THE BIRTH-PRIVILEDGE: OR, covenant-holiness of Believers and their Issue in the time of the Gospel. TOGETHER With the Right of Infants to Baptism. By Thomas Blake Mr of Arts.  PSAL. 127.3. 
Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord.  ISAIAH 49.22. 
Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms: and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.  ACTS 11.17. 
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord jesus Christ: what was I that I could withstand God?  
LONDON, Printed by G.M. for Tho. Vnderhill at the Sign of the Bible in great Wood-street. 1644.   

To his dearly affected and beloved the Bailiffs and Burgesses of the ancient Borough of Tamworth in the Counties of Stafford and Warwick together with all the Inhabitants of the said Parish.  
LOud and piercing are the cries and groans under the burden of those pressures which the hand of God hath brought upon his people: The yoke of their transgression is bound by his hand, they are wreathed, and come upon their neck: These need not to be presented to your eyes or ears. The frequent changes which you have seen, and visits of men skilful to destroy, have given you abundant and woeful experience: yet I account it among one of God's mighty works that your sorrows, by his overruling providence, are so stinted, that the rage of men hath not brought them to a greater height: While you have tasted of Justice, you are not shut out from mercy and compassion: when I might not speak to you, I have held it my duty to speak for you: In the midst of all, 
jer. 18.20.  this must be our rest, That the Lord of hosts is with us, 
Psal. 46.11.  the God of Jacob is our refuge. Having a Covenant of Grace to plead, we may say as Israel of old, See we beseech thee, we are all thy people. 
Isai. 64.9.  And as posterity is not the least of our care, to seek a right way, 
Ezra 8.21.  as for our selves, so for our little ones, that a generation to come, 
Psal. 102.18.  a people that shall be created may praise the Lord: So it is of the greatest of our comforts, that posterity, our little ones, and those that shall be born, are bound up of God in the same promise, And that, in one and the same plea, we may seek to the Throne of Grace, for more than one age at once. When God had spoke to David of his house for a great while to come, revealing it to him, that he would build him an house; 
2 Sam. 7.19, 27.  Therefore hath thy servant (saith he) found in his heart to pray this prayer to thee. The promise was the ground, on which his prayer was bottomed. Take off the promise of God to your houses for time to come, and the foundation of your prayers for posterity is shaken. This was the endeavour of some among you, who are of those that lie in wait to deceive, scattering in the dark such doctrines that will not bear the light; which occasioned these present meditations, which you once heard delivered in your ears, and now are presented with some advantage (for more full consideration) to your eyes: I had encouragements to make them public, especially by the fruit, with which (through God's mercy) I have understood, they were crowned in a way, that I least expected, and being of right your due, as a freewill offering then tendered I could seek no other, nor greater Patron. I am more ambitious of your happiness, than the favour of those that are placed highest. I have served you for Christ a double apprenticeship of years almost complete; which time hath seemed to some to have added more than a third to the years of the days of my pilgrimage; This is to me the strongest engagement of affections, and shall so remain. If there have been but one new born, or so much as a cubite added to the stature of any towards the measure of the fullness of Christ, I have sufficient; And having not another Legacy, I must commend to you, or rather you unto the Word of God's Grace, which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified; still praying that the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting testament, make you perfect in all good works, to do his will, working in you that which is pleasant in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise for ever and ever. Amen.  
And remaining yours in all bowels of affection, Thomas Blake.   

TO THE Christian impartial Reader.  
OUR Respect to Infants in our tender of them to Christ hath been challenged as over-large: The first that appeared on that part to deny their access were his own Disciples: The first that stood up for vindication of their right was Christ himself: An error then suppressed, as soon as conceived, I would we could make like speed with such heterogeneal fancies, that they might prove such untimely births. Reforming-times have ever been found this way unhappily fruitful; In which Satan acts the first part, endeavouring evil in an equal measure to that good which he suspects is coming to a Nation. The pride of man follows close after: Every one thinks he must be doing, and bring one stone at least to the work, which if it be not polished in some new way the workman is at loss of all his honour; And the lower he is in place and seems in parts, the more is his renown heightened in so great achievements. This makes way for an argument of an immediate call, and some what like at least to divine Enthusiasms: 
Amos 7.14, 15.  which not a few now do challenge; who being demanded by what authority they enter upon the work of the Stewards of the Mysteries of God, they strait hold forth the Apostles for their Precedents, but the signs of such Apostles we want in them. When Paul had not a calling from man, 
Gal. 1.1.  he could produce it from Jesus Christ, and when he received it not from men, nor was taught it, he could instance in the Revelation of Jesus Christ: 
Gal. 1.18.  Which way soever it comes to pass, the work is much retarded, and the way of truth ill spoken off. 
2 Pet. 2.2.  But there is one rule to which we must appeal: The Law and the Testimony. 
Isa. 8.20.  This trial those of immediate and Divine Call did not decline, 
Acts 17.11.  yea Christ himself did desire. 
joh. 5.39. 2 Pet. 1.19.  And Peter when he had a voice from heaven to give in, yet he esteemed a word of Prophecy as more sure for his people. And when we give this honour of covenant-holiness and Covenant-seals to Infants, there is all reason that we give the world an account of our practice, especially suffering that Affront, which those in the Gospel met with in their tender of Infants. Here is somewhat produced to that end, and left to thy Judicious censure. The Author hath spared all invective language, and entreats like dealing from any that differs in opinion. Some will complain of a naked Margin, to which much might be said, The Author was with books, when it was compiled for the Pulpit, but taken from them when it was fitted for the Press. So that use of Marginal References must have put him upon the borrowed copies of others, and a new pains for quotation of Chapter & Page. Besides the quotations desired must either have been friends, and so their Evidence would be challenged; or else Adversaries, which perhaps might provoke some personal offences and distaste, which the Author studiously professeth to avoid. We all must stand or fall to our Master, 
Rom. 14 4.  and this dispute must stand or fall according to his sentence which is the Voice of Scriptures. 
john 12.48.  If this put no end to the difference, the dispute will be everlasting. Witnesses from the dead are in vain mustered, 
Luke 16.31. Ephes. 3.20.  when Moses and the Prophets, Prophets and Apostles cannot be heard. If by this candle from thence lighted thou seest any thing, to make more clear this title, to thyself and posterity, let God have the praise, and the Author thy prayers.   

THE BIRTH-PRIVILEDGE.  GAL. 2.15. 
We who are Jew's by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.  
THis Chapter contains a twofold Narration of the Apostle, 
The Introduction.  1. Of his journey to Jerusalem, with the several occurrents which happened there: brought in by him for the vindication of his Apostleship, from the first to the eleventh vers. 2. Of his dealing with Peter at Antioch, which Narration some say is continued to the end of the Chapter, others that it is broke off at the seventeenth verse, and in the verses that follow the Apostle doth not relate what he said to Peter, but directs his words to the Galathians to whom he writes, which difference I intent not now to examine. My text is within this last Narration or report of the Apostle.  
In which observe, 

1. The occasion given by Peter: Before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come he withdrew, 
Verse 12.  and separated himself.  
2. The Issue which followed upon this carriage of his, 
Verse 13.  And the other jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.  
3. The Arguments brought for conviction of Peter of this error, which are two,    
First, 
Verse 14.  in the fourteenth verse, If thou, being a jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the jews? Thus the Argument runs, It is unreasonable to draw others into a practice, that thou thyself purposely forbearest: But thou thyself keepest not the Jewish Rites and Ordinances; And therefore it is an unreasonable, and a blame-worthy practice, by thy example to compel other-to their observation: yea, thou being a Jew takest thyself to have freedom, unreasonably then dost thou draw on others, who were never under any such obligation.  
The second Argument is in the fifteenth and sixteenth Verses, 
Verses 15, 16.  We who are jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the saith of jesus Christ, even we have believed in jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law: for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified: which is thus enforced: In that way wherein we who are Jew's, with all our birth-priviledges, cannot attain to righteousness; we may not teach the Gentiles to attain to it: But we who are Jew's by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, cannot this way attain to righteousness: We know that a man is justified by faith, we are compelled to quit the Law, and to cleave to faith without works for justification.  
The words of the text contain, 

First, 
Division.  the Privilege of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, with the rest of the Jews.  
Secondly, The Character of the Gentiles, in opposition to the jews.   As to the full purpose, for which the words are brought by the Apostle, they have (for the sense of them) their dependence on the words that follow; but so fare as they contain the privilege of the jews, in opposition to, and above the Gentiles, so fare they are full of themselves, showing first positively, what himself and Peter were: jews by nature: Secondly, Negatively, what they were not; sinners of the Gentiles.  
For some explication: 
Explication.  Nature is here taken, not in the proper, but vulgar acceptation, for birth or descent from Ancestors: As usually, in our common phrase of speech, we say men are naturally Dutch, French, Spanish, Irish, when they are such born and bred, this Scripture therefore Camero citys for one, in which the Apostle speaks after the vulgar manner: we have a Scripture parallel with this Rom. 11.24. where Nature, and natural is only by birth and offspring: Peter, Paul, Barnabas were all naturally jews, born of Jewish parents and bred up in the way and Religion of the Jews: such only Christ chose for Apostles, being himself a Minister of the Circumcision: 
Rom. 15.8. Act. 22.3. Phil. 3.5. Act. 4.36. Exod. 19.6. Deut. 4.7, 8. Rom. 3.1. Psal. 147.20.  Peter therefore being one of the twelve, must necessarily be such, Paul was such, as we know from his own mouth, a jew, and of the tribe of Benjamin, Barnabas was such of the tribe of Levi. And being such, they enjoyed a privilege which the Gentiles wanted, they were by birth & offspring of a Nation that is holy: No Nation was so great as they who had God so nigh unto them, who had Statutes and judgements so righteous. The Jew had every way Prerogatives & advantages, but chief the Oracles of God's God had not dealt so with every Nation: when other Nations were without God, they had God nigh unto them, when others were unclean, they were holy: This great privilege of birth Gentiles wanted, and so were by offspring sinners, as birth renders all so they remain, unholy and unclean among the unholy and unclean without any such title to the Covenant of God that thereby they might obtain any other denomination, they are dogs while the people in Covenant are children. And by this means the seeming opposition which is between this text and that of the Apostle Ephes. 2.3. is easily reconciled; Here the Apostle makes an opposition in nature between Jews and Gentiles; Jews by nature had a privilege above Gentiles; there he makes Jew and Gentile in nature equal: We (saith he) were by nature children of wrath as well as others, as well as heathens that have no birth-priviledge; Nature in that text is not the same as Nature in this: Nature there is taken for the qualification of nature, which is equally defiled in Jews as Gentiles, which is there evidenced in the conversation of the Jews being (before conversion by grace) the very same with the Gentiles: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, 
Ephes. 2.3.  fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Nature here is taken for a birth-priviledge, and so the Jews (though in themselves sinners) are reputed an holy people, a people by Covenant holy to the Lord: Nature simply considered is stained, and renders Jew's and Gentiles equally sinners and obnoxious to God's wrath, of which Justification by faith is an acknowledgement as the Apostle here shows, vers. 17. But birth of jewish ancestors, of the stock of Israel, puts them into a select condition, into the number of a people holy to the Lord; Neither is this any contradiction; Common things dedicated for holy service and use are holy, A people by nature sinners, dedicated to the Lord, are for holy service and use, for the service of the Lord, when others are for service of Idols; Therefore jerusalem, a City none of the holiest for any transcendent manners of the Inhabitants thereof, is yet called by the Evangelist the Holy city, 
Mat. 4.5.  by reason of the temple and worship there that were holy, and from hence this observation follows;  
A people that enjoy Gods Ordinances convey to their Issue a privilege to be reputed of a society that is holy, to be numbered amongst, not unclean, 
Observation.  but holy persons.  
