now confess their faith (so far as concerneth their baptism) in their parents: even as every man ( Deut. 16. 17.) giving as he was able, their males which personally there appeared came not before the Lord empty, not any of them but gave, scil. in their parents offering for them.

CHAP. VII. SECT. I.

HIs proofs out of Popish writers, as Eckius mentioned in proof of that and of the 7th. Proposition; Rossensis, Cocletus, Ennusius and Staphylus to which some add Bellarmine, I do not much regard, because they can play Legerdemaine, fast and loose with a trick that they have. If they dispute against Calvinists about the sufficiency of Scripture, or validity of human traditions, then Paedobaptism is a tradition of the Church: If against Anabaptists, then Eckius in his Enchiridion here cited▪ hath his four Scripture arguments to prove it to be of Scriptural authority and foundation. For Bellarmine, he hath in his book of Baptism cap. 8. 3 arguments from Scripture for it. And although, saith he, we do not find it commanded expressly that we should baptize Infants. Tamen id colligitur satis aperte ex scriptures ut supra ostendimus — Yet it is to be gathered plainly enough from Scriptures (saith Bellarmine ) as we have before shown. Wherefore of such if I may say as he bluntly once spake to his companion: If they can with the same breath blow hot and cold, let them even eat porridge with the devil if they will, I like not their falsehood.

SECT. II.

OF Lutherans, Pomeranus is quoted whose book of children unborne I cannot meet with, and so cannot trace my Authors here: And in such a case as they say, Travailers and Soldiers may lie by authority when none can contradict them. But yet what says Dr. Pomeranus? that for the space of 1200. years men erred concerning children, the which we cannot (yet willingly would) baptize; what his intent is by these words of his cannot well be gathered. If he intend it of all sorts of children, that it is an error to baptize all without regard to their parents, Church or covenant estate: yet was it an old error: albeit not so old, so far as I can find. But if it should be taken in reference to children visibly in the covenant, I wonder if he should speak any such thing in that sense having so solemnly subscribed to the contrary in that famous meeting at Wittenburg formerly mentioned.

SECT. III.

CAlvin that grand opposer and stigmatizer of Anabaptists is quoted to confirm Proposition 6. and 8th. lib. 4. Instit. cap. 16.

Now Calvin having said Sect. 8. that there is none which seeth not that Paedobaptism is not of human devising which is established by such Scripture approbation, brings it in by way of objection, that it will be said, it's nowhere expressly mentioned where the Apostles baptized children, which giving albeit not granting he saith, Yet our Authors are so mad to bring this very place to prove their 6th. Proposit. that the Apostles never baptized any Infants. And upon Matthew, Calvin is said to say, Christ hath nowhere commanded to baptize Infants. But on what place in Matthew, Calvin saith so is not said; but this I can say that in the most likely places where that Argument of baptism is handled, Calvin nowhere speaketh in these words here expressed as far as I can find.

Dathenus in his Colloquie is the next witness, confessing; It's nowhere plainly in such words written that Christian children shall in the New Testament be baptized — and yet we have no express commandment of it, scil. as before in so many words; You shall baptize children: and that there is no evident — or express example ( scil. in so many words recorded that the Apostles baptized (such or such) children) and what then? therefore Christ never instituted, the Apostles never practiced Paedobaptism, according to the 6th. Proposition? Non sequitur. Here then are three more witnesses abused.

CHAP. VIII. SECT. I.

ORigen calleth children's baptism a ceremony and tradition of the Church, Hom. 8. in Levite. and in Rom. 6. lib. 5. What, doth Origen say so in both places? that is false. In the former he saith baptism is given to Infants according to the first observation of the Church. But if any boggle at that, in the other place quoted he telleth you the groundwork of that observation of the Church: For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptism even to Infants. If it were an Apostolical tradition, then not a bare Church tradition: if the Church received it from the Apostles, then was not the Church the Author of it, but the Apostles rather. Yea but others perceiving the force of the Testimony of so early an author in the matter of the practice of Paedobaptism, casheere it as a spurious testimony of some other rather then of Origen. Some stumble at the word Tradition, when yet it's no other then what Basil speaking (as before quoted) of the form of Baptism calleth it a tradition; and in his 73. Epistle speaking of the Spirit the comforter as placed in equality with the Father and Son to be a thing which they had received as delivered to them. So Justin Martyr another author formerly cited maketh the form of that manner of worship mentioned in his second Apology to be that which they had received from the Apostles. So Gregory Nazianzen another quoted Author here: in his first oration against Julian the Apostate, he inveigheth against that abusive imitation of the Church traditions (the manner of administration of the ordinances) for Pagan uses. Clemens Alexandrinus a special Author quoted by Mr. B. yet he counteth it a metamorphosing of a Christian to kick against the tradition of the Church, and warp to opinions of human heresies, lib. 7. Stromaton. He means not bare Popish superstitious Church customs, but such as are opposite to mere human conceits and devices, yet calleth them Church traditions. Yea but those corrupt exploded Canons are yet called the Apostles Canons. They are so by Papists, not so by Protestants. Such, all those orthodox Divines may explode them; yet maintain this as an Apostolical tradition, which is genuine and divine — Yea but it may be said that Erasmus noteth in his Praecognita unto the Book of Leviticus that he which readeth this work ( scil. the Homilies upon Levite. ) and the Enarration upon the Epistle to the Romans, he is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus: And the peroration of the Translator annexed to the commentary of the Romans saith that he added something defective (whereof yet he had the fundamentals from the Author) and abbreviated other things too largely expressed in the Commentaries upon the Romans, Leviticus, Genesis, Exodus, Joshua and Judges. Suppose these additions of things defective by Ruffinus; yet he saith he had the foundations of what he added from Origen. So that Origen gave such foundations of Paedobaptism, if Ruffinus added that as gave occasion to it; but why is not this particular mentioned as Origen's rather then Ruffinus his notion? Because Origen was somewhat Pelagianisticall, and this place touching baptizing Infants in respect of original sin was too cross to Pelagianism. This is new to me that Origen held that error, albeit he were not free of others: but I have read more said of Ruffinus that way, scil. that he was the forerunner of Pelagius. If on that ground it was not Origen's, much less was it Ruffinus his own dictate. And Erasmus denieth not but all there mentioned must be fathered upon either Origen or Ruffinus. But to put an end to this dispute, the Homilies on Luke are not questioned to be Origen's; neither doth Erasmus nor the Translator in the peroration mentioned acknowledge either additions or detractions in setting forth of those Homilies on Luke. Yet there Origen affirmeth to the substantial • mentioned in that place of the Romans; for in his 2. Tom. Hom. lib. 14. on Luke he saith; parvuli baptizantur, &c. and little children are baptized unto remission of sins; of what sins, or when did they sin, or how can there be any occasion of washing in little children, unless in that sense of which we spake a little before? None is clean from blemish, no though but a day old in the earth, and because the defilement of our Nativitie is put away by baptism; therefore even little children are baptized: Nor do I find in our Critics, or the Authors quoted by them, that these Homilies of Origen's on the Romans are doubted of, to be genuine: Albeit both Perkins and Rivet do reject those on Leviticus, as spurious, and his Commentaries on the Romans as not faithfully translated by Ruffinus.

