Infant Baptism OF CHRIST'S Appointment, OR A Discovery of Infant's Interest in the Covenant with Abraham, showing who are the Spiritual Seed and who the fleshly Seed.  
TOGETHER, With the Improvement of Covenant Interest by Parents and Children.  
By S. P. Minister of the Gospel.  Mark. 10. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbidden them not. 
LONDON, Printed for Edward Giles, Bookseller in Norwich, near the Market▪ place. 1687.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
I Am sensible, that many Books have been already written by others on this Subject of Infant-baptism, and it was formerly far from my thoughts to make an addition; but the irregularity of one, who left his Gospel station without previous declaring any such intention to me, (with what ensued) occasioned my fresh search into the controversy, and my drawing up the ensuing Sheets, wherein some Scriptures are cleared further than ever they were formerly to me. The Importunity of some friends of the same mind with myself, together with the misrepresenting of me by some others of the contrary persuasion, have prevailed with me to let them be published.  
I am the more encouraged seeing the Primitive Churches or Elders, did often assert controverted Truths, even when they had a Common Enemy the Pagans, and after the Arians against them. If the Lord may bless this short Tract, so far as any who are wavering may be established, and those which have been otherwise minded may be convinced, I have my design. It is the clearing of truth that I aim at, and not the reviving or continuing, much less the increasing of differences.  
I think they are most guilty hereof, who will hold Communion with no other Churches, but those who are of their own persuasion in point of Baptism; if I may obtain their Conviction that such rigidness is ungrounded, this will then conduce to peace; and I have given such Scripture grounds for my judgement, as I hope will prevail further with those which will read without prejudice. I can hold Communion with those that differ from me about Infant Baptism, provided they live peaceably otherways, and be of a Gospel conversation.  
If any shall reply to this with virulency and passion: I shall spread it before the Lord and say, the Lord rebuke thee; but if they do it with the Spirit of meekness, and with such Scripture evidence as I be convinced, that the substance of what I have here written is Error, I do hereby promise, the Lord permitting to retract it, if I may be permitted to Print it: So as if I be silent Reader, thou mayest know I find no cogent Scripture light for my Conviction.  
I account Infant's Covenant interest to be the grand argument for their Baptism, and so have insisted on the proof of it.  
That evasion, that Infants of believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham, that will not hold; For, if the Infants of believing Jews be, then undeniably the Infants of believing Gentiles are so.  
And run it up to the Primitive Gospel times after the death of Christ, the Infants of believing Jews were the Seed of Abraham, unless any can prove that they were cut off by a repeal or otherwise, and so that they were damnified by their Parents believing.  
Yea some Jews did believe on Christ before his Death, and how could their Infant Seed then be cut off! the Covenant with Abraham was undoubtedly then in force after the Parents believing, and so their Infant Seed in it still with their Parents after their believing.  
Indeed it cannot be proved, that the Covenant with Abraham, was abrogated by the Death of Christ, though the Law in some respect was.  
Nor can it be proved, that the Jews or their Seed were broken off, by a Repeal of that Covenant with Abraham, or any otherways then by their own degeneracy and positive unbelief, Rom. 11. 20. because of unbelief they were broken off, and this I think not at the Death of Christ, but some time after, Act. 13. 46. and thus by degeneracy and rejecting the Covenant (as now so) in preceding Ages from the days of Abraham, Parents and Children might be cut off from Covenant interest, witness Ishmael and Esau, etc. whilst yet Infant's Covenant interest still continued where the Parents did not so degenerate. And seeing the Infant Seed of the Jews remained in Covenant in Gospel times, till their Parents were broken off, and especially the Seed of believing Jews; hence the Infant Seed of believing Gentiles are the Seed of Abraham; for there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Gospel times.  
So that Abraham's Covenant being still in force, unless any can prove a repeal of it, as to that part which concerneth Infants they say nothing convincing, and Infants must be in it still.  
And observe, this seemeth to be the special reason, why there is no express particular command in the new Testament for the Baptising of Infants, as of Believers; because there was no need of a new grant of what they had a right to ever since the days of Abraham, the sign being entailed to the Covenant Interest.  