For proof, see the Covenant of God made with Abraham, 
Gen. 17.7.  I will establish my Counant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. God is one party in this Covenant, Abraham and his posterity make the other; these in their succeeding generations are the people of God, and so by nature (that is birth privilege) holy. And the Apostle speaking of the Israelites in his time, saith, To them pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, 
Rom. 9.4.  and the Covenants, the giving of the Law, and the service, and the promises. They were a people in Covenant, having the holy oracles of God they were the servants of the great God, and therefore the glory above others was theirs. Hence is it that the Name of God is called upon them age after age, 
jer. 14.9. Isa. 63.19.  and not upon any others that join not themselves to them. The land of their habitation where they dwelled, and enjoyed this peculiar privilege is ordinarily styled the holy land, 
Isa 8.8. Isa. 19.18. Deut 14.1, 2. Isa 64.18. Rom. 11.16, 17.  being the land of Immanuel. And the language which they there spoke the holy language being a mark to discern the people of God: The distinguishing and discriminating Epithet given to them was still holy: Even all of this root who were branches of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, all of this lump whereof Abraham, Isaac, jacob were the first fruits, they peculiarly had this honour to receive in their flesh the sign and seal of this Covenant, and that in infancy, almost as soon as borne, being eight days old, which was their distinction from all others: 
Gen. 17.13.  jew and Circumcision, jew and the people of God were still the same.  
To add some more strength to this observation, 
Enlargements.  take notice of these enlargements.  
1. A lose life in a parent, who by birth privilege is of the people of God, doth not divest his issue of this privilege, to be of the people of God, but they are, with a non obstante, (notwithstanding any such vicious ways of the parent) to be enroled in this number: For proof of this, look upon that act of joshua: when the people were got out of the wilderness and were brought into the land of Canaan; 
Iosh. 5.6, 7.  The children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people, that were men of War, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: And the children which he raised up in their stead, them Joshuah circumcised, for they were uncircumcised, they had not circumcised them in the way: you see what the fathers were, yet the children joshuah ordered to be circumcised: concerning their conversation, the parents were enemies, but as touching the election, the choice made of God, the Issue is to be numbered among the beloved: Who had a worse father than josiah, yet where was there a better son, a circumcised man, 
2 Chro. 34.3.  who in youth began to seek the God of his father David?  
2. Misbelief in a parent, divests not the Issue of this birth-priviledge, though the father err in the faith yet the child is not to be shut out of the number of believers: We have, in this particular, our Apostle for a precedent: Had misbelief in the parent, denuded the child of this privilege, St Paul, had not been a jew by nature, but an heretic or sectary by nature, being before conversion a Pharisee, 
Acts 23.6. Acts 20.5. Mat. 16.6, 11.  and the son of a Pharisee: Scribe was a name of office, but Pharisee the name of a sect: and therefore Christ warns to beware of the leaven, that is, of the doctrine of the Pharisees, as of the Sadduces; such was Paul's parentage, and yet by descent and offspring he is of the people of the jews.  
3. Aposlasie from the faith in an immediate parent, who himself by descent was of the people of God, doth not debar the Issue of this privilege. Ahaz was such, 
2 Chro. 28.2, 3, 4.  yet his posterity were of the jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles. Thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, 
Eze. 16.28, 21.  and these hast thou sacrificed unto them. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my children, and delivered them, to cause them to pass through the fire for them? These men of spiritual whoredom, worshippers of the Idol Moloch, bring forth children to God, they make themselves, sinners of the Gentiles, by their going a whoring from God, and yet their children are by nature Iewes, their children God doth own, and calls his children. While the parents live within the pale of the Church, that the seed may enjoy saving Ordinances, they are to be so accounted.  
4. Illegitimation of birth, adulterous copulation in the parents, divesteth not such Issue of this privilege, David had never in that manner sought in fasting and prayer his child's life, had he believed that he must not have been of the seed of the Jews, but the uncircumcised heathen. 
Gen. 38.29.  Pharez was of such a birth, yet who bore a greater name and glory in Israel then he? and his family? even where the illegitimation of his birth is noted, there the glory of his Race is magnified, which is yet further honoured, 
Ruth. 4.18.  in that Christ, according to the flesh, was made of his seed, That seed of Abraham per Eminentiam was out of his loins. jephtah, was indeed driven out by his brethren, but not because that he was not of the seed of the jews and people of God, 
judg. 11.2.  but because they would not have him to share of the inheritance among them.  
1. The main ground of this, is the great Charter of Heaven, Reasons. 1 which God pleases to grant unto those whom he takes, and chooses to himself upon earth. If a King grant to any subject a personal privilege, as to keep his great Seal, to be Lord Treasurer, this privilege dies with him, his posterity hath nothing to do with the Seal or Exchequer, unless the Prince finding them qualified, makes a second choice of them, which doth not often happen. But in case the privilege be perpetual and successive, and not terminated in the person, but the words of the grant rune to them and their heirs, than the privilege remains to posterity. Noblemen with us, have their honours, not for themselves only, but their Issue; and some men have Offices, which they call Offices of inheritance: And all English subjects, have divers Immunities and freedoms. Now the great Charter of Heaven, 
Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.38.  runs in the largest words, to them and their seed after them, in all generations.  
2. This is of the nature of those things, Reasons. 2 which descend from parent to child, from Ancestors to posterity; In that Religion which is of God, we have here found it, and all other Religions do lay claim to it.  
There are those things indeed, which are personally inherent in men, and proper to them, so that they cannot convey them to their issue, there is no deriving of them to others by succession, as 

1. Individual accidents of the body, wounds, scars or singular comeliness of feature, these are so in the parent, that they are not conveyed to their children.  
2. Habits or proper gifts, whether acquired by pains, or infused. The son of a learned man inherits not his father's gifts. The son of an Artificer is no such Artist. The son of a Prophet hath not by virtue of birth the gift of pophecy, nor is the son of a regenerate man, endowed with saving grace for that reason.    
There are on the contrary, those things that pass from parent to child, which the parent by nature or special privilege, hath power to convey, as 

1. The essential or integral parts of a species, with the natural properties, that do accompany it, so one bruit beast brings forth another, one bird brings forth another, and man brings forth one of mankind.  
2. The privileges or burdens, which in Family or Nation are hereditary, they are conveyed from parents to posterity, from Ancestors to their Issue: As is the father, so is the child, as respecting these particulars: The child of a Freeman with St Paul is free borne: 
Acts 22.28.  The child of a Noble man is noble; The child of a bondman (where servants were wholly their Masters to dispose) is a bondman likewise. 
Exod. 21.4.  So the child, of a Turk is a Turk; The child of a Pagan is a Pagan; The child of a jew is a jew; The child of a Christian is a Christian: As by virtue of the grand Charter of Heaven among the people of God, this privilege doth descend: So it is of the nature of those things that are descendable.  
3. Reasons. 3 The name of jew or Christian would not long hold in any family, among any people, if this truth (that there is a generation, according to the flesh, which have this privilege to be accounted of the people of God) may not be yielded, but as it is in trades, the father is of one, the son of another, so we should see it in religions: But God provideth for a continuance in succession, from age to age, from generation to generation; he keeps them still within Covenant, though many do degenerate.    
But some say, 
Exception.  all this is blown away at one breath: That the jews had this privilege cannot be denied. But this was a privilege peculiar to the seed of Abraham's flesh, and not to the seed of his saith: Believing Iewes had this birthright-priviledge, Believing Christians have not, they must make profession of their faith before they be accounted among them that be holy.  
I answer, 
Satisfaction, 1. In the Negative, the Charter not reversed.  Such a grant God did once vouchsafe by free Charter to his people: How can it be made appear that ever it was reversed, or any such limit put unto it? The Church of God hath held it in Fee by virtue of this grant from Abraham to this very hour, and there is no word of God to challenge them for usurpation; They that will out us of so long possession, must make their plea punctual for our eviction.  
Secondly, 
Heb. 8.6.  Christians can produce new Covenant-advancing Scriptures, that Christ's coming put them into a better and more comfortable condition than were believers in former ages: I would feign have them to produce any one new Covenant-depressing Scripture, to show that we in any case are in a worse or more uncomfortable condition than our fathers.  
If it be said that though this Birth-priviledge be taken away, 
Object.  yet we are not in a worse condition having it in other more  things enlarged.  
Let these then show when, 
Answ.  and where this was taken away, and what was given in lieu and recompense of this want, and greatest discomfort that can come to a parent, as a parent, to have his Issue expunged out of the number of God's people who are holy: Let them produce those Scriptures, which so difference the old and new Covenant made with believers, that the one should be perpetual, the other personal; That the Covenant with the jew shall transcend the Covenant with Christians, as an Inheritance for ever exceeds a Grant for term of life: Let them give us an hint of any Reason why this privilege should belong to the hears of Abraham's body, and not to the heirs of his faith. That reason held forth by some, that Christ should come out of his loins is of no force, it excludes all the tribes out of that privilege but judah, when every tribe of Israel in this were equal with judah, every family of Iudah's tribe but David's; And most of all, 
Gen. 17.12, 13  it would have excluded the seed of the Proselytes, that according to the flesh were strangers to Israel, when yet in this privilege they were equal. 
Exo. 12.48, 49 2. In the Affirmative. The privilege continued. Six Arguments.   
But not to rest in Negatives, and Generals, (though the first grant being presupposed, this might abundantly satisfy) but to come to some Positive proofs, particularly evincing this privilege of Christians.  
1. The Apostle in time of the new Testament, when the Spirit was actually given, propounds this Covenant in as full a latitude, and ample extent, as ever it was made to Abraham, or belonged to the jews, yea in the like words, as under the old Covenant it was delivered: Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the Name of jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, 
Act. 2.38, 39  and to your children, and to all that are asarre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. I do not now dispute the end, why this Covenant is there urged, it is enough for the present purpose, that such a Covenant yet remains, and so concludes the promise still to stand in its ancient latitude and extent. Had God in these last days put this limit to it, than the Apostle (now the prophecy of the last days was fulfilled) would not have put this latitude upon it.  
2. The Believers of the Gentiles succeed the jews in the Covenant, jews were broken off that Gentiles might be graffed in; 
Rom. 11.16, 17.  and Iewes being broken off Gentiles were graffed in for them: And beside Scripture-silence of any abridgement of privilege to the successor enjoyed by the predecessor, which is a good ground of claim to the same, we have further Evidence in the same place, that it is divolved upon Gentiles in as large a way as ever it was enjoyed by jews: We are now branches of that root by virtue of this insition; and if the root be holy the branches are holy, is the Apostles argument, and if the first-fruits be holy, the lump is holy.  
Will it be said, that this proposition is brought by the Apostle, 
Object.  to prove a remaining holiness in the people of the jews, that they are not so cast off but that they shall be again received, but intends no proof of Holiness in succession to the Gentiles.  