The next witness is called upon to come in, but miscalled and therefore may choose whether he will answer to his name. It is one Pope George the fourth who should call it a Tradition of the Fathers; and to show it is no scape of the Printer he is called out in the Roman Language, Georgius quartus Bonifacio; let children be baptized according to the Tradition of the Fathers. Of Pope Gregory I have oft heard and read, but cannot light of one Pope George. But it's supposed the Authors meant Pope Gregory the fourth; albeit the Translators mistook their Authors. This Pope flourished Ann. 842. and it's not much what he had called it, in those corrupt times. We have heard of others which gave better Language that were his Seniors; and if you would believe but the Testimony of Gregory the first, who had more honesty in him then all the rest of that name, but we have witnesses enough besides, and shall forbear him.

SECT. II.

THe next Author called in is Cyprian, which is rather challenged as an Author of Paedobaptism, Anno 248. Epist. lib. 3. Ep. 8. for in the Margin it's said, Cyprian ordained children should be baptized: and yet also it is said in the Margin over against the mention of the Carthaginian Council, Baptism Instituted; & again above: Baptism ordained by Pope Innocentius, scil. the first, and yet over against Pope Innocent the third Baptism ordained instead of Circumcision, and yet over against the mention of the second Bracarensian Council it is said Anno 610. was children's Baptism ordained as a necessary thing; so that I am at a stand. I thought we should have heard who instituted or ordained baptism of Infants since it is cast as a mystery of the man of sin in the preface, and made a human ordinance Proposit. 7. And it hath so many first fathers, and so many are challenged for begetting this pretended Bastard, that with all the skill I have, I know not at whose door to lay it. If that Cyprian were the father of it, then not Innocentius the first, or the Carthaginian or Milevitane Council gathered in his time above 150. years after; If the fifth or sixth Carthage Council, then not the second Bracarensian Council above 200. years after that: If either of these, then not Innocent the third 600. years after the Bracharensian Council. The like might be said of the Constitutions of Justinian and Leo the Emperor, which he mentions. But if the Treatise intend that these all or any of them did reestablish Paedobaptism; albeit they were not the Authors of it: we are agreed. But this proveth not that what they do ratify, or because any of them do anathematize such as deny it as the Milevitane Council did, that therefore it is an human ordinance. The Milevitane Council in the Anathema they pronounce, they mention that as another ground: Of such as deny that Infants derive any original guilt of sin which needeth expiation by baptism, as well as denying that Infants baptism is for remission of sins: Now none will say, original guilt in Infants is a mere human invention and device without warrant from Scripture, because that Council anathematizeth such as deny it. Or that because that Justinian ordains that those that are come to their full growth should be taught before they were baptized, as well as he doth order Paedobaptism to be; that therefore the former is an human ordinance. Surely if that such a ratification be a formalis ratio to make the former an human ordinance, it is as well such in the latter. We speak not now in reference to Scripture grounds of the one or of the other, but of the validity of arguing from decrees of Councils or Emperors or Popes. And this mindeth me of such like Testimony of witnesses examined a little before. Cassander he must say, Paedobaptism came in 300. years after Christ. Luther, that it came in 1000. years before him, scil. above five hundred years after Christ. Pomeranus 1200. years before him (who was contemporary with Luther ) and so more then 300. years after Christ; and yet Cyprian at Ann • 248. ordained it. Witness Austin, Epist. 28. to Jerome. Justus Menius too I think cometh in for the same purpose, albeit he saith nothing in the Book, (the same Justus Menius which with the rest subscribed to Paedobaptism, as commanded of God, at the Wittenburg Concord before mentioned.) But where shall we fasten but conclude that in as much as the witnesses disagree, their Testimonies are not valid, but the one weakeneth the other, since if one speak nothing but the truth, the other doth not? If the Authors intent be that some of these Authors or Councils propounded some unwarrantable motives to ratify Paedobaptism: I go not about to clear any of the sons of men from corruption in what they attempt, nor in the motives which stir them up oft times to things in themselves warrantable. But this will not reach their main aim, s • il. to prove that because of some corruptions in the manner and way or motives of ratifying this ordinance of God, it should be no ordinance of God. Non sequitur. But because Cyprians Epistle to Fidus where the 66. African Bishops did in a solemn Council agree to the ratifying of Paedobaptism; it is many ways undermined thereby to invalidate our proofs from antiquity for Paedobaptism: I shall endeavor to clear it from such aspersions. First, Mr. B. attempts to make the judgment of the Council invalid because of the weakness of their grounds, and the Errors annexed. Weak grounds. 1 That Luke 19. 10. as if lost if not baptized, which was also an error. 2 That God is a like father to all — and so all to be baptized as well as any, which was an error too. 3 That they had only sinned in others. Errors also then held; that the holy Ghost was received by baptism, that Infants were to have the Lord's Supper in Epist. de Lapsis, they held signing with the Cross, Unction, that Original sin was done away by it; that only baptized persons escaped Damnation, &c. By all which he would have it evident that no heed is to be given to Cyprians time when there were such gross errors about baptism. To which I Answer, if that the times were so gross and dark, then no wonder they might hold forth such weak arguments for the truths they held. If Mr. B. had well traced antiquity, and should in his reading still keep this principle by him, to reject all he reads of as unsound in Authors or councils because of weak grounds they give; he would soon reject the most of what many approved Authors for soundness amongst the ancients do hold forth, and what many councils have ratified. He that would weigh their wild expositions of Scripture, and Allegories and Judaizing notions which oft times they bring, would as well question from thence either baptism or the Lord's Supper to be any ordinances now at all to us, as the Sectaries do. Let us bless God for clearer times, but not despise any truth from any for the weakness of those earthen vessels which hold it out to us. You would think him too censorious it may be which coming to hear some Cobblers or Taylours in England to preach, who having good Texts and being happily honest in the main, yet make very simple work of it both in their wild expositions of Scriptures, and weak, yea erroneous grounds which they make use of to confirm the Text or doctrine truly gathered from it. As for their errors it doth not appear from all Mr. B 's quotations that all the 66. Bishops held them all, if Cyprian himself did. But what if Tertullian add prayer for the dead to the baptism of adult persons, as in the place quoted De Corona Militis before appeared, yea unction, crossing, &c. (as Crispin in his book of the estate of the Church fathereth these upon him) yet will it follow that ergo baptizing of adult persons upon confession is no ordinance of God? no you will say because the Scripture warrants it; so say we it warrants paedobaptism. But we are now without reference to Scripture upon a Topic place of argument drawn from human testimony. If the errors of the witness to the one makes his testimony invalid, then do the errors of the other. Yea even those errors which Cyprian held about doing away sin by baptism, unction and crossing in it, damnation being lost without it: the receiving of the spirit by baptism, &c. they held them in the point of baptism indefinitely, whether of grown persons or others: so that Baptism of adult persons for those errors may be denied as held out in Cyprians time in the main, or any ordinance as well as Paedobaptism. And Cyprians testimony is vain in the one as well as the other, as also his Mr. Tertullian's was. Yet Mr. B. urgeth in his preface Cypr. De Baptis. Haeret. for his purpose. If he held that all sorts should be baptized, so have our fathers held that all sorts should come to the Lord's Supper, when yet only visible Saints should. Yet the Lord's Supper is an ordinance to adult persons visibly in Covenant with God and his people, and not scandalous, and so is baptism of Infants of Parents in visible covenant with God, &c. notwithstanding the error superadded, or that other of Infants coming to the Lord's Table, &c. As men may superadd to Christ the foundation, wood, hay and stubble of their own, which will all be consumed, yet the foundation remain precious and supporting, 1 Cor. 3. So men may and have superadded to the ordinance of baptism both of adult and Infants, and so to that of the Lord's Supper and other ordinances much Stubble of their own vain spirits and men's inventions, yet that hinders not but that such things were in use in their Times, and rightly, in respect of the main held out by them; and as sitting in Moses chair we may and ought to hear them, notwithstanding their own errors annexed.