The work therefore was, to command the Parents to Repent and Believe on the Messiah already come, as the way to continue their own interest in the Covenant, upon which their Infant Seed had their Covenant Interest continued also, and consequently their right to Baptism the first Sign of it; for Baptism is not barely by virtue of a Command, but with relation to the Covenant as a sign thereof. And let it be observed, if Circumcision had still continued as the token of the Covenant and Infants to pass under it, yet the Messiah being come, the Preaching must have been (Repent and Believe and be Circumcised) as now it is (Repent and Believe and be Baptised,) yet not Jews would rationally have understood that in Gospel times, their Infants had been excluded from Circumcision, without a Repeal of their Ancient Covenant privilege, which we find not with reference to Baptism.  
The two principal Objections of those called Baptists are, the one the want of a Divine Command expressly for Infant Baptism, which I have here enervated; the other is concerning the two Seeds of Abraham, his natural or fleshly Seed, and his Spiritual Seed, of which see in the Discourse itself. It is the degenerate, adult natural Seed of Abraham, or others claiming Interest even in special blessings by fleshly descent, that is the Carnal Seed rejected; but that it is the Infant Seed is wholly without proof. Indeed if all the Infant Seed had been excluded, I doubt not but it would have been upon record, as an Objection and Stumbling block in the way of the captious Jews against Christ, and the dispensation of the Gospel, that the Covenant with Abraham was violated as well as the Law of Moses.  
Weigh all in the balance of the Sanctuary without prejudice, and the Lord give one heart and one way, and give thee understanding in all things. So prayeth he who is.  
Thine in Gospel bonds. S. P. March. 29. 1687.   

OF Infant Baptism.  
IT is a matter of great Importance rightly to determine, who are the Subjects and what is the form of Gospel Baptism, to prevent error in that administration, and the lamentable Church-dividing Consequences thereof.  
It is the Covenant Interest and Baptism of the Infant Seed only of Visible Believers that I plead for; and there are such vast numbers (even Millions) of these, that if Men unduly exclude and raze out the names of so many out of that great Charter of Heaven, they will have a dreadful account to give thereof to God.  
Those who deny Infant Baptism often call upon us to give express Scripture for it, and speak slightly of Consequences.  
But let them know that Scripture Consequences (i. e. naturally deduced) are valid arguments, for Jesus Christ proveth an Article of Faith viz. the resurrection Mat. 22. v. 31. 32. from Ex. 3. v. 6. where is no express word of it, and so the proof is only by consequence. See others. Joh. 7. 38. Joh. 5. 46. 47. Luk. 24. 44, 45, 46. Act. 10. 43. and 28. v. 23. it would destroy almost all preaching to deny Consequences. Besides, what express Scripture have they for admitting Women to the Lords Supper? as to 1 Cor. 11. 28. if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may rarely be extended to the female yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [himself] limits it to the male. So what express Scripture have they for Baptising again those who were Baptised as with us in Infancy? I conclude, things may be forbidden by good consequence; but to those who are otherwise minded for ever to silence this weak Objection, I add, That there is nothing against Infant Baptism, but by consequence, and that not good. If the Command to Baptise Professed Believers did forbid to the Baptising of Infants (as it doth not) yet it were only by consequence. I argue thus,  
There is no express Sctipture against Infant Baptism, if there were, the Controversy were presently at an end.  
Therefore Infants may be Baptised, for where there is no Law, there is no Transgression, Rom. 4. 15.  
Undeniably then, either Scripture Consequences must be owned, or else Infants may lawfully be Baptised, for there is no express Scripture or Law against it.  
§ 1. The Proof of Infant Baptism.  
Position. That Infant Baptism is an Appointment of Christ. Or,  
That it is the will of Christ that some Infants should be Baptised.  
Argument 1. Some Infants are Discipled so as to have the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon them.  
Therefore by the will of Christ they are to be Baptised.  
For that is the Commission, Mat. 28. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple ye all Nations, Baptising them—  
All then who are discipled by the Will of Christ, are to be Baptised; and they are Disciples, not only who actually learn, but who are in the School of Christ his Church in order to their future Learning: Saul made havoc of the Church, Act. 8. 3. Which is expressed, Act. 9 1. by the Disciples of the Lord. So then, to be a Church-member, is to be a Disciple. Thus Act. 15. 10. The Yoke of Circumcision was laid upon the Disciples; Doctrinely imposed upon the Parents; but Practically upon the Infant Seed at eight days old; for so was the Institution, Gen. 17. v. 10, 12, 13. And so they are Disciples. See also Act. 21. 4, 5. where Children seem to be numbered among Disciples.  