To this I answer, first, 
Answ. 1.  That a proposition universally true may be applied to all particulars; This position is such, and being by the Apostle confessedly applied to the jews, is of equal truth being applied to the Gentiles.  
Secondly, I say, if the holiness of the Root (Abraham, Isaac, 
Answ. 2.  and jacob receiving the promises) be an argument of weight to prove that the whole body of the people of the jews (were it not for their present actual unbelief) were all holy, with a federal holiness, and that this their unbelief shall yet be done away that they may be again (as before) holiness to the Lord; Then it much more proves that the Gentiles remaining in the Root, and continuing in the faith are universally Root and branch holy.  
But this with the Apostle is an argument of weight, as plainly appears in the Chapter: See vers. 28. and 29. As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election they are beloved for the father's sakes. They were enemies to the Gospel for the Gentiles sake, that they might be received, but beloved for their sakes out of whose loins they issued, and that they shall therefore be again received is there also demonstrated, seeing the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.  
Will it be further said, 
Object.  that the Branches, actually by faith engrafted, are holy, but it doth not follow that these, as a Root, transmit any such holiness to their Issue.  
To this I answer, Answ. 1 that the consequence is necessary, first, because the branches of Ancestors are the Root of posterity, being made an holy branch; in reference to their issue they now become an holy Root: jesse was a branch of Abraham's stock, 
Isai. 11.1.  yet he was the Root of David and of Christ: A subordinate Magistrate is a subject, in reference to his superior, yet a man of authority and command in respect of his inferiors: Each man is his father's child, but his child's father: So it is here, a branch of those that went before, is the root of those that follow after.  
Secondly, Answ. 2 The Apostle hath not at all to deal in that place with a personal holiness, but with an holiness derivative and of succession, the personal holiness mentioned in the objection, and maintained by the adversaries of this Doctrine, is qualitative and inherent, derived from no other Root than Christ; this here, is from Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, receiving the promises: Either no holiness at all comes this way to Believers, as from Abraham's stock, or else it is such as Abraham by virtue of the Covenant doth communicate to posterity.  
3. The Grand Birth-priviledge, by the Jews enjoyed, is to be an holy Nation; 
Exod. 19.6. Deut. 14.1, 2. Isai. 63.18. ● 1 Pet. 2.9.  to have the whole body of their people, as distinguished from others, accounted holy to the Lord: This was peculiarly their honour from age to age, from generation to generation; But this honour to be a chosen generation, an holy Nation, a people peculiar (Phrases as high as ever were given the Jews) is given to believing Christians: Christians therefore in this Birth-priviledge equal the Nation of the Jews.  
Neither will this be avoided, 
Object.  by affirming that the text in Peter, is meant of the Church invisible, the living and lively members of Christ, who are all holy by an inherent qualitative holiness of sanctification; So that here is not any equalizing of the body of Christians with the Nation of the Jews, but only an allusion to the titles, given the jews to advance the Excellency of regenerate Christians, called according to God's purpose.  
The contrary to this in the text is clear: 
Answ.  First, by looking bacl to the words that there precede; It is meant of all those who do not professedly, with the unbelieving jews, reject Christ jesus, which will yet more fully appear by comparing the words of St Paul, Rom. 9.32, 33. But all that do not professedly reject Christ jesus, are not men called and qualified as before, Simon Magus had enough to make him one of this number: Secondly, by looking forward, to that which follows in the Character which the Apostle (before he ends his description) adds: 
Hos. 2.23.  Which in times past were not a people, but now are the people of God; A speech taken from the Prophet, to set out the case of the Gentiles, as it is also by St Paul interpreted, Rom. 9.26. But the Gentiles, thus called, and of no people made a people, have all a covenant-holiness, and not always holiness inherent. The Gentiles are called from not-covenant, into covenant; from non-federation, into federation; This is that call, and therefore a call into Covenant: The Call of those who are not a people; to be a people of God; is the call of Nations into Covenant, Deut. 32.21. Rom. 10.19. I will move them to jealousy, 
Deut. 32.28. Rom. 10.19.  with those that are not a people, I will provoke them to anger, with a foolish Nation: But this in the text is such a Call, and therefore it is the call of a people into Covenant.  
4. If there yet remain in the bosom of the Church, children born after the flesh, so that the distinction of births as applied to Abraham's seed, still hath place among believing Christians, And that which fully answers to Circumcision of the flesh remaineth among Christians likewise, than it must needs follow, that there is in the Church, that privilege of birth-holinesse still continuing: The consequence is evident, seeing the birth of the flesh, where this birth-priviledge is denied, gives no Church-interest or title at all; neither doth Circumcision of the flesh, or that which is parallel with it, evidence any such Interest or Title: All such are excluded according to this Tenent, who are of carnal descent only, and can claim no other Interest.  
This must needs be of force with them who affirm, that Infants (who formerly were members by virtue of birth-priviledge) then were deprived and cast out, when the jews Church and State was abrogated, by the coming of Christ, and planting other Churches, fare different from that of the jews in many respects, That, constituted upon nature (they say) and the natural seed of Abraham. This, upon grace, and the spiritual seed of Abraham; That, therefore termed Israel according to the flesh, and circumcision of the flesh; This, Israel according to the Spirit, and circumcision of the heart: If then there yet remain, those that are so styled; infants of Christians by their own argument, are not rejected, and no such difference between jew and Christian, between the State of the Church then, and the State of the Church now, is to be admitted.  
But there yet remains in the bosom of the Church of Christians those that have no other title or interest then by virtue of birth after the flesh: This distinction of births, which they say is abrogated, is of the same force and use now, as it was when Abraham was alive, and that which is full parallel with circumcision of the flesh still remains: The former, namely distinction of births, we have from St Paul: But as then he that was born after the flesh, 
Gal. 4.29.  persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit, even so it is now. How is there truth in this assertion of the Apostle, that so it is now, if this distinction of births, be now abrogated and abolished? if there be not in the Church of Christians those that have the same title, and no other, or more noble than had Ishmael? of whom the Apostle is there to be understood.  
I see the exception that will be taken by some at the phrase [born of the flesh] which some will interpret not by natural descent, but corruption of nature. 
Object.  But this can be the exception but of a few of those who are herein adversaries, seeing they believe no such corruption of birth in Ishmael, nor any other; Neither indeed were Abraham's children ever so distinguished, by a birth in corruption, and a birth in grace, being all borne in corruption. Birth of the flesh here is the same as kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. 9.3. and children of the flesh, Rom. 9.8. But there no birth in corruption, but a birth of nature, and natural descent is only understood: Men of no other than a carnal title persecuted then, men that are thus, and no otherwise entitled to the number of the people of God take the same ways now: Both branches of the distinction are therefore still with Christians.  
For the latter, namely that which fully answers to the circumcision of the flesh we have from St Peter, who speaking of salvation by Baptism puts by way of parenthesis this distinction, 
1 Pet. 3.21.  Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God: where, putting away the filth of the flesh is the same with the Circumcision of the flesh, and the answer of a good conscien e towards Gods, is the same with the circumcision of the heart. This distinction is therefore ill applied, when that which is outward and of the flesh is only applied to jews; and that which is inward, and of the heart only unto Christians. 
Deut. 30.6. jer. 9.26.  The Jews had that which was inward, and of the heart, as well as we; and we have that which is outward and of the flesh as well as they: Such doctrine will conclude the whole body of the Jews without exception under condemnation, as having no holiness inward or spiritual; and all Christians in a like generality in the state of salvation, as being all inwardly holy and spiritual: we shall have neither high way rocky nor thorny ground, but only good ground, good and honest hearts among us, if it be circumcision of the heart, and Israel according to the Spirit that alone denominates us Christians.  
5. The seed of believing parents under the Gospel, must be looked upon under one member of this division in the text, the Apostles distinction is full and complete, either they must be accounted of the people of God who are relatively and soederally holy, as were Jews; or else out of the number, and under the second head of unholy and out of Covenant, as were sinners of the Gentiles; a third cannot be assigned; the Apostles distribution may not be challenged. If it be under the first head that they are looked upon, we have what we contend for; If under the second, than the heavy doom of sinners, 
Ephes. 2.12.  Gentiles, Aliens is theirs; they are then without Christ, without hope, without God in the world, which will be heavy and unwelcome tidings to tender parents, that they bring not forth children (as the Jews did) to God, but to the god of this world; that God doth not say of them (but Satan may) my children, leaving them in no better condition, than the seed of the Heathen, Pagans, Turks, Infidels, as is freely confessed by some. And what condition that is, we may learn from the Prophets David and jeremy. Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, 
Ier 10.25. Psal. 79.6.  and the families that call not upon thy name. The whole of their flock, for aught in Scripture appears, have no other portion.  
6. We have the Apostles authority expressly affirming, that this birthright privilege of covenant-holiness still appertains to the seed of believers, where either of the parents are believing; The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, 
1 Co. 7.14.  and the unbelieving wise is sanctified in the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. The whole seed therefore is to be accounted in the number of those that are holy (which in the text is the condition of the Jews) and not among unclean, which here the Apostle calleth, sinners of the Gentiles. A birth-priviledge of holiness therefore still remains.  
Here it is replied that by holiness in this place is meant legitimation, 
Object.  by uncleanness is understood bastardy: so that the meaning of the Apostle is, else were your children spurious, of a bastard birth, but now they are legitimate, as borne in wedlock; The marriage is sanctified in respect of Issue, not for covenant holiness, so as to put them into the number of an holy people, but to legitimize them, and to take the infamy of bastardy away from them.  
By way of answer I would make these demands; First, 
Quaeres.  Whether they will give the like interpretation of this text in hand, which is every way parallel, and answers in either of the branches? Doth the Apostle here mean, we that are by birth legitimate, and not bastards of the Gentiles; Phrases thus parallel from one pen, will hardly admit interpretations so different.  
Secondly, Whether ever they read in Scripture, or any other Author these two opposite Epithets, unclean and holy, in such a sense or meaning; that holy should be legitimate, and unclean spurious or bastardy: In such birth's uncleanness is indeed the parents sin, but I never read or heard that it was the child's Epithet: Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations.  
Thirdly, Whether it had been a bastard birth, if neither party had been of the faith? whether marriage be not valid (being no Ordinance proper to the Church, but common to all mankind) aswell among heathens as Christians?  
But to give more particular satisfaction, as in the negative, that it is not meant of legitimation; so also in the affirmative that it is to be understood of a covenant-holiness of the children of believers.  
For the negative, 1. A result or fruit of faith in the parent, cannot be the legitimation of the Issue: 
Answ. 1. Negative, Not legitimation.  faith and legitimation of Issue being of distinct kinds. An unbeliever may have issue legitimate; and men professing the faith, with judah, Gilead, David, may have issue illegitimate. But holiness in the text, is a fruit or result of faith in the parent; The unbelieving, whether husband or wife, contributes nothing to this holiness; all that they do is that (being married to a believer) they are no impediment: They are sanctified, they do not sanctify, The sanctifying power, to the producing of the holiness of the Issue, is made proper to the believing party. The unbeliever is sanctified, so that both together make an holy root to produce an holy branch.  
It will be said that believing is not in the text, the words are, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband, not in the believing wise, nor in the believing husband, so that the text makes it not any result or fruit of faith.  
This weak objection hath an easy answer, It is the wife of an unbelieving husband, the husband of an unbelieving wife, when the marriage is between a believer, and an unbeliever.  