But Mr. Blackwood hath another evasion, as if this Epistle of Cyprianus to Fidus be upon some grounds to be suspected to be supposititious. As 1. In that Pamelius mentions not of what place Fidus was. Answ. No more doth he mention there of what place Victor or Therapius was; yet Therapius of the three being a chief man and called to the Carthage Council is mentioned by his place De Bulla. He was reckoned with men therefore in that Epistle whose place is described, and that sufficeth. He was known to them, albeit not to us. 2. In that there is such weakness in the arguments not likely to come from 66. Bishops. Answ. What wonder if their grounds were so weak (if so they be) since Mr. Blackwood hath before told us what an evil time Cyprians was? and if they were so full of errors as he said before about baptism, is it wonder that they are so weak in their principles about it? I could answer this weak reason otherwise, but since Mr. B. giveth us that answer, let him take that; and I cannot but mind him of that Council at Carthage a little after which assembled to establish rebaptizing of persons led aside into heresies, yet again returning to the orthodox Churches; but upon what weak gounds let even Mr. B. consider and judge, yet none therefore questions whether ever there were such a council. 3 Mr. B. saith there is no mention made at what place this Synod met. Ans. As if stories mentioned no Synods and those genuine, but such as the very place where the council met is also mentioned, I shall therefore give amongst others one instance, out of Osiander in his Exit. hist. eccles. centur. 4. li. 3. c. 13. where he citeth out of Hillary an orientall orthodox Synod, of Bishops gathered against that Sermiensian and more then Semi-arrian Synod, whose Canons are there recorded of which they did agree; but as for the place or City where that Synod was held, that is not to be found. 4 Saith Mr. B. it appears that it was feigned because so contrary to the mind of Tertullian, which was in such request with Cyprian. Ans. If it were Tertullian's mind which Mr. B. supposeth, yet Jerome who could speak as much as Mr. Blackwood mentioneth, and doth (as I remember in his book of Ecclesiastical writers) affirm from a very aged man's mouth living in his time who had been in his younger days Cyprians Scribe how dear Tertullian's works were to him, yet Jerome did not think that therefore this Epistle was none of Cyprians: For he himself (who yet in that book mentioned leaveth out books then accounted spurious of several authors) quoteth this very Epistle in his 20. Tom. lib. 3. Dialog. contra, Pelag. ad finem. And lest (saith he) thou shouldst think me in an heretical sense to understand this (speaking before of the use of Paedobaptism) that blessed Martyr Cyprian whom thou boastest thyself to imitate in expounding Scriptures, in the Epistle he wrote to the Bishop Fidus ( Jerome calls Fidus a Bishop, he treatise styleth him but a Priest) concerning baptism of Infants; he maketh mention of this, &c. Paedobaptism. 5 Saith Mr. B. it appeareth from Baronius that Cyprian was against Paedobaptism, who saith if Cyprian had been so that that had been an apostolical Tradition (speaking saith Mr. B. of Infants baptism) and not contrary to holy Scriptures by sound and sincere opinion, without doubt he had rested.

Ans.