And as to [the Name] of the Trinity, that of being [Holy] is attributed often to Father, Son, and Spirit, Leu. 19 2. and 20. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 15. Heb. 7. 26. Eph. 1. v. 13. and 4. 30. 1 Thess. 4. 8. And it is given also to the Church and its Members, Exod. 19 6. Deut. 7. 6. and 14. v. 2. 21. and 26. 19 and 28. v. 9 Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9  
And this very Name of the Lord [Holy] he hath imposed upon the Children of Believers, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children Unclean, but now are they Holy; i. e. Holy by a Separation unto God and his Service; which often in Scripture denominateth Persons, or Things Holy, as the Church— and it cannot be meant of Legitimation; for if both the Parents were Unbelievers, yet the Children might not be Illegitimate; For Marriage is honourable in all, Heb. 13. 4. Nor is it meant of being only Sanctified to use; for there is a vast difference between being Sanctified to, and being Holy, as Mr. Cotton saith, Afflictions, Temptations, yea, Sin itself, is Sanctified to Believers: And yet none will say that Sin— is Holy.  
Therefore it must be meant of Relative Faederal Holiness; and so that Name of God is upon the Children of Believers, and consequently, they are to be Baptised.  
Arg. 2. If some Infants be visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham, then by the will of Christ they are to be Baptised.  
But some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham.  
Therefore by the Will of Christ they are to be Baptised.  
The Consequence [that those who are so in Abraham's Covenant are to be Baptised] I prove: For,  
1. All the Seed of Abraham in their Generations, are expressly Commanded to keep the Covenant, by applying the Token of it, which is Baptism; Gen. 17. 9 Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations.  
So long then as Abraham hath a Seed (which undeniably he hath in Gospel Times) even in all their Generations here is a standing Command to keep the Covenant.  
And how keep it? v. 10. 11. This is my Covenant— And mentioning Circumcision, he saith, [It shall be a Token of the Covenant between me and you.] So then the keeping it is by applying the Token of it. But he varieth the Phrase, as Mr. Whiston excellently observeth, an Intimation that he purposed a change in the Token of the Covenant. It is not said, That the keeping of it in all their Generations, should be by Circumcision as the Token of it.  
The Covenant in Gospel Times cannot be kept by Circumcision, for that is abrogated, and ceaseth to be a Token of it; and therefore it must be kept by Baptism, which now is the Sign or Token of it, that being for the Remission of Sins, Act. 2. 38, 39 which is a great Blessing of the Covenant, Heb. 10. v. 16, 17. This then is a full Command to Baptise all in Covenant now, for the keeping it, as it did command of old to Circumcise them when that was the Token of the Covenant. The alteration of the Sign is no hindrance at all; as the Second Commandment of Old did require Circumcision, Sacrifices, and Passover, and now these are abrogated, it doth equally require the observing Gospel Institutions, as Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and is kept thereby: And the Fourth Commandment required the Observation of the Seventh Day as a Sabbath, yet now is kept, by observing, the First Day of the Week as a Sabbath. So the Command of keeping the Covenant, was observed of old by Circumcision, but is now by Baptism, since that is become the Token of it, and cannot be obeyed otherwise.  
2. Baptism is the first Sign of the Covenant, and no Scripture Warrant is found to delay the applying of it to Persons visibly in the Covenant: Some call it an Initiatory Sign▪ which is so far true, as that speedily after coming under the Covenant it is to be submitted to, and is urged early. Act. 2. 38. and practised. v. 41. Act. 13. 24. Act. 22. 16. such then who are faederatiare to be signati. Mat. 28. 19  
Yea Baptism followeth a being Externally and Visibly in Covenant, as in Simon Magus. Act. 8. 13. Simon himself believed, and when he was Baptised, yet he was not internally and savingly in the Covenant, for he was in the gall of bitterness still v. 21. 22. 23. wanted faith and repentance, his heart was not right.  