Secondly, One parent is not to be preferred before another, as to be alone, in giving that honour to the issue in which both are equal: But here one parent is preferred before another, in giving this honour of holiness to the issue: Therefore it cannot be legitimation of the issue, in which either of both, whether believing or unbelieving are equal: A Nobleman marrying a mean woman the Issue hath honour from one, legitimation alike from both; The wise is honoured, but doth not honour. So it is here, An infidel marrying a believer is sanctified, doth not sanctify; the issue hath this honour of holiness from the parent of honour, but legitimation (as all confess) equally from either; something else therefore then legitimation must needs be the meaning.  
For the affirmative, 
2. In the Affirmative but covenant-holiness.  that it is meant of covenant-holiness, That interpretation which here directly answers, that which in all reason was the Quesitum or scruple wherein the Corinthians in their letter to the Apostle desired resolution, That exactly answers each branch of the text, and runs full parallel with other places of Scripture, that must needs be taken for the interpretation. But this interpretation of covenant-holiness is such that answers their scruple, exactly agrees with each branch of the text, and runs full parallel with other places of Scripture. This therefore cannot be denied to be the genuine and full interpretation of the place.  
For the first; 
It was their scruple.  making it their scruple whether they might continue their marriage society with one out of the Covenant of God, they could not but scruple what should become of their Issue; whether they were to be accounted as they themselves, of the number of the people of God, or to be excluded from them with their unbelieving parent; especially seeing in Ezraes' time, 
Ezra 10.3. Nehe. 13.24.  those that married strange wives were enjoined to put them away, and such as were borne of them; and in Nehemiah's time the Issue is branded as of a mixed and mongrel kind that were so descended: which is also further strengthened by the Priests answer to the several cases of conscience, by God's appointment propounded by Haggai the Prophet, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, 
Hag. 2.12.  and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the Priest answered and said; No. The touch of an unclean thing by a clean, doth not sanctify it, as the case is there resolved: 
Vers. 13.  Again, If one that is unclean by a dead body, touch any of these shall it be unclean? And the Priest answered and said; it shall be unclean. The touch of a clean thing by an unclean doth pollute it, as is there resolved likewise: This might justly occasion the Corinthians fear, that they and their issue might be polluted by society with this unclean party, and that the unclean party or their issue, could not by them be sanctified. And the Apostle returning answer to both (not only to their continuance in marriage-fellowship, but also to that which concerns their issue,) evidently manifests that their scruple was alike in both.  
For the second; 
It answers the text.  that it fully agrees with the circumstances of the text a Here is a couple joined in marriage, one of them holy, of the people of God; the other unclean, a sinner of the Gentiles, and a stranger to them; the Issue must take after the one, and the answer (as concerning the Issue) is fitted to both; To the unbelieving negatively, through sanctification in the believing party they are not unclean; to the believer assirmatively, they are holy.  
For the last: that it runs parallel with other places of Scripture, 
It's parallel to other Scriptures. 1 Pet. 2.9. Deut. 54.1, 2. Isai. 68.18. Matth. 15.16.  this text is an abundant witness: The people of God are still thus honoured for an holy nation, an holy people, a people of holiness: Men out of Covenant still branded, as unclean, dogs, sinners, and the like appellations: This Scripture holds therefore firm for proof of the assertion, That Christians have their Birthright Privilege, that they transmit a covenant-holiness to their Issue, even to their whole posterity.  
Neither is it to purpose to object, 
Object.  that contradictions here are joined to produce one and the same effect, An holy and unholy person to bring forth holy Issue: This was the doubt which the Corinthians objected, 
Answ.  and the Apostle solves; seeing the unbeliever, whether husband or wife, is sanctified; so that they jointly make one Root for to bring forth an holy branch.  
And thus it was (though the contrary be objected) in the time of the Law, 
Object. Answ.  one parent being within the Covenant, the child was circumcised; And therefore Paul circumcising Timothy, whose father was a Greek, the reason given is, that his Mother was a jewesse: 
Acts 16.1.  And the Example of putting away of those that were borne of strange wives from Ezra 10. is strangely by some here objected, seeing the wives themselves were there put away, and here the Apostle (they know) order otherwise: If they see that St Paul's rule accords not in the one, how is there a necessity that it should accord in the other? Something there was in that Example special and extraordinary, as there was in Mordecai's not bowing the knee to Haman: whether it were that now they were anew (as it were) to form their Church, upon their return from Babylon; and were not willing to admit such a mixture, especially so many offending, as to make a considerable party: or whether the Nations with whom they had joined themselves were of those particularly forbidden them, Deut. 7. or under any special curse as Amalek was, which some conceive was the reason that Mordecai refused to give that honour to Haman an Amalekite: Certain it is that it agrees not with other precedents; we have examples of Marriages not a few with Heathens, which though it was their sin, yet there is no sentence of nullity passed, nor were the wives or Issue rejected: And the Corinthians case was yet fairer, their Marriage was without sin, seeing they had not elsewhere to join themselves in marriage, being then both parties heathens, and one party being converted, the marriage by the Apostles sentence still holds, and the Issue to be reckoned with the believing parent.  
Neither is here that which is proper to regeneration, 
Object.  given (as some object) to natural generation:  
1. It was so with the jews, as is confessed, 
Answ.  they had this Birth-priviledge of Covenant-Holinsse, and yet that which was proper to Regeneration, was not then given to natural generation, either of both births have from God, and among the people of God their proper right.  
2. The Holiness which we here maintain is no fruit of Nature, (so it could not have been proper to the jew, but common to the Gentile) but from the Covenant of free grace, to all in the faith and their seed: Regeneration works gration qualifications, 1 john 5.4. This birthright only entitles to outward privileges: Regeneration therefore is not at all here wronged, nor natural generation over-highly advanced: let those that frame the objection take heed lest themselves run upon this Rock, denying all corruption of nature, or birth-sin, they make Regeneration of no use. If all were right in the first birth there needed not another to follow, as the Apostle speaks of Covenants, 
Heb. 8.7.  so I may say of births: If the first had been faultless, there should no place have been sought for the second.  
Hence it necessarily follows by way of Consectary, 
Consectary.  that the infants of Christian parents are debarred of their right, if they be not in infancy tendered and admitted unto the Ordinance of Baptism: 
Of Infant's Baptism by necessary inference.  They are God's, and we must render them to God: Christ hath interest in them, they must therefore be dedicated to him: They are of the number of those that are holy, and therefore they are to be received and enrolled in the number: Baptism is a distinguishing note between the people of God, and those who are strangers from him; They are His, and they must therefore be thus distinguished: The force of this consequence the adversaries do no less than acknowledge, forcing the Scriptures which evidently evince this covenant-holiness, unto strained interpretations, on purpose to avoid it: Upon this ground infants under the law were circumcised, and upon the same infants now are to be baptised: so that it is not barely the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, by which we enforce the baptism of infants, but the grounds of both Circumcision and Baptism: What is objected against one concludes against both: 
Col. 1.11, 12.  Circumcision and Baptism are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken; there being the same principal and main end of both. What can Baptism sign and seal but the righteousness of faith? This, circumcision did sign and seal to Abraham and his posterity. 
Rom. 4.11.  Read that which the Apostle observes of Abraham's circumcision, and compare it with the history of the Eunuch's Baptism, and see where you can find them differ. Faith was reckoned unto Abraham for righteousness: How was it reckoned (saith the Apostle) in circumcision or in uncircumcision; 
Rom. 4 9, 10, 11  not in circumcision but in uncircum-saith, which he had yet being uncircumcised. The Eunuch on his journey with Philip, coming to a certain water saith, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? 
Act. 8.36, 37, 38.  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayst. And he answered and said, I believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water, and he baptised him. May we not make the same observation of this Baptism, as the Apostle doth on Abraham's circumcision? He received the sign of Baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had being yet unbaptised; So that the main end and use is the same in both: All appertaining to this faith were circumcised, and their seed. All appertaining to this faith are to be baptised, and their seed. 
Strengthened by Scriptures.  Hence it is that St Peter on this ground of the Promise made to believers and their seed, encourages his Converts unto Baptism, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the Name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost, 
Acts 2.38, 39  for the promise is made to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call. Whence I reason, in the same latitude as the promise is laid down, the encouragement is also urged, to receive the sign and seal of it. But the promise is laid down in that latitude, to comprehend Converts and their seed, Converts therefore and their seed are to be baptised. Can there be any reason given, why the seed should be mentioned in the Motive or Encouragement to receive Baptism, 
Acts 16.15.  if they were to be excluded from Baptism? Accordingly when an householder was baptised, all the household were baptised, 
Vers. 33.  He and all his, Acts 16.15. ver. 33. 
1 Cor. 1.16. Object.   
Will it be said that this promise in this latitude is there tendered only to the Jews?  
To this I reply. First, 
Answ.  that then jews receiving Christ (as these now did and were here encouraged) still enjoy this birth-priviledge, which being yielded to them cannot be denied to the Gentiles receiving the faith, without a singular schism between jew and Gentile. They that murmured that their widows were neglected, 
Acts 6.1.  would soon have murmured when their seed had been excluded. And secondly, I affirm that the Gentiles are equally there included with the Jews in the promise, as concerning the seed, as the Copulative particle (and) fully evinceth, it couples not one piece only but the whole of the promise.  
There is yet an objection that seems to take with more colour; 
Object.  That this promise had reference to the gift of the holy Ghost, promised by joel the Prophet, here by the Apostle, ver. 17. etc. mentioned, and the Apostle here speaking of the promise to his Converts and their children, only makes good what he had said, that they should receive the holy Ghost, and that by authority of the Prophet. joel promises that their sons and their daughters shall prophesy, and this is that promise which is here tendered by the Apostle to them and their children.  
I answer: First, 
Answ.  the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in this visible way, cannot be the promise here by St Peter mentioned, seeing it is enlarged to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord shall call. But all these have not the holy Ghost in that way extraordinary, nor any promise of it: That is a Baptism proper to those primitive Saints, 
Matt. 3.11.  that Baptism with the holy Ghost and with fire, wherewith they were told that they should be baptised not many days after. 
Acts 1.5.   
Secondly, however the promise be interpreted so as to belong to all that are believers, and call on the Name of the Lord, as there follows; yet that promise is on condition of their Baptism. The means are to be used in reference to the end: Baptism is the means, receiving of the holy Ghost, (there specified) is the end: And the Apostle confirming them in the promise of the end, doth likewise encourage them to the use of the means, in Baptism to expect the gift of the Spirit; and so (according to this interpretation) that place is an encouragement to Baptism; The promise is the fittest encouragement to the sign and seal of the promise: Baptism is the sign and seal to which they are here encouraged, and in that latitude, as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision.  
And the Evasion is too weak to say that children here are the same with sons and daughters mentioned from the Prophet, 
Object.  and therefore to be meant of none but such that are of growth, and capable of the gift of prophecy.  
The Apostle urgeth the promise in the way as in the Scriptures it is delivered, 
Answ.  which is to men and their posterity, to them and theirs; so God promises to be a God in Covenant to His, and their seed, which people in Covenant have a promise also from him of the Spirit, and this the Apostle holds out to draw them on to this seal of the Covenant, to accept Baptism on the same terms that Abraham did circumcision.  
Secondly, it is without reason to believe that the Apostle should instance in one piece of the distribution of the Prophet there, and to leave out the rest, to put in alone sons and daughters, when we have in the text young men, old men, servants and handmaids.  