I shall let Mr. B. please himself a little in this fancy: suppose then Cardinal Baronius saith so, yet Mr. B. hath amongst other exceptions here charged against Cyprian: that in Cyprians time Infants did partake of the Lord's Supper, and will any follow that? Cyprian in his Epistle de lapsis, speaking of the wickedness of those w ^ch sacrificed at the heathen Altars, he aggravates their sin that their Infants they carried in their arms or led in their hands, lost that which they had gotten in the beginning of their birth: when the day of judgment comes they will say we have done nothing: neither did we leaving the meat and the cup of the Lord, hasten willingly to profane defilements, &c. Thus far Mr. B. out of Cyprian. Then it seems in Cyprians time Infants were partakers of the Lord's Supper as well as of baptism, that birth wherein they had first got that which at the heathen Altars they lost, scil. that good they got by it, which Sacramentally was their birth, that is, new birth, for they rather added to what they got in their natural birth, scil. sin, then lost at these sacrifices. If in this Epistle Infants baptism be thus intimated, why saith Mr. B. a little before (as a ground of his challenge of his Epistle to Fidus ) that he finds it mentioned but once; he found what was in this Epistle de Lapsis too, why else mentioneth he the same? and if both were the errors of Cyprian, and the rest then Cyprians judgment was for it surely albeit it is supposed he erred in it; and why then is Baronius brought in to prove it was not Cyprians judgment, when Mr. B. hath assayed to prove it that it was his error? was that the error of Cyprians judgment the which he never held? but yet let us hear what Baronius can say to it. Now I confess Baronius hath this passage verbatim which Mr. B. quoteth; only he hath not Mr. B 's Parenthesis (that it was spoken of Infants Baptism) the Page is a little mistaken, it is not Page 398. but Page 415. but Mr. B. is quite out in this application of that passage, which is mentioned in reference only to the controversy about the baptism of heretics which he wresteth grossly as if intended of the matter of baptism of Infants; and if Mr. B. had but read Baronius a few lines before, he would never thus have in print falsified an authors Testimony. Baronius discoursing about Traditions brings in Pope Stephen using that weapon in the case of baptism of heretics against Cyprian, who erred therein, scil. that it being by tradition received that the Baptism of heretics might in case be valid, nothing should be acted contrary to that tradition; as it was by Cyprian and the other Bishops with him (nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est) agatur, scil. (saith Baronius quoting Stephens words) and after subjoineth. If Cyprian had been sure (that) scil. that doctrine mentioned about the validity of Heretics baptism) had been an Apostolical tradition (as Stephen urgeth it to be) and not contrary to holy Scriptures, according to sound and sincere opinion, without doubt (saith Baronius ) he had rested in it, and for this end he quoteth Cyprians 74. Epistle ad Pompeium contra Epist. Steph. as opening the case intended, where Cyprian himself writeth that fragment of Stephens Epistle nihil innovetur, &c. as urged against him in the business of the baptism of Heretics, and Euseb. lib. 7. eccles. cap. 2. and 3. speaks of the case betwixt Stephen and Cyprian out of Letters of Dionysius Alexandrinus about it; citing it as the great question then moved, scil. whether such as returned from any heresy should be purged by baptism. In that the custom was to receive such only by prayer and imposition of hands. And adds cap. 3. that Cyprian he held that such as returned from error were no other way to be purged then by baptism: But Stephen mentioned that nothing in this case should be innovated besides that old tradition, scil. of receiving such again only by prayer and imposition of hands, where Mr. B. comparing the place in Baronius with this in Eusebius, may fully satisfy himself in his printed errors. But to come yet closer, verily Stephen Bishop of Rome that was so enraged against Cyprian, for that he brought in that innovation of rebaptizing persons that were baptized by heretics: that he writ he would have no Church communion with such as did rebaptise all sorts of heretics (as you may perceive by the Epistle of Dionysius to Xistus Stephens successor, Euseb. l. 7. c. 3, 4, 5.) he would have expressed as much violence against Cyprian and his Bishops with him for that which they determined in the case of Paedobaptism if that had been accounted an innovation in those times, or contrary to Apostolical tradition as he thought the other was: or that as the treatise would assay to prove from Ruffinus upon the Symbol, that the custom at Rome was to baptize such as made confession of the articles of the Symbol; and so not Infants; no assuredly it was otherwise in Rome, then they baptized Infants as well as others, else Cyprian had heard of it to purpose from this Roman bishop, and besides the story of Lucius and Elcutherius long before Stephens time showeth, what was the practice at Rome: surely how ever some snapper at Origen's Testimony (who was about 20. years before this) for saying Infants baptism was delivered to the Church from the Apostles, yet if it had been thought otherwise in Cyprians time, within a while after; other Bishops would have withdrawn the right hand of fellowship for innovating contrary or besides Apostolical Tradition.

But to return to Mr. B. if he scruple Cyprians Epistle to Fidus, he may I think satisfy himself if he consider Jerome’s testimony, for it in the forequoted place. Also that testimony for it from the fifth Council of Carthage, viz. Chap. 6. citeth this Epistle of Cyprian ad Fidum; so doth Austin often not only in his 28th. Epistle to Jerome, but Sermon the 14. upon the words of the Apostle, so in his first book de pecc. merit. & remiss. and in his third book also c. 5. he citeth that Epistle against Pelagius; verily if there had been any such question imagined in those days of the spuriousnesse of that Epistle, Pelagius and his followers would soon have blunted that weapon as oft as sharpened against them. But some will say here is just the proverb fulfilled, Ask my fellow whether I am a thief. Austin was as rotten and corrupt in his principles about Paedobaptism as was Cyprian. Cyprian looked at them as incurring eternal judgment that were not baptized, so did he oft urging John 3. 5. 6. 53. he thought all were to be baptized whether of believers or otherwise, so did Austin; he thought Infants had faith and that because of original sin conveyed, therefore to be baptized according to that testimony of Origen's, Propter hoc, &c. For this (even because of original sin) they must be baptized, &c.

To this I answer as before, admit Austin held out that upon Corrupt grounds, so did he hold the administration of Baptism to adult persons upon grounds of necessity thereof to salvation and purging away sin, yea & the Lord's Supper too as so necessary to grown persons ( John 6. 53.) also, yet none will make these ordinances therefore nullities or no ordinances; truth is no less truth, because a weak scholar taketh unsafe mediums to confirm or prove the same.

Yet I add two things, 1. That the authors urged by Antipaedobaptists use like language and argument. Justine calleth it new birth, and saith we bring them to the water and they are Newborne as we are, that is baptized, (and per hoc lavacrum remissionem peccatorum praeteritorum adipiscamur, fiamus filii scientiae ) and that we become the sons of knowledge and obtain remission of sins past by baptism, &c. Clemens Alexandrinus calls it a washing whereby we wipe away our sins, grace whereby the punishments due to our sins are forgiven paedag. l. 1. Gregory Nazianzen calls it baptism, because sin is buried in the water: so he calls it the key of heaven, the casting away of the flesh, the loosing of our bonds, the taking away of slavery, &c. in his 40. orat. de baptismo: So Basil, yea these authors use like grounds for baptism. Justine useth that from the necessity of it from John 3. 5. and this he speaking of baptism adds.