And let this ever be remembered, that some are internally, invisibly, and savingly in that Covenant, so as to partake of special grace blessings, and privileges, as Justification, Adoption, Sanctification etc. Rom. 4. v. 2, 3, 13, 16, 17. Gal. 3. v. 16, 17, 18, 26, 29. and these shall never totally and finally fall away, Jer. 32, 40, 41. Joh. 10. 28. Rom. 11, 2, 7.  
Others are Externally and Visibly in that Covenant, and many of these are branches in Christ, that may be taken away, cast forth and burnt. Joh. 15. v. 2. 6. may be broken off. Rom. 11. v. 17. 20. thus the Jews for positive unbelief were broken off, which those who are internally in it cannot be.  
And hence though the Children of some Godly Parents may degenerate and prove wicked, yet this is no more against their former visible Covenant Interest and Baptism, than the same in Professed Believers, who may degenerate also as Simon Magus did, who before was duly Baptised, only upon a Visible External Interest in the Covenant.  
3. There is a Connexion between the Covenant and Baptism. Act. 2, 38, 39 whence I argue thus,  
Those to whom the Promise is made are Commanded to be Baptised. [Be Baptised for the promise is to you.]  
But the Promise is to Repenters and their Seed.  
Therefore Repenters and their Seed are commanded to be Baptised.  
All that have the Promise to them are to be Baptised, seeing the [for] doth intimate that to be the ground, motive and inducement to the applying Baptism, that the promise is to them.  
And undeniably they are the Jews, which he speaketh to v. 36. Let all the house of Israel know— them he commandeth to repent and be Baptised. v. 38. and addeth [for the promise is to you and your Children]  
So then, in Gospel times there is a promise which the Jews and their Seed had a joint Interest in, (before their rejection) which was sufficient to entitle them to Baptism. All repenters and believers are noted by [you] but here are two, not only [you] but also [your Children] within the promise, it is still double as it was of old, to Abraham and his Seed. Gen. 17. and it tended greatly to their Comfort, that such a promise of ancient date was still to them and their Seed, although they had Crucified and Slain Jesus Christ, the Lord of Life; yea, if for the present they were but externally in Covenant, yet it might be a great support in their Soul distress, that yet it was hopeful that they might obtain the special internal blessings of it, as remission of sin— seeing an external Interest is a great advantage that way, telling that their condition was not yet hopeless.  
And this promise extending to the Jews and their Seed, must also reach to the Seed of believing Gentiles, else the Jews should have more privilege than they, whereas there is no difference in Gospel times.  
And those words [as many as the Lord our God shall call] are not a limitation of the former part of the verse, but of the words immediately foregoing [and to all that are afar off] if that be meant of the Gentiles, as Eph. 2. 13. 17. then it telleth us, that the promise is not to all Gentiles universally and without exception, but only to such of them as shall be called or believe, and their Seed, else they were less privileged than the Jews.  
Or if as some think it referreth to the Jews, because the calling of the Gentiles, was as yet a great mystery unto Peter, Act. 10. and might have been a stumbling block to these Jews, than these [afar off] must be the posterity of the Jews to succeed in ages to come, who were then afar off in time; and if so, then by [Children] must be understood not the posterity of the Jews which was to come after, but their present Children even Infants, to them belongeth this promise.  
And this Promise is not to them only in the tender or offer of it, for that may extend to all afar off, this is limited to those of them which the Lord shall call. This Promise is not absolute, absolute, it is so far conditional as to individuals of the Seed, as all the Children of Believers may not, and such as reject the Covenant shall not be saved; but it is absolute as to the Species, as they are in a Covenant-state with God, as the Seed of others uncalled are not, and are under a greater probability of obtaining spiritual blessings as remission of sin and eternal Salvation, have higher advantages that way, than the Seed of those who are out of Covenant. It is mentioned as a great privilege, that the promise is to them and their Children, it is then to oppose God for any Man to say, he doth not make the promise any otherwise to them and their Children, than he doth to all others in the World, and especially seeing Baptism is here entailed to it.  
I now shall prove [That some Infants are visibly or externally in the Covenant, which God made with Abraham.] For  
Some Infants for many hundreds of years in all Old Testament times, were so in that Covenant made with Abraham, and God hath never repealed it or cut them off.  
Therefore they are in it still. That they were in it is undeniable, for at the Eighth day they were to be Circumcised else the Lord saith they have broken his Covenant. Gen. 17. v. 14. it could not have been broken by neglecting that token of it, if they had not been in it. It is impossible to break that Covenant that they are not in.  