Thirdly, Children here are mentioned under a promise to the parents, To you and your children is the promise made, but not so in joel, nor in the quotation of the Apostle: That Scripture hath only an Enumeration of the several sorts and conditions of people in any nation, on all which the Spirit is promised, without any address made to the parents of those sons and daughters, more than to the Masters of those servants and handmaids: not the sons and daughters of their flesh, but the sons and daughters of the Nation, a language usual in our ordinary expressions, speaking of men of any sort or condition, as your Lawyers, your Merchants, etc. so here your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young men, etc.  
For further confirmation: Those whom Christ receives the Church may not refuse; 
Matth. 19.4. Matth. 19.14. Mar. 10.14. Luk. 18.16.  The Church consists of those that visibly appear to be Christ's. But Christ admits children, little children, in their infancy, such that he takes into his arms, Suffer little children to come to me and forbidden them not; who dare be so rigid when Christ is thus candid?  
The Kingdom of Heaven receives them, the Church therefore may not exclude them: The Church receives those whom glory receives, There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved: 
Acts 2.47.  But the Kingdom of Heaven receives little children, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Let none say that the Kingdom of Heaven is of such (that is) of those that are graced with such qualities, 
Object.  that are humble and meek as little children: That may be elsewhere Christ's way of instruction, it cannot be here his argumentation.  
First, there is no manner of consequence in the argument thus pressed: Let little ones in infancy come to me, for though not they, yet such as they, others qualified like them, in some select properties resembling them shall go to Heaven.  
Secondly, Upon the same ground, Sheep, Doves, Vine-branches, might have been brought to him, for such as resemble them, in like select properties, shall be received into the kingdom of Heaven: And Christ might have drawn as apt a similitude from them.  
Thirdly, that which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants, and a just ground of rebuke of those that brought them, is that which Christ understands in this reproof of the Disciples, and admission of their infants. But it was their want of growth, their littleness which the Disciples took to be a just impediment and which occasioned their reproof; So that the particle (such) hath direct reference to the quantity (as I may say) not to the quality of these infants, to their infant stature, not to their meekeesses or humility: And so it is referred elsewhere expressly by our Saviour himself, Who so shall receive one such little child; 
Mat. 18.5.  The word is the same here and there, it respects littleness therefore and not meekness: The whole text may be thus fitly paraphrased, Trouble not our Master with such as these (say the Disciples) there is no use of their coming, they need not his cure, and they are not capable of his instruction; They have no infirmity to be healed, no capacity to be taught, It is fit for men of abler parts, not for Infants to make their address to him: Let them come (saith our Saviour) and let not their infant-age exclude them, how little soever they are capable of the kingdom of Heaven.  
Having the substance and thing signified in baptism they may not be denied the sign: This is the Apostles way of dispute, Acts 10.47. 
By Argument.  And to deny them to have the thing signified in baptism is an assertion of odious consequence: Christ is the thing signified in baptism as in all other Sacraments, Gal. 3.27, etc. And denying them Christ, you either exclude them from salvation with the Papists, or else exempt them from Original sin with the Pelagians: The Anabaptists of the present age are well ware that the consequence can be no other; they well see that all that join in this Tenent, sail between those rocks, either to affirm, that infants die in their pollution and perish in their birth-sin; or else to deny this original pollution or any birth-sin at all; the latter of the two they therefore generally choose; judging it more fair to deny infant's sin, then to affirm their condemnation; joining hands with Pelagians, an heresy of old and forepast days, rather than with Papists the present yoke and scourge of Christians: And taking with these, to deny original sin, they strait fall upon universal grace, freedom of will in things spiritual: The free election of God they overthrew, leaving it in our power to make choice of Christ, and not Christ to make choice of us; And so Popery is no sooner left, but it is again found, they join hands with it as soon as they have left it: And all such who have not yet waded so deep, but now begin to set this way, I wish them to weigh with themselves what other way they can find to make children uncapable of Baptism; unless they also make good such original purity that they stand not in need of Christ, or else be content to yield that they perish in their sin without Christ: withal sadly taking to heart whether the Genius of this doctrine leads, plunging almost all that give it entertainment into so many damnable and pernicious errors; such as themselves upon the first entry abominate: If they think that they can make it good in this more innocent way, keeping their judgements without taint of the errors mentioned, they see more than all the Orthodox Churches, whom in this they have left, and the whole body of those to whom they begin to join themselves: The Churches whom they have left, will be afraid to own them, and the Sect to whom in this they are joined will much more abominate and reject them; The denial of birth-sin is the readiest way to the denial of birth holiness; and no other way to be taken, but by prejudging the salvation of them that die as soon as borne, that die before years of ability to make profession of the faith of Christ Jesus. But as the Apostle pressing the dangerous and odious consequences that follow upon the denial of the resurrection of Christ (which was his Medium to assert the Resurrection of the dead) takes off all with this affirmation that Christ is risen from the dead; 
1 Cor. 15.10.  So we pressing the danger of denial Infant's part and portion in Christ, (our Medium to prove their interest in baptism) may take off all with the like affirmation, That Infants have their portion in Christ. Infancy excludes not from their right to him and interest in him, so that we need to run neither of these straits, to exempt them from pollution, or exclude them from salvation: which easily may be made good: They are accepted and highly honoured of God, as we see in the text recited, and further in our Saviour's words, Mat. 18.5, 6. But it is in the beloved, in Christ, 
Ephes. 5.1, 6. Mat. 3.17.  that we are accepted: The voice from Heaven witnesseth that in him God is well pleased: Deny infants Christ, and God is alike pleased with them as with the brood of Cockatrices, and the seed of Serpents. Much sure is in those words of our Saviour Christ, Who so shall receive one such little child in my name, 
Mat. 18.5.  receives me: How do we receive Christ in receiving them, if they belong not to Christ, if they be not members of, if they have no interest in Christ: For such as say that they would baptise an infant, if any could make it good that he were in Christ Jesus, they might as well say in the same manner to Christ, that they would receive that little one or such a little one, in case it could be made good that they were of his members, and elect ones.  
Nor let it be objected; 
Object.  That Infants than are not to be denied the Lords Supper, but are to be received to his table, seeing Christ is the thing signified in that Sacrament, as in Baptism.  
The difference (as all may see) is wide: 
Answ.  In this Sacrament Infants are passive, and so capable of this honour, to be taken in; In the other we are active, and Infants for that reason are incapable: They are not in capacity to perform so much as that which is outwardly sacramental: They cannot, according to the Institution take and eat, much less can they do it in remembrance of Christ: The very phrase (circumcised, baptised) is enough to difference from eating with bitter herbs, etc. as at the Passeover, from communicating as at the Lords table, Infants are fit subjects for the one, men of growth are only fit subjects for the other: One to press on this objection furnisheth us with a similitude, Suppose (saith he) a King for some special service wherein the honour of himself and safety of his kingdom is much concerned, should by Commission ordain or command a Sheriff upon pain of death, to raise for his service ten thousand men, the most able in his County; and this Sheriff, finding the said number of children about six months old, should present them to the King at the very instant of battle, as though he had thereby performed the King's command: Would this be taken for a sufficient performance of his duty?  
But suppose that the King should appoint all his freeborn subjects to be enrolled, and a list taken of their Names, who in time might act in their places for his honour, and enjoy Immunities as his subjects, might not Infants than go in the number? So it is here, Baptism is the initiating ordinance, The subjects of Heaven are here enrolled, their names may therefore be taken as subjects, though they cannot yet act as soldiers: They are here entitled to all the Immunities of this kingdom, yet orderly as they shall be of capacity and fitness to make use of them.  
But their want of faith is challenged as an impediment to Baptism: 
Object.  When the Eunuch desired Baptism, we know the answer that he had: If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayst: And Calvinists denying actual faith to be found in Infants, their Adversaries the Lutherans come in with their argument ad hominem, making against us (say they) though not against the thing itself: Every Sacrament without faith in him that uses it is a vain Ceremony; But the Baptism of Infants is a Sacrament without the faith of him that useth it.  
A speech directed to a man of years and without any title to the Covenant (other than his actual faith did confer upon him) is ill applied to Infants within Covenant that otherwise have title to it. 
Answ. 1.   
This exception carries equal strength against Infant's circumcision: 
Answ. 2.  There is no more faith in the Infauts of jews then there is in the Infants of Christians; And faith is no less necessary in the circumcised then in the baptised: There was an equal necessity of the ingrediency of faith in every one in that age, as in this; yea in the ages more ancient than that of circumcision, as appears by the Apostles argument, Heb. 11.6.  
Their capacity to receive the sign, answers their capacity to receive the thing signified, they are passive in the receiving of Christ and any interest in him: and so also they are, (and circumcised Infants were) in taking the sign. And so the Lutheran proposition being understood of any thing wherein we are active is a truth, but applied to Infants uncapable of action in the Sacrament where they are only passive, it is to be denied.  
If Infants have the like gift intitling to, and interesting in the privilege of baptism with believers, than they withstand God who deny their baptism: This is the Apostles argument brought for his own defence, 
Acts 11.17.  which I wish were more seriously considered: And let it not be objected that the gift there specified is a gift extraordinary, peculiar to those times: It is enough to make the argument of force, that it is alike in them with that which now entitles grown believers: Now the want of those gifts extraordinary, doth not disable grown believers: The want of these doth not then disable Infants.  
And that they have the like gift, intitling to, and interesting in the Sacrament of baptism is plain: A covenant-holiness unquestionable: Inherent qualitative holiness hopeful, is a like gift to that which grown believers are able to produce: But Infants have covenant-holiness unquestionable, inherent qualitative holiness hopeful; A believer by the profession of his faith is able to make good his title to the outward Covenant, and so can the believing parent the title of his Infant: A believer can make good such a title to the inward Covenant, that none can say thou hast no part or portion in this thing: And because it cannot be denied (though absolutely and infallibly it be not affirmed) it is to be presumed: This a believing parent can make good in the behalf of his Infant, and this is sufficient, this is a like.  
But it will yet be said, 
Object.  An institution is wanting, we have no precept, we have no precedent of the baptising of Infants: The institution is, Go teach all nations, 
Mar. 28.19.  baptising them, etc. We must baptise those whom by teaching we have discipled: to the word signifieth.  
I answer, First, That which hath been said doth conclude that they are within the verge of an institution, being such that have so full title: I have heard one of the most learned and reverend that ever I knew or heard of that was of that way more than once profess with no small solemnity, that if he knew an Infant to be sanctified as he acknowledged John Baptist was, such a one he would baptise: And that the particular infants whom Christ was seen for to bless might have been baptised: Those then that are thus entitled, through want of an institution are not to be excluded, and how fare and fully Infants of believing parents are entitled we have heard.  
2. The place quoted hath not in it the Institution of that Sacrament: Baptism was appointed of God before those words were uttered; He that spoke them was himself before baptised; 
Mat 3.16. joh 4.6. Mat. 10.5.  They to whom they were spoken had baptised others; It is only an enlargement of their Commission for the exercise of their Ministry, being before confined unto one Nation, now it is enlarged to all Nations.  
3. The words there comprise infants, they are no more excluded then men of years, serving to make up a Nation as well as parents: The Infants of Niniveh did make a considerable party of the City of Niniveh; The Infants of any Nation make up a part of the Nation; and the Nation where they came was to be discipled, And that Infants are here comprehended further appears by this argument.  