Justine and those with him lived not in the Apostles times, yet he received this he saith from them that is delivered by them to others after them, and from those others to them. And what reason is that delivered thus as a ground of baptism? even that native estate of children in their parents. What is this but in effect what the author of those homilies on the Romans urgeth, speaking of David's being conceived in sin, &c. and the same is used by Origen, hom. 14. on Luke by Cyprian Epistle ad Fidum, by Austin, Jerome, Ambrose. The same used by Gregory orat. de baptismo, thou ( scil. art to hast to baptism) as being in danger if not more but from hence: being borne only in corruption or in sin. The same urgeth the Milevitan Council. Tertullian de baptismo urgeth John 3. 5. for baptism also. So as Austin and others urge it upon the ground of danger to unbaptized persons; so doth Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 40. not to stay to Christ's years because of danger of mortality. Yea better Infants be sealed without sense thereof, then die without the seal. And he also as well as Austin makes the case of Infants dying without baptism to be punished with paena damni albeit not with paena sensus, ibid. Basil in his exhortation to hast to baptism useth the same argument taken from the danger of death without baptism; yet in them any naevi in this way are overlooked, and their testimonies not therefore invalid. 2 I say that albeit that Austin and others for Paedobaptism used some unsafe grounds, yet others they used were to us solid, as that from circumcision, l. 4. cont. Donat. c. 23, 24. and Epist. 108. Seleucianae l. 2. de peccat. merit. & remiss. c. 25. that of their parents faith, whence notwithstanding want of faith in themselves, it became a beneficial ordinance, Serm. 14. upon verb. Apostoli: that of their interest in the Covenant which Christ came to fulfill in the flesh; hence that in the Epistle of the Carthaginian Council (in Austin's time) unto Innocent the first; Nos quia credimus parvulos in peccato nasci, &c. praeterea quia credimus filium dei pure ex illibata virgins natum ad implendas confirmandasque dei (promissiones) quae Infantes non excludant a salute, sed in faedere includunt, deo eos baptizandos esse contendimus. This that I have here recited may serve further to evince the guile of the treatise, quoting this Epistle Proposition 7. adding the words (much rather) thus [but much rather includeth Infants] which is manifest injury; likewise it appears by Tertullian's answer, in way of gloss upon Matth. 19. 13, 14. Let them come to me, &c. that that was of old held forth as a ground of Paedobaptism. In a word, the command, mind, and institution of Christ and his Apostles was also held out of old by Austin and others as the ground thereof; which they mean when they say, the Church received it from the Apostles, Homil. in Rom. 5. & Austin contr. Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23, 24. Milevitan Council, Can. 2. and Austin de Genesi ad literam, lib. 10. cap. 23. saith, So he saith again in his third Epistle ad Volus. As Austin further openeth himself, lib de pec. merit. & remiss. cap. 26. Charity then I think should over look other their more unsound tenets, or arguments, touching Paedobaptism. But to return to Cyprians Epistle and add one word more for Mr. B. and others satisfaction. Let him look upon Erasmus his own edition of Cyprian, Anno 1541. and he shall see that Erasmus who was very Eagle eyed to espy spurious writings, or passages of the Ancients, and there excepteth against many things going under Cyprians name, yet no word of his against Cyprians 59. Epist. ad Fidum: No more doth Mr. Perkins in his Problemes, nor Rivet in his sacred Critick; nor any critic which they quote, except against it. And here I might end these Annotations upon the 7th. Proposition in this Treatise.

SECT. IIII.

BUt I meet with an old Threadbare objection to the same purpose, as if Paedobaptism was first ordained by Higinus Bishop of Rome who lived about the year 1444. but all I can find in Authors is a certain decree (ascribed to him at least) that Infants coming to Baptism need not have but one god-father or god-mother, as they call them. And so much witnesseth Fasciculus Temporum, and Nauclerus, vol. 1. Generat. 6. besides what I find quoted out of Gratian: but none say that he first ordained, that children should be baptized. A like Decretal is ascribed to Urban Bishop of Rome, touching Children's confirmation, about the year 227. Nauclerus, but not of their Baptism, yet if they made any such Canons it rather confirms what we say then weakeneth our cause, scil. That Infants baptism was in those times of use in Rome, and elsewhere: why else any orders about their Susceptors or their Confirmations?

CHAP. X. SECT. I.

I Might now have breathed a little and rested myself, but that Mr. B. boldly challengeth any man to prove Infants Baptism out of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens, Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, and after professeth he regardeth no authority after the first 300. years. And others also call for Greek authors and Testimony out of the Greek Churches for it. I am of small reading, I confess, yet shall endeavor if it be satisfaction only that is herein sought, to present some few things this way unto the consideration of godly, sober and learned minds, and then draw to a conclusion of the whole discourse; only premising that in speaking from any of these Authors; whether touching the jus or fact of Paedobaptism; it sufficeth if either expressly or by consequence the same be held forth by them: for this in Scripture course is allowed; when we are to prove anything that ought to be done or was done, either way of proof, literal or collateral and consequential sufficeth. To begin with Justin Martyr, he in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, having spoken in way of vilifying circumcision in reference to Jewish Idolizing of trusting in, and urging of it upon the Gentiles, he hath these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

scil. Circumcision or Baptism spoken of, he maketh our Baptism to be instead of their outward circumcision, and this to be received by the Gentiles, in that sinners by reason of mercy, and this to be equal to all to be received by them equally, meaning either all Gentiles simply: and that I think he intends not; or at least all, scil. all sorts of Gentiles, high, low, rich, poor, bond, free, male, female, babes, youths and elder ones.

Irenaeus supposing the place quoted lib. 2. adversus haeres. Valentiniani similium cap. 39. Magister ergo existens Magistri babebat aetatem, &c.

Irenaeus his judgment is, that Christ is a Master to all sorts of men, to those of all ages, Infants, youth, or elder persons, and by force of Relata then in his judgment, Infants as well as adults are his Scholars or Disciples, that species of mankind, Infants as well as grown ones, albeit not all individual Infants whatsoever, come under relation to Christ as a Master; therefore in his judgment, that sort of persons being actually Disciples (not merely capable of it) the privilege of Disciples, scil. Baptism, is their due. 2. He judgeth that species of mankind Infants as well as others to be actually partakers of sanctification by Christ of the new birth, &c. the thing sealed in Baptism: therefore supposing his judgment, thus in the one; it is regular for him to judge, that that sort of mankind are to be visibly Baptized as well as that other sort of grown ones.