And let any prove, that God hath repealed it, or cut Infants out of it in Gospel times, if they can.  
To evade this they tell us, that the Infants of believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham.  
I shall prove,  
Posit. That the Infant Seed even of believing Gentiles, are visibly and externally in the Covenant which God made with Abraham. For  
1. The Infant Seed of believing Gentiles in the days of the Old Testament, were so in that Covenant with Abraham, and therefore they are in it still, unless God hath repealed it.  
The Scripture witnesseth that the Gentiles have greater privilege in Gospel times, than they had before Isa. 42. 6. Acts 10. 45. Rom. 11. 11, 12. Gal. 3. 14. and who dare say that it is diminished? let them prove it.  
It's clear, that not only the natural fleshly Seed of Abraham, but those born in his house, and bought with his money (which were Gentiles) were to be circumcised, even Infants at Eight days old, not of his Seed, Gen. 17. v. 12, 13, 14. and this is an everlasting Covenant, and if they were not circumcised, the Covenant with Abraham was broken, v. 14. and therefore those Sons of strangers Gentiles, were within the Covenant made with Abraham, how else could they be under circumcision, the token of it and so, as it was violated if it were neglected? Yet these Gentiles had no right to the Land of Canaan, which argueth, that Abraham's Covenant was not merely for the Land of Canaan, or merely typical as some would have it, nor only for Abraham's fleshly Seed, but extended to some Gentiles; Indeed the Church was then Domestical in Abraham's family, he would have none there but such as owned the true Religion, such only were to be in his house and bought with his money, as were then Church members, for he commanded not only his Children but his Household after him, Gen. 18. v. 19 and they shall keep the way of the Lord.  
And afterward such of the Strangers Gentiles, who became Proselytes and owned the Jewish religion were to be circumcised, Ex. 12. v. 44, 48. 49. when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised— one Law shall be to him that is home-born and unto the stranger. So then, upon a profession of faith or true religion, strangers Gentiles were in the Covenant with Abraham in that day and came under the token of it, Circumcision and their Infant seed, as well as upon a profession of the faith of the Gospel, any are owned in Covenant now, & their Infant seed must be in it with them, unless any can show a repeal, or that they are less privileged than they were. And methinks we have the contrary. Act. 2. 39 the promise is [to you & your Children] i. e. to the Jews, [& to as many as the Lord our God shall call] i. e. of the Gentiles answerable to the Proselytes of old, so Isa. 56. v. 5, 6.  
2. The Blessings of Abraham in Gospel Times are come upon the Gentiles by Faith, Gal. 3. 14.  
Therefore the Infant Seed of the Gentiles are, in Gospel Times, in the Covenant which God made with Abraham.  
For Abraham had no other to communicate but Covenant Blessings, and not the Land of Canaan, for that is not given to the Gentiles; and therefore the Blessings are, Gen. 17. 7, 8.— I will— be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee in their Generations. And this for many Generations did extend to Parents and their Infant Seed, v. 9, 10, 11.— So as they passed under Token of the Covenant, and were intended thereby all the time of the Old Testament.  
He speaketh indefinitely and in general of the Blessings of Abraham, not a parcel of them, but in the Latitude, and as amply as of Old: And therefore by Faith God is visibly a God to the Gentiles, and to their Infant Seed; unless any can prove that God hath repealed that part of the Covenant which concerns the Infant Seed in Gospel Times.  
3. The Infant Seed of the Jews were in the Covenant made with Abraham in Gospel Times, after the Death of Christ, after all Legal Observations were abolished.  
Therefore the Infant Seed of Believing Gentiles are in the Covenant made with Abraham in Gospel Times.  
For there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Gospel Times. Rom. 10. 12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek (i e. the Gentile) for the same Lord over all, is Rich unto all that call upon him. So Rom. 3. 22. Act. 15. 9 Putting no difference, Gal. 3. 8. The Jews and Gentiles than are equal in respect of Gospel Privilege; yea, there is no difference in respect of External Privilege and Covenant Interest, for the Partition Wall is broken down that was between us, and both made one, Eph. 2. 14. And the same Olive Tree which the Jews are broken off from, that the Gentiles are grafted into, Rom. 11. v. 17, 19, 23, 24. So that the Jews are not Privileges above the Gentiles.  