* This argument hath strength from that of the Apostle, Act. 3.25 As it was with the kindred of Abraham in respect of covenant holiness, so it is with all kindreds of the earth, they jointly make one party in the Covenant. But infants of Abraham's kindred were in the Covenant, and of the nation in respect of Covenant-Blessednesse Ergo, etc.  In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God, when the Covenant, and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one only Nation, where their Commission was first limited: In the same sense it is to be taken (unless the text express the contrary) now the Commission is enlarged.  
This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christ's meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission.  
But Nation, then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant, and nothing is expressed in the text to the contrary, therefore it is to be taken in that latitude, to comprehend Infants.  

Object.  Will it be said that an exception of Infants is implied, in that all of the Nation must be discipled before they be baptised, but Infants are not capable of being discipled, and so they are made uncapable of Baptism.  
I answer, 1. Here is rather employed that they are of capacity to be Disciples, 
Answ. 1.  in that Christ sends to disciple Nations, and they serve to make up the nation.  
2. It is the way of the Scripture, 
Answ. 2.  speaking of an universality of a people in a land, expressly to except infants, in case they be to be excepted: As we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the wilderness to the cutting off of those that came out of the land of Egypt. 
Numb. 14.31.  And in the Covenant entered by the body of the Nation of all degrees and sexes at their return from Babylon, 
Nehem. 10.28.  and an exception could be no where more useful and necessary then here, to let us know that it is otherwise with Gentiles in this particular than it was with the jews, that the Nations where their Commission is thus enlarged were herein differenced from the Nation to which their Ministry was first limited.  
3. Let that text of the Prophet be well weighed, where speaking by the spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jews, and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their stead, in that ample way as it is there set out hath these words, Behold, I will lift up mine band to the Gentiles, 
Isai. 49.22.  and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms: and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. If there were but such an hint as that by way of prophecy to have left them behind, we should from some have heard of it with a noise.  
4. In the Lord Christ's Dialect, who is best able to express his own meaning, they are Disciples, To belong to Christ is to be a Disciple of Christ, This is plain from our Saviour's own mouth, comparing his words recorded in Matthew and Mark, 
Matth. 10.42 Mar. 9.41.  To give a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a disciple, it is in the one; To give a cup of water to drink in my Name, because ye belong to me, it is in the other: To belong to Christ, to be a Disciple of Christ, and to bear the Name of Christ is one and the same thing with our Saviour. Now that Infants are of the number of those who as Disciples in Christ's account do belong unto him, and bear his Name, is yet further plain by another text of St Matthew, where Christ setting a little child in the midst of his hearers saith, Who so shall receive one such little child in my Name, 
Matth. 18.5.  receiveth me. By all which it appears, that which is done to Infants is done to Disciples, hath a glorious reward as done to Disciples; Infants therefore are Disciples of Christ, are of those that do belong unto him, and bear his Name: who then is not afraid to refuse them who will receive Christ? who will not baptise them that is willing to baptise Disciples in the Name of Christ?  
For Examples, which they say we want of the Baptism of Infants:  
1. I answer, first, we walk by Rule rather than Precedent, the Rule hath been examined.  
2. Examples are often very rare, where the rule is unquestionable, and undeniable, we have no Example of any trial of the suspect wise by the water of jealousy; For women's right to the Lords Supper we have no particular institution; no particular Precedent more than for this of Infant's Baptism.  
3. We have Examples not to be contemned of the Baptism of whole households, and whether Infants were there or no, as it is not certain (though probable) so it is not material: The Precedent is an Household, he that follows the Precedent must baptise households. It appears not that any wife was there, yet he that follows the Precedent in baptising of households, must baptise wives, and so (I may say) servants, if they be of the household.  
Objections are yet brought from humane authority, 
Object.  which I have reserved to the last, as accounting them the least: And if this dispute might this way be determined, that plurality of votes might carry it: the adversaries know how it would far with them in it.  
Origen is vouched calling it a ceremony or tradition of the Church: Hom. 8. in Levit. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 5. Gregory also in decret. distinct. de conse  
One of those traditions which the Apostle charged the Thessalonians to keep, 
Answ.  2 Thess. 2.15. which I speak not by guess, but we have it in the same Epistle (cap. 6.) from his own mouth, The Church (saith he) received Baptism of Infants from the Apostles: The greatest points of Faith (as is well known) are ordinarily called by the name of traditions by the Ancients. Traditions being only such things that are delivered from one to another, they are as well written as unwritten; And we have cause willingly to embrace this testimony; Origen lived 226. years after Christ, in the beginning of the third Century, 
Alsted. Chronol.  he calls it a tradition of the Church, it was therefore delivered over to the Church in his time, and of ancient use before him.  
Austin calls it a custom of the Church: de Baptis. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 23. And so do I also call it, 
Answ.  and the observing of the first day of the week, the imposition of hands on Church-officers, the giving of the Lords Supper to men of growth is a custom of the Church likewise.  
Erasmus saith they are not to be condemned that doubt whether the Baptism of Infants were ordained by the Apostles: Lib. 4. de ratione Concio.  
His words evidently imply that it was their error, 
Answ.  and it seems his thoughts were other of those who openly did oppose it, and refuse it.  
Papists openly profess that the Baptism of Infants is grounded upon tradition, and not upon Scripture: for which Eckius and Bellarmine are brought in.  
This they do not really and cordially but for their own advantage, 
Answ.  to make good unwritten traditions against Protestant adversaries; They know that we maintain Baptism of Infants, and disclaim these traditions, and if Baptism of infants do appear to be one, than they have us building what we have destroyed. Bellar. indeed (in his book de Verbo Dei) standing for unwritten traditions as a part of the Word of God will have Baptism of infants to be one, but when he disputes for Baptism of Infants against Anabaptists, than he can heap up texts of Scripture, de sacra Baptis. cap. 8. So also cap. 9 in the entrance of it, Satis apertè colligitur ex Scriptures, the Baptism of Infants is evidently enough gathered from Scriptures: The like fetch of his I could show in other particulars.  
It appears to be forced on the people by authority of Counsels, out of the Council of Milevitanum, this Canon is urged, It is also our will that those that will not that children be baptised that are new borne from their mother's womb, be excommunicate.  
So in the Nicene Council it was decreed that we should believe that there is one God Maker of all things visible and invisible; 
Answ.  The greatest points of faith (we know) under anathemas are decreed in Counsels. This Council was in the fifth Century, 200 years after Origen, who styles Baptism of Infants (as we have heard) a tradition of the Church in his days. And Austin who was not only present, but (as is said) Precedent of that Council, returning answer to those that desire divine authority for the Baptism of Infants, for satisfaction first produceth that rule, Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum, rectissimè creditur. That which the whole Church holds, and was not ordained by any Counsels, but hath ever been held, that is rightly believed to be by Apostolical authority. This he takes to be sufficient, yet for more full satisfaction, he goes on to dispute for it from the Scriptures, whence we see what himself means by the custom of the Church; And by what authority that Council did appoint the Baptism of Infants. Augustinus de Bapt. contra Donatist. lib. 40. cap. 24. ad initium.  
By all this that hath been said it more fully appears what regard is to be given to that which is cited out of Luther and Cassander, concerning the time that Baptism of Infants was brought into the Church: Luther (as it is said) affirms that it came into the Church a thousand years before his time, which must be one hundred years after Austin, and three hundred years after Origen. Cassander affirms that it was brought in three hundred years after Christ and his Apostles, which must be an hundred years after Origen at least. If this had been true, these fathers must have said as St Paul of contentions, 
1 Cor. 11, 16.  We have no such custom, neither the Church of God, and could not have said that it was a custom or tradition of the Church, Origen then had never known it, and Austin might have called it an innovation.  
Those conjectures of Tuicencis & johannes Bohemius concerning the occasion of the first inlet of Infant's Baptism into the Church falls to the ground likewise, when men hear of a beginning they will be bold to assign some reason of it, If my conjecture may be heeded, I suppose it was in some dis-use with many not long after the Apostles times, and that by reason of the superstitious conceit that too soon prevailed of the opus operatum in Baptism, that it cleanses all sins that are past whether original or actual. And therefore many that were converted at ripe years deferred their Baptism as near the hour of death as might be, to have all their sins cleansed by that water, against which custom Bellarmine at large disputes by reason of the absolute necessity of Baptism, though both his grounds and theirs are on a false bottom: May we not then believe that parents upon the same ground did put off the Baptism of their children, and after did reassume it upon the necessity of it. And this is that which the author produced, viz. johannes Behemius speaks of.  
But Mr Daniel Rogers above all is stood upon, in his Treatise of the Sacraments he hath these words, I take the Baptism of Infants to be one of the most reverend, general, and uncontrolled traditions which the Church hath, and which I would no less doubt of then the Creed to be Apostolical, although I confess myself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it.  
I wish the Reader to consider what the adversary gains by this testimony, 
Answ.  It is general uncontrolled, he saith, and so he knows unwritten traditions never were, Orthodox Divines ancient and modern have ever opposed them; In gaining a piece of a witness such an one that hath his reasons to believe Baptism of Infants to be Apostolical, they have the Church unanimously in all successive ages their adversatie.  
And as the Infants of believing parents are to be received to Baptism; 
The consectary enlarged.  so no Infants that descend from those that make Profession of the faith of Christ are to be refused: Any solid reason which will lie against any (for aught can be said) may be a ground of the challenge of all: The promise made to those that profess Christ and their seed, takes in the seed of all that make profession. Some that do not withstand, but maintain and practise the Baptism of Infants have found a middle way, as between rigid Brownists and Presbyterians, so between Anabaptists and (as I may say) Paedobaptists; All Infants they will not have to be refused, confessing them to be within the verge of the promise, yet they will not have all promiscuously received: The parents by solemn Covenant must first be made members of some particular congregation, and so their Issue is to be admitted, their children baptised, otherwise both parents and children are to be accounted as without, by nature unholy; and only the Godly regenerate (so fare as men can judge) no one of lose life to be admitted.  
But this middle way (under correction) I cannot but take to be a step out of the way, I will here dispute it no further then as it concerns this particular.  
Either the vicious and scandalous life of such a parent, or his non admission into Covenant in a congregational way is the bar of the Infant that he is not admitted unto Baptism, but neither of these may be a bar.  
First not the vicious life of his parent.  
If the ground of a child's admission to baptism be not the faith of his immediate parent, but the promise made to Ancestors in the faith, whose seed he is though at the greater distance; Then the lose life of an immediate parent can be no bar to his baptism: This is plain, if josiah have no right from his father Ammon, yet he is not to be shut out, in case he have right from his father David or his father Abraham: And though the immediate parent were not wronged when his child is so shut out and denied, yet such Ancestor in distance is wronged out of whose loins the Infant is descended: If Phinehas were not wronged in case Ichabod had been debarred, yet Eli yea Aaron had suffered. But the ground of a child's admission is the promise to Ancestors, whether at nearer or greater distance, The promise is to believers and their seed: Now josiah was the seed of David, Christ was the seed of David: An Ancestor at distance, and not alone immediate (where the race within the Church, may be derived in a continued succession) gives right of admission therefore unto baptism.  