Origen is next and we have already proved supposing any ground of jealousy against that quoted place in the Romans, yet that of Luke, is of unquestionable credit touching both his judgment and practice of Paedobaptism. Clemens Alexandrinus is next, where in his fourth book of his Stromat. alluding to that of Job, return, saith he, not naked of possessions, that is common, but of sin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. for this is it which is said,

for generation meeting with or receiving of, or closing with generation, scil. in baptism, will make us immortal by progress, viz. in good, &c. I deny not but Clemens alluding to this place of little ones hath sometimes other applications of it not cross but subordinate to this, but I see not how it can otherwise be understood, but that he maketh a very child here the pattern as clean in body and holy in soul ( scil. Sacramentally in Baptism) according to that description in washing bodies with pure water, and heart sprinkling from an ill conscience, scil. guilt of sin, Heb. 10. 8. A periphrasis of Baptism, unless any say, Infants are Innocents, clean from sin original, and expounding whom he means which here he sets as the pattern to grown ones; he saith, such like as are begotten in or by Baptism (as Gensianus Hervetus on the place noteth) comparing Baptism to the womb out of which an Infant is borne; and so here new borne, and so the little one is the pattern to such as will be saved: not as an Infant merely, but as such a little one that is pure in body and soul, which here he further explicateth, that is, such an one as is begotten again in Baptism. He speaketh not this of adult ones: they are the persons that must be such like; they cannot be both the Patterns and the persons resembling them too, the little ones thus holy and thus new borne are the pattern which as soon as borne in a man are new borne Sacramentally in baptism. Their generation and that their new ganeration do as it were join and hang and hand together.

Concerning Tertullian if his judgment be in some case for deferring Baptism, yet his gloss upon that ground upon Matth. 19. (which according to him requires baptizing of the Persons so invited) is absurd, and his other expressions de Anima mentioned seem cross thereto, but for the practice of Paedobaptism in his time beside • what Origen about his time testifieth to evince it, his own words mentioned before in the beginning of his book de Baptismo, and his arguing against the practice of hasting Infants to baptism doth prove it to be then in use.

Cyprian was within this 300. years, and therefore his testimony may not be slightly put by as before we shown, his 59. Epistle ad Fidum so opposed in our cause is yet authoritative with some opposites to prove the typicalnesse of the eighth day. Amongst the Greek authors called for that which is recorded to have been urged in the council by one of the members of that council of Neocesarea before mentioned, touching the occasion of that Law of baptizing the woman with child come from Paganism to the faith, is of much weight, other Greek councils, as the 6th. council of Constantinople, and Trullo, &c. are of moment also.

As for Ignatius his testimony, I do not remember when I read it somewhile since, that he speaks of baptism of adult or Infants purposely; and if he had, so many of the Epistles fathered upon him, being spurious, and the rest that may be his, being so mixed and corrupted, much heed would not be given to his testimony.

Eusebius it's known omitted many things of note, as where and when Justin was baptized: and the story of that famous writer Theognostus, of whom and his works Athanasius makes mention de Synod. Nic. decr. contra Arrianos, quoted by Baronius in his first Tome.

Athanasius (himself if that Question be his which some have scrupled) his testimony quest. 125. is full for it; for in that we thrice dip the child in water and lift it up again it signifieth the death of Christ and his rising the third day again, &c. the sentence before being the similitude stands thus: as Christ died and rose the third day, so we in baptism die and rise again, for in that, &c. as before.

But that is undeniably his own upon Luke 10. All things are given to me, &c. pag. 197. he makes baptism to succeed circumcision, urging that proof, Col. 2. 12. wherefore, saith he,

this is no other then the Doctrine we hold forth: and whence by Analogy we deduce the doctrine of Paedobaptism. The same also teacheth Epiphanius.

Epiphanius contra heresies, contra Epicuraeos,

and contra Corinth. and Tom. 2. l. 1. that is, men only, but the whole people of Christians ( scil. men, women and children) he compleateth circumcision by all their circumcising from sin in baptism. Yea, but why then did not Epiphanius use that argument of Paedobaptism against the Collirydians as well as that taken from their interests in God's Kingdom, &c. The answer is ready; it's likely that all those heretics might as well as some others deny Paedobaptism in a sense, if not wholly, and what then the argument from Paedobaptism had been invalid; besides it's not necessary that a man in disproving error or proving truth should use all the arguments he hath by him; or that it be concluded he hath no more arguments that way because he useth them not.

What Basil said this way as I find him quoted by Aretius on Luke 18. I have mentioned formerly, I have not time to search him and read him exactly.

What Gregory Nazianzen hath this way for us, yea if strictly expounded: how he is ours we have seen before.

John Chrysostom which Mr. Blackwood makes his own in his 21. Homil. to the people of Antioch, (which if not spurious as sundry of them are, see Perkins and Rivet ) yet not understood exclusive. And it's much that Mr. B. that saith, pag. 31. he regards not any authority after the first 300. years, will yet quote the Nicene Council 325. the Laodicean Council 308. the Constantinople Council about 400. Basil 380. and Chrysostom 405. years after Christ, as of much use on his part in way of authority, yet saith he will not regard any authorities (which the other party at least bring) above the limit of time. But to return to Chrysostom, who in his 40. Homil. upon Genesis saith,

and so in his homily ad Neophytos, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for this cause we also baptize little ones which have no sin (meaning of their own, have not committed actual sins) that to them righteousness, holiness, adoption, inheritance and fraternity of Christ may be communicated, that they may all become his members and an habitation of his Spirit.

Theodoret in his Epitome of divine decrees and Cap. of baptism.

and makes those speeches, Gal. 3. and Rom. 6. to be verified in Infants baptizing as well as others; and that they are baptized in respect of future good rather then present, and that the Apostle taught them so to think hereof. Nor is that Dionysius Graecus, whoever he were, (albeit not the Areopagite, yea albeit having sundry mixtures in his book) to be wholly slighted or neglected.

SECT. II.