Now that the Infant seed of the Jews were in the Covenant made with Abraham in Gospel Times, I prove.  
1. From Act. 3. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenants which God made with our Fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the Kindred's of the Earth be blessed. This was after the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, after the abrogation of all Legal Sacrifices and Ceremonial Observations; yet still these Jews were within the Covenant made with Abraham, Children of it; yea, before their repentance, for he saith, v. 19 repent therefore etc. and their being still in Covenant is used as an argument to it, they were not yet cast out of that Covenant, and that included not only the Parents but the Infant seed, as I have proved already, so Act. 2. 38, 39  
2. The Jews and their Infant seed were in the Covenant made with Abraham, the day before the Gospel came to them, therefore they were in it in Gospel times after, unless God repealed it or cast them out, which let any prove who can.  
I run it up to the Primitive times, to determine this question thus. In the Apostles days immediately before their Preaching the Jews and their Infant Seed were unquestionably in the Covenant made with Abraham, and under the token of it Circumcision; therefore the Infant seed were in that Covenant after; or else undeniably the coming of Christ, and the Jews believing on him and being Baptised, was exceedingly to their damage, injury, and disadvantage. For this is to say, that the day or moment before a Jew did believe and was Baptised, his Infant seed were in Covenant with God, the day or moment after the Infant seed was out of that Covenant. Dare any say that to be out of Covenant with God, or to be cast out is no damage, no disadvantage? is it not mentioned as a mystery, to be strangers to the Covenants of promise, Ephes. 2. 12? it is the misery of the Jews, to be broken off from being externally in Covenant, and a mercy to the Gentiles to be graffed into the Olive, Rom 11. v. 17, 19, 22, 24. as promoting a partaking of the fatness of the Olive.  
If it was a privilege to be in that Covenant, than it must needs be a loss and damage to be out of it. When the question was, Rom. 3. 1. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of Circumcision? God by the Apostle answereth, v. 2. much every way— Is it not then great boldness for any Man to contradict God, and say, it is a mercy rather than a misery to be broken off from it? If any abuse the Covenant made with Abraham, and Circumcision to the denying that Christ is come, and to the seeking Justification by their own works or righteousness, on such a false legal ground as Christ profiteth nothing, and so, as they oblige themselves or are bound to keep the whole Law, and hinder their being justified; what is all this to the proving that it is no damage or disadvantage for any to be cast out of the Covenant with Abraham, even as to external Interest in it?  
If after the Jews believing and being Baptised▪ their Infant seed remained in that Covenant, then consequently the Infant seed of believing Gentiles are in it also, for now there is no difference.  
4. The Seed of Abraham are the same for species or kind in all generations, and therefore the Infant seed of believing Gentiles are in the Covenant made with Abraham. It's true there is a numerical difference, Abraham hath a greater number than he had for his seed in the Nations of the Gentiles, Mat. 28. 19 Galat. 3. 14. and in Gospel times there are great alterations in the outward state and condition of the Church, and in the outward administration of the Covenant, but as the Covenant itself, so the seed in it are for substance the same in all ages of it.  
The Seed internally in that Covenant, so as to obtain justification and Salvation, they were and are the same. He saith to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made, even one seed 430 years before the Law, and so the Covenant cannot be disannulled. Gal. 3. v. 15, 16, 17. the stress of the Apostles argument is laid upon the sameness of the seed, admit one of another kind and his proof would fail. Also as to external Interest in the Covenant the seed is for kind the same. It is true, Abraham was so far privileged as to have a promise, that of his natural seed concerning the flesh, Christ should come. Rom. 9 5. yet after Gen. 17. 7. when persons rejected the Covenant, though they were of the fleshly seed of Abraham, yet they were cast out, and also some stranger's Gentiles becoming Proselytes, and owning the Covenant with Abraham, though not of his fleshly seed, yet were admitted to the external privileges of his Covenant. v. 12, 13. Ex. 12, 48, 49. and their Infant seed came under the token of it, and so were Covenanters.  
If any race out the Subjects of any Covenant (without their forfeiting their privilege) it is presently null and void.  