2. There is nothing that can exclude the seed of him that is a believer, as believer is opposed to an Infidel, the seed of one that is of a dogmatic or historical faith: This we have before made good, and from 1 Cor. 7.14. may be further cleared, He that is no Infidel is there a believer whose seed is holy. But a man of a vicious life is in that sense a believer, Simon Magus, 
Acts 8.13. Luk. 8.13.  the hearers compared to the rocky ground were believers, therefore a lose life will not exclude the Issue.  
His seed who is a member of a particular Church society must be admitted unto baptism, a Church member and all that are his must have their privileges: But it often falls out that men of lose lives are members as the Church of Corinth yields many proofs, 
2 Cor. 12.20, 21, etc.  Therefore vicious life excludes not the Issue.  
Secondly, The non-admission into Covenant is no bar in the parent.  
1. It was no bar when themselves who now are members were admitted in their infancy, their parents for the most part being no members in such a way: Therefore now it is no bar though the parent be no member, but out of such Church-Covenant.  
2. They who have themselves title to baptism, they have power to entitle their Infants likewise, this can be denied by none that deny not Infants baptism; But men never entering any such Church-Covenant in a congregational way were baptised upon just title; The Converts of Peter, the Eunuch, the jailor, etc. No one that we read was first made a member and then baptised, but were by Baptism made members, not respectively of any one particular Congregation, but of the Church of Christ in general.  
3. It would then be in the power of man, of three or four (whom they say make a bottom Church) to keep an Infant at their pleasure out of God's Covenant, to be reputed at their courtesy, either of the dogs or of the children. This may not be denied, These or the greater number of them have power of admission of members at pleasure. And some singularly eminent that way have affirmed that it is not enough that a man have grace to render him capable of being admitted, but he must have expressions: A father's slow tongue shall now exclude his seed from this glory of admittance into the fellowship of the Saints. And when those are not judged worthy of fellowship who are not of abilities to sit in judgement with the Congregation to admit members, to pass sentence upon delinquents, to judge of doctrines, not only to elect but ordain Pastors and Church-officers, we may easily guess how many they exclude as without, whom Christ receives: Such a way had it been taken had deprived the Church of an Hezekiah, josiah and many others in their age renowned. How great a provocation to such children when once of growth to join with them, with whom the Church ranks them? and to oppose with the uttermost of fury such that (after the revolution of so many generations inheriting that privilege) now do debar them? And how great an encouragement to join with such in all holiness with whom they were honoured with these privileges?  
Some there be that subscribe these truths yet will have some caution used: The children of parents of lose life, yea of excommunicate persons, children of illegitimate birth they say are to be baptised; but with condition that the education of such be undertaken by men pious and godly, two reasons one gives.  
1. Distinctio aliqua inter puros & impuros debet in sacris omnibus observavari, ad bonorum consolationem, correctionem malorum, & omnium aedisicationem, that is, Some difference ought to be put in all divine ordinances between the clean and unclean, for the comfort of the godly, the censure of the wicked, and the edification of all.  
To which I answer, The personal impurity of the father is nor transmitted to the child, and therefore the distinction of clean and unclean, which holds between the parents falls to the ground when it is applied to the Issue; Both of them have a covenant-holiness from their parents, neither of both have holiness qualitative and inherent, and the children standing equally interested in the promises, we have no rule that the child should bear the father's sin.  
2. Instituta Dei non possunt aliter ab omni pollutione conservari, The ordinances of God can no other way be kept from blot and pollution.  
I answer, Our care in the preservation of any ordinance of God may not exceed the care of God himself, least under that colour we make our wisdom to correct God's wisdom, and when he admits without such limits; why should we then put bars? A raise about the Communion table for that which is taken away, one hath well motioned, such a one that would not nourish superstition but keep back the profane: But I know not any use of such a one about the Font-stone in a Nation professedly Christian, and enjoying ordinances that are saving, where Infants (for aught that the Church is able to discern) are all equal: all equally holy, all equally impure: Christians in name transmit a covenant-holiness; Christians in truth cannot transmit holiness inherent: If these thus borne have no right at all, I suppose they should not be admitted with any caution whatsoever. If they have any such birthright-priviledge (notwithstanding their sad discomfort in such parents) why should it be thus suspended on the courtesy of such undertakers; I would more care were taken for education of youth (of which more anon) but this I only say, that I see not how the Infants right should be detained, their birth-priviledge denied, till such caution be given: I conclude then that right of baptism is as large as in any good sense the name Christian, The right of Infants is as large as is the name of Christian in the parents.  
A vain dispute there hath been among Schoolmen, how the child is saved or justified by the faith of the parent; whether by the habit of the parents faith, or the act of believing applied by the parent to the Infant at the time, and in the instant of baptism? And whether it must be a faith form (as they speak) with charity, or whether a faith informed, a dead faith would serve to the justification and salvation of the seed? whether a parent in mortal sin may apply faith to his child to salvation? And I would know whether there be not some such thing now agitated, when such enquiry is made into the personal qualification of the parent before the child may have admittance. But all these are mere niceties. The faith of the parent avails not directly to justification or salvation of the Infant, neither is it considered as applied to this or that child in baptism; the parent may be dead before the child be baptised; But it is considered only as accepting the Covenant of God's free grant for him and his posterity, which entitles posterity to saving ordinances, but doth not necessarily qualify for salvation. A subject accepts a Patent of honour from his Prince for himself and posterity, this Grant of the Prince, and acceptance in the subject entitles to Nobility, And the like we say of Christianity; which evident truth takes off all difficulties, and prevents all absurdities which follow upon these Quaeres:  
It yet further here follows that the seed of believers thus by birth-right-priviledge baptised, 
2. Consectary, Title to all Ordinances.  have a large and full right to all the Ordinances of God and privileges of the Church appertaining to members, as they shall be capable of their use, wheresoever by the providence of God they are cast; only so fare excepted as the just censures of the Church upon their personal defects and misdemeanours shall disable them, and give Church-officers just cause to refuse them: The consequence is evident: They now visibly belong to Christ, they through him are dedicated to God, they have therefore title to all his visible ordinances: They are now of the household of God, and of the Citizens of the Saints orderly admitted: Scripture knows no other admission than Baptism: No sooner do we hear of a convert, but we presently hear of his baptism, no Church-covenant intervening: They have right to all the immunities of this house, to all the privileges of this city of God: There is some time after baptism in infancy before they have capacity to be hearers, but as soon as they can hear to profit so soon they must be received, not as strangers but as children, not as Infidels but Christians: They must be hearers, and that with some good proficiency before they can be communicants: But to deny a person entitled and qualified as before, because not in Church-fellowship in a congregational way, offering himself and desiring it, is to debar him of that right, of which by the gracious dispensation of God he stands possessed: He belongs to Christ, he must therefore partake of that which is of Christ: He is of the household, he must therefore have of the food of the household: The stewards of the mysteries of God must be accountable in case they do deny it.  
To come to some practic observations, 
3. Consectary, Holy conversation.  All possible engagements and obligations unto holiness of conversation necessarily follow from this royal privilege and high advancement of birth-holinesse We blame those of noble and generous birth that betake themselves to sordid and ignoble ways: Those thus degenerating are a blot to their families, a disgrace and reproach to their race: No birth equal in honour to that of Christians: Theodesius worthily esteemed it a greater honour that he was a Christian then that he was an Emperor: None degenerate so foully and blame-worthily as they when their conversation is unchristian. Ways of sin are for sinners of the Gentiles, a way proper for Turks and Pagans: let the holy seed be holy, their demeanour suited to their honour: Sardanapalus the King may with less in-infamy spin among women (a work fare below his throne) than a Christian may sinne with heathen: The Martyrs in the primitive times being moved to swear by the fortune of Caesar, thought that the answer was full and fair to say they were Christians; Such answer should he have that would tempt to ungodliness: 
Nebe. 6.11.  Should such a one as I fly saith Nehemiah, his honour would not suffer him to be so base: Should such a man as a Christian (the least of whom is greater than Nehemiah's better) be for sin, not a sinner by birth, 
Mat. 11.11.  be for sin in his life: Baptism is the greatest honour: Such bear Christ's name and wear his livery, 
jamos 1.1. jude 1.1. 1 Pet. 1.1. 1 Tim. 2.19.  They have that title in which jude, james and other of the Apostles gloried? A Servant of jesus Christ: Baptism is the greatest engagement: Let every one that nameth Christ departed from iniquity To talk of baptism and live in sin is to wear the Colours of one and plot and fight for another, to wear Christ's colours and sight for Satan: Baptism renders a sinner up to the heaviest punishment: 
Amos 3.2.  The high favours showed the Jews made a Jew to far worse in the ways of sin then an heathen: 
Heb. 2.3.  The high favours showed to Christians, make Christians to far worse in sinful ways than heathens: Let me pressed it in the Apostles words though the providence of God keeps me out of his condition, 
Ephes. 4.1. 1 Pet. 1.15. 1 Thes 4.7. Ephes. 2.19. Mat. 25.31. Rom. 1.2. Ephes. 1.13. Heb 9.8. 4. Consectary, Holy education.  I therefore the prisoner of the Lord beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. All in a Christians calling bespeaks this holiness; He by whom he is called; The work to which he is called; The company unto which he is joined; The Attendants by whom he is guarded; The Rule whereby he is guided; The Seal by which he is confirmed, and the place whither he makes and tends, all are holy.  
Let the Parents of such seed now see what education is expected; Breeding must answer Birth and Descent: A Christian is of the noblest birth: The Apostle calls upon parents to bring up their children in nurture and admonition of the Lord: God may call on them thus to bring up his children; In nature theirs: in Covenant Gods: Every Christian parent hath a child of God committed to his care and tuition: How great a solecism is it that parents should dedicate children so soon as borne unto Christ, professing to the world that they belong to him, and that with Hannah (concerning Samuel) they intent them for him, when nothing appears in their lives, but that they might be given to Moloch; somewhat worse than the mongrel seed that spoke half in the language of Canaan, and half of Ashdod: Scarce a word can be heard out of their mouths for to argue that they are Christians; lisping out oaths as soon as words, put to learn trades, and little regard had that they may know Christ jesus: And how much is it to be desired that authority (who I trust will make good that we have a Christian Nation) would take order for more careful catechistical teaching of youth in the ways of Christian Religion, that God may not complain of England is of Israel; My people perish for want of knowledge. 
Hosea 4. ●.  A people of God and a people ignorant to perdition and destruction: England is highly honoured of God by this gracious call, with Capernaum listed up to Heaven: Enegland would highly honour God if care might be taken that all might know God from the highest to the lowest: We shall never be a Gospellike people till we be a knowing people, till we take care that as we are lews by nature, so we may be jews in qualification, so borne, so bred, that as our youth is descended so also they may be trained.  
Those may see whom they oppose that stand in opposition of a people thus interested, a people so ingratiated to God in Covenant that there is not the least infant in whom God hath not his title and right of challenge. 