As for the Eastern and Greek Churches, Cassanders testimony is very round and full, (albeit their discipline may well be gathered by their teachers and councils doctrine) speaking of testimony of Paedobaptism he saith,

and Paget in his Christianography citeth a speech of the Bishop of Bitonto in the Council of Trent, acknowledging of the Greek Church thus: and he mentions the form of the Russians baptism,

Jerome the Patriarch pag. 103. and the same doth Thomas Aquinas observe in his third part, Quest. 6. Artic. 8. Quest. 67. Artic. 6. and Quest. 66. A •… tic. the 5th. And the same doth Dominic. a Sot. in quest. 1. Art. 8. testify, and let me add two things more; First, that the doctrine of Paedobaptism was never ex professo opposed by any Orthodox Churches, or Christians in all the times of old, as far as I can find; of Tertullian's mind we have spoken before, and Gregory Nazianzen; how far they went Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan, as Bullinger in his Decads hath it, did so, and so indeed did the Samosatenian Heretics. The Donatists they baptized Infants, witness the 48. Canon of the third Carthaginian Council in reference to Siritius and Simplicianus. So did other African Councils in Austin's time ordain that children baptized by Donatists should not be rebaptized; the Pelagians themselves denied it not wholly. Austin in his 14. Sermon de verbis Apostoli. baptizand •… esse parvulos nemo dubitet, &c. none need to doubt of baptism since even those here doubt not, which in part do contradict ( scil. the Pelagians: ) there are cases, and times wherein someone of the servants of God saw much more then many, and most did; as Athanasius, and some few more in the point of the Divinity of Christ in that Arian age, and Paphnutius the Confessor in the point of Ministers marriage to which the Fathers of the Nicene Council had like to have gone contrary, and yet before and after these times, whole Churches and Councils held out as much as these Saints did.

SECT. IIII.

Object.

NO such example in the opposers of Paedobaptism; Yes, (you will say) Berengarius about a 1050. and afterwards Peter de Brucis, and the Albigenses and so the Waldenses, (for they had such diverse names according to places and countries in which they were scattered, &c.) they denied it, and some of them appealed to the Scriptures, and to the Greek Church for warrant.

Answ.

I deny not but that the Popish writers (as their manner is) use to brand the servants of God with some odious tenets, for which all would hate them, when that they never held the same; but that old accuser of the Brethren casteth on by his instruments that dirt, wash it off who can. Plateolus, Abbas Cluviacensis and others traded this way, concerning Berengarius and his followers. Dr. Usher de succession & statu Ecclesiarum Christianarum, Cap. 7. pa. 207. quoteth Tbuanus accusing him and them thereof, but evinceth the contrary both in that: In all the Summons of Berengarius before the Synod we never read he was charged with Anabaptism, and that he rather denied baptism to profit Infants to salvation, ex opere operato, for which he quoteth Alanus in his first book against the Heretics of his times; as saying: that baptism had no efficacy either in Infant or grown persons, &c. and in p. 195. citeth Serarius in Triharesio — as saying, qui hodie sunt Calvinisti, olim dicti fuerunt Berengariani, & qui hodie Protestants dicuntur, Johanni Wendelstino (praefat. in Cod. Canonum,) novi sunt Waldenses. They then acknowledge their and our doctrine to be the same, and therefore no Antipaedobaptists, and Gretzer prolegom. in Script. edit. contra Waldenses cap. 1. citeth this as one of their Articles of confession, credimus etiam qu • d non salvatur quis nisi qui baptizatur, viz. ordinarily, and parvulos salvari per baptismum, and we believe that little children are saved by baptism, and so in the same cap. 8. doth Dr. Usher clear Peter de Brucis, and his followers from all such aspersions. They were accused too for rejecting the Old-Testament, and Evangelists, yet by Gretzer and others they are cleared as those that translated; and taught the same; and Reiner the Inquisitor said, they were so well acquainted with the old and New Testament, as that they could say much thereof by heart: the history of the Waldenses mentioneth this accusation of them, as if denying Paedobaptism, but citeth a book of the Waldenses entitled the spiritual Almanac, fol. 45. to the contrary, ordering that though no time or day be set, yet the charity, and edification of the Church must serve for a rule therein, and therefore they to whom the children were nearest allied brought their Infants to be baptized as their parents, or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind. True it is saith the Author of that story ( scil. John Paul Peruin. of Lions, l. 1. c. 4.) they being forced by the Popish Priest to bring their children, would delay their baptism out of detestation of the superstitious addition: and their own Ministers (called Barbes ) being very often (and sometimes very long) upon the Churches service, they would defer their children's baptism to their return; which delays of theirs being observed by the Popish Priests they thence raised that report, and charged them with that imposture: they appealed to the Greek Church, not as denying Paedobaptism, for they held and practiced it as before was shown, but as to a Church that was not so corrupt in dispensing it, as not using Chrism, crossing and exorcising; as the Latin Church did in baptizing any: See Flaccus Illiricus Catalogo testium veritatis, pag. 434. Waldenses semper baptizarunt Infantes, &c. the Waldenses ever used to baptize their Infants: nor do they now hold against it; they spake not against baptism of Infants simply, but as not administered by those of Rome in the vulgar tongue; nor doth Aeveas Sylvius in his Bohemian Story of the Waldensian tenets, although he be an exact sifter into the supposed errors of the Waldenses, charge them with Antipaedobaptisme.

SECT. IIII.

BUt to return to that first consideration, let it be weighed • hat as Austin long ago said of it, Nullus Christianorum, &c. No Christians (orthodox and godly) had ever denied Paedobaptism, l. 4. Con. Donat. c. 13. Secondly, add also this, that if it had been any way justly suspicious, why did not the Messalians wholly deny it, and the Pelagians also? what need had they to use that shift of Infants to be baptized to the kingdom of God, but not to the remission of sins? this argument Austin useth Serm. 14. de verb. Apost. Yea but they were afraid of the authority of the Church being great therein, that is strange that Heretics that regarded not so directly to go against, in their opinions, as well express letter of Scripture, as the doctrine of the Church in fundamental matters, should yet be afraid of the Church in a matter circa fundamentalia, and not so express in so many words as Paedobaptism was, who will imagine such an unlikelihood? A have done with this dispute for present, only I could advise that Mr. Blackwood, and others would be more sparing of such printed blaspheming of the name and tabernacle of the Lord, as to style this (which to all the Saints (in a manner) of old, and to the most that now live is of precious esteem and use) an Antichristian Garrison, and the doctrine of the man of sin, or of Antichrist. Mr. Blackwood I am sure doth know what is the judgment of all Orthodox Divines touching Antichrist, and who, or what it is that is so; and where he hath his seat, and when he had his rise. And cannot be ignorant wholly that Paedobaptism was of universal esteem, and use (in a manner) long before those prophesyings and pointings out of Antichrist by many of the ancients; the Greek Church which had not what doctrine and worship they had, and held from the Latin Church, but the Latin Church had it rather from them (as in the Council of Trent was before acknowledged) and which was averse from Romish customs; yet they held Paedobaptism, as before was proved. It is dangerous speaking a word against the Son, (much more writing) albeit not so irrecoverably as to speak against the Holy Ghost; he had need be on good, sure and clear grounds (if it were supposable he could be so) that assays to charge God foolishly with the reasons of his covenantings, or dispensations, and so palpably as to deny that God made a Covenant of Grace with Abraham, Gen. 17. and such like inaudita. It's dangerous pretending an imaginary Garrison, and in fighting against that as a supposed Garrison of Antichrist, whereon a man hazards the name and doth the work of one which will be found a fighter against God: we know who would not bring a railing accusation against the Devil, and how dare any so boldly revile such a received and ratified truth, as that of God's exhibition, and dispensation of his grace in a preventing way to those whose seed after them in Scripture Language are counted blessed. The Saints of old were very tender of speaking anything in such a sort as tended to the condemnation of the just.