5. Consectary, The danger of persecution. Psal. 79 1, 2, 3.  The aggravation of the Psalmists complaint is, that the heathens are come into thine inheritance, the dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the Heaven, the flesh of thy Saints unto the beasts of the earth: The whole body of such a people stand in relation to God, as the Inheritance, the servants, and Saints of God; Such inscriptions we sinned in St Paul's Epistles, not one of the whole body is excluded, but they are such by Covenant, and such by calling: 
Psal. 127 3. Mat 18.5. Psal. 137.9.  Enough hath been said to make it to appear, that the denomination reaches even infants, who are the Lords heritage, and Christ's name is upon them: As it is accounted an happy work to dash the little ones of Babylon against the wall, because of the hostlity of that Nation against God and his people: So it is a like execration to intermedele with the little ones of Zion, by reason of the holiness of such a people, 
2 King 8.12.  their Covenant-relations in which they stand interested. Much is spoken in Scripture against the enemies of the righteous, the haters of them shall be destroyed, he that offends against them shall not be innocent: God observes every carriage of the adversary towards them in misery; they speak not a word, but God hath it against them; when Ammonites, 
Eze. 26.2.36.2. Obad. 12. Ibid. Psal. 137.7. Obad. 13.14. Deut. 25.17.  Tyrians cry Aha against the people of the Lord they are twitted with it, and threatened for it. Not a proud word that they utter, but it is brought in to fill up the charge against them: yea, every eye that is cast with approbation of the adversary, every encouraging word they speak, and every act they do against such a people, yea injuries of elder times are kept in the deck and laid to them; And all because that they stand in this relation to God, as His in Covenant, which you cannot limit only to the personally righteous, but all that are of a society and fellowship that is such, that are interested in a righteous cause. The holy anointing oil did make sacred, when yet too often the man was wicked, and therefore David looked upon Saul as the Lords anointed. It holds in analogy and proportion unto all that have any Unction from God, as all the called of God have, When they were but a few in number, 
Psal. 105.12, 13, 14, 15.  yea very few, and strangers— When they went from one Nation to another, from one kingdom to another people, He suffered no man to do them wrong, yea he reproved Kings for their sakes, saying, Touch not mine Anointed: All the people of God have that anointing from God, that none may dare to intermeddle to their harm. God promises his people that dwell in Zion that the burden of Assyria shall be taken away from off their shoulder, and his yoke from off their neck, and that the yoke shall be destroyed, because of the Anointing. 
Isa 10.27.   

Object.  Some will say, as this is carried, The danger of intermeddling with any is with us alike: Even Papists and the worst of men that are called Protestants are thus of a people that are called God's people, and go by the name of Christians.  
For answer: I shall not enter upon that controversy, 
Answ.  what there is of the being of a Church under the Papacy: The Papacy itself is none of it, but only a botch bred in it, and cleaving to it. Only this I say, That he that shall oppose a Papist under the notion of a Christian, shall bear his sin, and that upon the grounds that have been given: Though a Papists damnable errors in the faith shut him out from the happiness of Christians, yet such an adversaries persecution renders him guilty of opposing the faith of Christ jesus. And he that follows with injuries a carnal Protestant, because of Profession of the sincerity of Religion, in opposition to Antichristianisme, is formally guilty of persecution. The hearers resembled to the rocky ground suffer persecution for the Word, as doth the good ground that brings forth fruit with patience. But to come home with more clear satisfaction.  
A people of a fouly-polluted Ordinance standing in opposition to a people of a pure and untainted way, are as a people void of Ordinances, are as a people without God in comparison. The opposition of the purity of his service God accounts as the opposition of his great Name, though it be by a people that go under that name of His people: And therefore though Elijah take so much to heart the pulling down of Altars set up by jeroboam as God's Altars, 
3 Kings 19.10.  when it was done by Israel apostatising and turned to Baal, and (in opposition to the worship of Baal) makes that way of worship at Dan and Bethel a following of God. 
1 Kings 18.21.  (Those two opinions that the ten Tribes halted between were the worship of the false god Baal, and the false way of worship set up by jeroboam; which corruption of worship (being now to draw them from Baalisme) he is for the present contented to wave:) Yet we well know the brand that lies on jeroboam in bringing in that worship of his, 
1 Kings 15.9.  scarce the like on any man in Scripture (the man of sin only excepted) the high phrases also in which this worship of his is set out, making Priests for the high places, 
2 Chro. 11.15.  and devils, with the height of guilt to which he risen in casting the Levites out from executing the Priest's office; 
Vers. 14.  And howsoever God often calls that people of the ten tribes by the name of his people as having Ordinances, 
Hos. 4.6.  though miserably polluted, yet in opposition to judah, where more pure Ordinances were enjoyed, they are said to be without God, without a teaching Priest, and without the Law: And sighting against judah who could reckon up the particulars of the Ordinances of God in their purity, 
2 Chron. 15.3.  they are charged to sight against the Lord God of their fathers: 
2 Chron. 13.12.  To come nearer home in an Instance: If the Turkish power should fall upon a Popish State under the name and notion of Christians, they were guilty with Saul of persecuting the Lord jesus: If this Popish State fall upon a reformed nation, they are much more guilty. A fouler sin for a people of God in name and title, to persecute his people in truth, then for a people strangers to God, to persecute a people only in name and title: Scripture prayers against heathens we may fitly apply in our sufferings under the hands of Papists. Pilate might have been guilty in persecution of a Pharisee as a Jew; yet that nation was much more guilty (being jews by nature,) in delivering Christ jesus into Pilat's hands, 
joh. 18.35.  though Christ had been no greater than one of his Disciples: A Papist persecuting a formal carnal Protestant, under the notion of a man protesting against idolatrous ways, is a man blaspheming the faith; This man thus persecuted, persecuting another for the power of Godliness, professing the same truth is equally, yea more guilty. The very sin of Cain against his brother, 
1 joh. 2.12.  Their Religions were both one, but Cain's in form, and Abel's in power. The result of the whole is to let us see what it is to oppose a people under any notion of God's people, under any notion of belonging to him. A man may have his reward giving in the name of a Disciple, 
Matth. 10.4.  though he to whom he gives be such as God will never own for a Disciple. And answerably may incur vengeance in opposition of one under such a name, though with those on the rocky ground he be nothing less in deed and truth.  
Abundance of sweet consolations yet flow from this birth-priviledge, 
6. Consectary of consolation.  and that in several streams.  

1. In regard of Nations.  
2. In regard of Persons.   
1. In regard of Nations, They have a royal transcendency above all others, 
To Nations  as only worthy the name of a people, Enjoying the Light, Nigh unto God, A people of hope, and expectation; when others are darkness, without hope, and without God in the world. The Psalmist reckons up many sweet blessings of a nation, That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth, 
Psal. 144.12, 13, 14.  that our daughters may be as corner stones polished after the fimilitude of a palace, That our garners may be full affording all manner of store, that our sheep may bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our streets; That our oxen may be strong to labour, that there be no breaking in, nor going out, that there be no complaining in our streets: All these are singular national favours, but only serving to make up, not an absolute, but comparative blessedness; This one rises higher and makes it complete, 
Verse 15.  Blessed are the people whose God is the Lord. See what is said of jerusalem by the Psalmist: Lo, the Kings were assembled, they passed by together, they saw it, and so they marvelled, 
Psal. 48.4, 5.  they were troubled and hasted away, Fear took hold on them, and pain as on a woman in travel, and we find the reason given is, 
Verse 3.  God is known in her palaces for a refuge, they have God nigh in all that they call upon him for; as Moses hath it, 
Deut. 4.7.  No people can so bottom their prayers against Adversaries as the people of God's Holiness.  
This mercy is a birth-mercie to a people (to hold allusion to my text) jews by nature, 
2 Tim. 1.5.  whose parents with Timothy's from one to another have been believers: And while national provocations break not forth (which only with God have a separating and deasning power) his ear is ready to hear, 
Isai. 59.1. Numb. 23.22.  and his hand to help: While he sees not iniquity in jacob, nor perverseness in Israel (which must be understood of national out-breaches from God, which after by baalam's counsel followed) so long God is among them as the shout of a King, and there is no sorcery or divination against them: 
Vers. 23.  
2 Chron. 15.2.  A nation fast to God hath God fast to them.  
2. In regard of persons, for 

Themselves. 
To persons.   
Posterity.    
For themselves, It is much to be able with the Psalmist to say, 
For themselves.  Thou art he that took me out of the womb, 
Psal. 22.9, 10.  Thou didst make me to hope when I was upon my mother's breasts: I was cast upon thee from the womb, thou art my God from my mother's belly. This puts upon confidence in prayer (as an argument drawn from long continued acquaintance) as there follows: Be not fare from me, for trouble is near. 
Vers. 11.  Such have timely knowledge of God, sucking in somewhat of him while they suck milk from the breasts: An expression of height setting out this Birth-happinesse, that hath sure more in it then can be applied to sinners of the Gentiles: See how the Psalmist yet further pleads it with God: 
Psal. 116.16. Exod. 21.4. Levit. 25.16.  O Lord, truly I am thy servant, I am thy servant and the son of thine handmaid. An allusion to the Law of servants, who were the inheritance of the Master in whose house they were borne. I am such saith the Psalmist (thy servant, thy servant) with all earnestness of affection. I am of thine inheritance, I am one of thine house-borne servants, my mother was thine handmaid. The same relation he pleads also, and in the same words, Psal. 86.16. This Isaiah in like manner takes notice of, 
Isai. 4●, 1.  The Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my Name. The Apostle will have the Ephesians to remember that past time when they were without Christ, 
Ephes. 2. ●2.  being Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, without God in the world. There never was a time in which these of this Birth privilege were in that condition; From the womb they were God's heritage, and with Timothy (some in greater some in lesser measure) from children have the knowledge of the Scriptures, 
2 Tim. 3.15. Luke 1.15.  if not with john Baptist full of the holy Ghost from the womb: which doubtless is the happiness of not few among Christians, who are eminent in sanctification, whose growth in Grace is seen, and yet the beginnings not known. Howsoever they are nigh, when others are afar off, at the pools brim waiting the Angels moving of it. 
joh. 4.22. james 1.21. Luke 19.9. In respect of posterity.  Salvation is of the jews, saith our Saviour; They are under the joyful sound of that Word which is able to save the soul: Salvation is of his house who is the son of Abraham.  
As it is full of Consolation to Believers in respect of themselves, so also in reference to posterity: Their children are Gods children: They being of the Lords Inheritance, their children are his heritage in like manner: These bring forth children to God, 
Ezek. 16.20.  their seed be owns and challenges for His: An infinite love in God, an unspeakable comfort to a parent, when the Infant, who by corruption of nature is in Satan's jaws, in no less danger of Hell, than Moses was of the water; and not so much as sensible of it; God pleases to look upon him in this condition and to make it the time of love, and to find out ways of freedom. What the Apostle speaks from the Prophet of God's care of the Gentiles, is certainly true being applied to Infants. I was found of them that sought me not, and made manifest to them that enquired not after me. 
Rom. 10.10.  Had we that hopeless opinion of our children as Papists of theirs that die without Baptism; what a wretched case were it (with David) to part with an Infant out of the world? How could such mourn in any other way then those that are without hope? parting with an Infant without part in Christ, and in no better posture towards God than the seed of the sinners of the Gentiles. But we find God more rich in mercy, Christ himself embracing them in their infancy, and taking them into his special love as those that bear his name: And though death prevent their Baptism, He that hath appointed Ordinances is not tied to them, but can save without them. Bellarmine confesseth that the desire of Baptism in one of the Catechumeni, (that is, one instructed in the Principles of Christ and not baptised) doth save; though the text, john 3.5. understood with their Comment be in the Letter against it, why then should not that Grace? which when the person is of capacity would show itself in desires qualify for Salvation in like manner? Finding this love in God, these bowels in Christ, we may safely conclude, that Children have bliss, Parents have comfort, and let God have the Glory.  
FINIS.