Use 1.

TO wind up all in a word of Use to all; 1. in way of instruction. 1. See the riches of God's grace which thus is enlarged to all the sorts of the sons of men younger and elder; if God would amplify grace he sets it out as extended to his people, as in the case of an helpless and despicable babe, Isaiah 49. 14, 15. Hos. 10. 1. 3. especially Ezek. 16. 6, 7, 8. and what hath Satan here to object, Psal. 8. 1. 2. when even that sort of persons are made presidents not only of electing but calling (in way of Covenant and promise) grace? Rom. 9. 7, 8, 9, 10. To all he is rich, and free, hence all enterers into the kingdom, must here take pattern, Luke. 18. 17. how plentiful is that sap that fills such twigs, that liquor that fills all sort of vessels of greater and lesser capacity? how strong is that pin on whom all are hung?

2. See what honor God puts on his Saints thus to intaile the visible ordinary administration of his grace on them, and theirs, 2 Sam. 23. 4, 5.

3. See how cruel unbelievers are to themselves and theirs in excluding themselves and theirs of the ordinary means of their welfare even covenant grace administered.

4. See their desperate ingratitude that being children of such hopes, despise, and sell their birthright with Esau; these do vex their father most, Deut. 32. 19, 20.

5. See the danger and detestablenesse of Anabaptistical tenets, giving God and Christ (in part) the lie, vayling the glory of his preventing grace of Covenant, Numb. 11. 18. (giving such a Covenant call before we knew, or sought it, Isaiah 65. 1, 2.) framing a Covenant of God with believing parents which he never made, scil. a Covenant not respecting their children; denying the ordinary dispensation of the fruit of Christ's death to the Infant part of his Church, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. making the Churches opposite to Christ in their administrations to those of his, in their charity to that of his; as if he were looser in his charity to own such babes as of his kingdom which his Church will not, may not do; condemning the judgment and practice of former Churches, Jews and Gentiles, Act. 2. 38. 39. Rom. 5. 14, 15. and 11. 16, 17, 18, 19. Ephes. 2. 11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 7. 14. and 10. 1, 2. as preached all over Mark. 16. 15 Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. and Deut. 29. 29. with 30. 6. 10. 12, 13, 14. compared, see Austin l. 4. contr. Don. cap. 23, 24. undermining the validity of all which God hath done by virtue of his Covenant to babes, or to any of the Saints occasioning from the initiatory seal thereof, Ephes. 5. 26. evacuating all that Red-Sea-like triumphant Encouragement thence unto God's baptized Israel against their spiritual Egyptian enemies pursuit of them; and that Cloud-like Influence of their baptism in scorching temptations — and Ark-like succor thereof in drowning times. David did not more effectually make use of his circumcision which he long before received (even when an Infant) against that insulting Philistim — (whence that 1 Sam. 17. — this uncircumcised Philistim is come, &c.) then many of God's faithful ones have of that preventing grace of God sealed to them in baptism when very babes, in their spiritual conflicts. But all such spiritual workings either in parents or in the Churches of the Saints (where children have been offered to baptism) which have been occasioned by the administration of Baptism to Infants, are made here by delusions; God not using in such sort so generally, commonly and constantly to breath in Antichristian inventions. Yea all their prayers are thereby made so many profanations of God's name and taking the same in vain as oft as poured out upon occasion of baptizing of Infants, whence that profane trick of some, to turn their back upon the Churches at such time, as if all their persons, and prayers, and fellowship were unclean, whence the styling of it Antichristian, &c. what is this but to blaspheme the name and tabernacle and Saints of God, Rev. 13. And how doth such doctrine undermine all the Churches of the Saints which differ from them? witness their new foundings of their Churches in renouncing their former baptism as antichristian and receiving another baptism; yea how do such cast stumbling blocks unto the coming of the Jews by undermining of Abraham's Covenant in the latitude of it and the binding force of the Old Testament, which they stick to, as if all were invalid unless come over again in the New Testament, which they reject, and when ever dealt withal doubtless Old Testament principles will be the choice instrumental ways and means of getting within them.

Use 2.

Second Use of direction, 1 To Church Officers; to look after the Churches children being children of such hopes. 2 To gracious parents; 1 Admire much at the bounty of God who is not content to engage his grace to you, but to yours with you; you and yours are all Traitors, yet his royal word is for your and their acceptance. If that called for a Behold! Psal. 128. 3, 4, 5. and if that caused in him such holy wondering, 2 Sam. 7. 18, 19, 20. may not this also do the like, 2 Renue your faith in God's Covenant in the latitude of it upon occasion of the baptism of others, or your own children in special sort. 3 Acquaint your children with, & urge God's mind of grace upon them as they are capable of Instruction, Psal. 78. 4, 4, 5, 6, 7. 4 To children of pious parents; look you do not by abuse or contempt forfeit and reject your own mercy, as they did, Matth. 8. 11. 12. And such as now feel & find the force of God's engaged grace, forever do you adore and admire his preventing mercy and truth.

Use 3.

Third Use of comfort to believing parents; 1 If God overflow thus in grace to yours, will he not extend grace to yourselves? Conclude it, that he will assuredly, against all gainesayings of Satan and unbelief. 2 Be encouraged to set faith on work for your children, as they did, Psal. 102. last; yea albeit at present vile enough; since the force of God's covenant is such, as it can fetch them in, even when far removed by sin from the Lord, witness that Ezek. 16 60. 61, 62, &c. 3 You need not fear then touching divine protection of, and provisions for them suitably and seasonably, Psal. 25. 12. Prov. 20. 7. 4 When you are to die and leave them fatherless and friendless otherwise, yet here is a Covenant Father and friend to whom you may comfortably leave them, Gen. 48. 15, 16.