If the Infant seed were razed out of the Covenant with Abraham, who undoubtedly for many hundreds of years were Subjects of it, than the Covenant with Abraham were disannulled, which the Apostle saith it cannot be, Gal. 3. 17. but cometh upon the Gentiles. v. 14. so as they enjoy what the Jews were broken off from Rom. 12. v. 17, 19 and seeing the promise of being a God to Abraham and his Seed, by Divine Warrant intended the Infant Seed with the Parents, in all the time from Abraham to the coming of Christ, hence that must be the meaning of it still, if Jesus Christ hath not repealed it, and consequently the Gentiles being now in that Covenant, the Infant seed of the believing Gentiles, must be visibly and externally in the Covenant, which God made with Abraham.  
I omit other Arguments insisted upon by others, lest I should actum agere. As to the antiquity of the practice of Infant Baptism, besides what Justin Martyr and Irendus say, Cyprian who flourished about Ann. 250. or 255. in his Epistle to Fidus, who questioned whether Infants might be Baptised before the 8th. day; Cyprian with Sixty six Bishops in a Council unanimously declared to Fidus, that they might be Baptised before the Eighth day; which very question presupposeth, that the Baptising of Infants was then a thing granted, and unquestionable only the particular day doubted of by some. Neither may any conclude Cyprians testimony to be spurious seeing he is cited and approved not only by August. but by Hierom. Contr. Pelag. lib. 3. and Christ saith, out of the Law, Joh. 8. 17. the testimony of two Men is true, i. e. is to be received as true.  
Neither doth the unsoundness of Cyprians judgement about Baptism otherways invalidate this; for I do not allege him to make his opinion an Argument for Infant Baptism, but only to prove matter of fact, that it was then a common practice in the Church, when they might as easily know what was practised in the Apostles days, as we may know what was a Custom a 100 or a 150 years ago. And seeing the doubt of Fidus was grounded on the ancient Law of Circumcision on the Eighth day; hence the Ancients than made the Covenant with Abraham, an Argument for Infant Baptism, and also thought Baptism came in the room and place of Circumcision. It cannot be denied that Origen Augustin, Theodoret and others were for Infant Baptism.  
§. 2. Objections against Infant's Covenant Interest and Baptism answered.  
That the Covenant which God made with Abraham was of grace, and in the Substance of it continuing in Gospel times is evident; for the Apostle establisheth Justification even of the Gentiles, the Romans by faith in a way of grace, by the example of Abraham, Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 17. and by his being the Father of many Nations; now if the Covenant with Abraham had been expired, his arguments had been easily evaded; by saying, that Abraham was justified in one way, we in another, and that Abraham's Covenant was at an end; its true some appendices relating to its administration as Circumcision— are abolished, but the Apostle from the date of it 430 years before the Law, concludeth peremptorily, that it cannot be disannulled, Gal. 3, 16, 17. and carefully observe that when the Scripture speaketh of an old Covenant, which is disannulled, it always is the Law at mount Sinai. Jer. 31. v. 32. Heb. 8. v. 9 it never saith, that the Covenant made with Abraham is abolished, but the contrary; declaring that the Law coming 430 years after could not disannul it. Also in Gospel times, they are said to be Children of the Covenant. Act, 3. 25. And hence all those notions, that the Covenant made with Abraham, was a Covenant of works, a legal temporal one, or mixed his natural seed, having but temporal promises by it in the land of Canaan, or a typical Covenant, I say these, as not true, vanish and come to nothing. And it is very considerable that in that Covenant with Abraham, the Lord promiseth to be a God to him and his Seed after him, Gen. 17. 7. and then a Second time, with that temporal promise of the Land of Canaan to his Seed, he twisteth this, v. 8. and I will be their God. So that visibly he is a God to the same Seed, which he promiseth the Land of Canaan too; and for him to be a God to any, is far greater than any temporal good whatsoever.  
I shall now consider what is objected, to prove a repeal of the Infant seeds Interest in the Covenant with Abraham, and also against their Baptism.  
Ob. 1. Mat. 3. 9 Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father. Joh. 8. 33. we be Abraham's Seed.  
None be the Children of Abraham, but those that do the works of Abraham. v. 39 if ye were Abraham's Children, ye would do the works of Abraham, and so Infants are not the Seed of Abraham.  
A. 1. These are severe reproofs to a degenerate adult seed, who trusted in their privilege in having Abraham to their Father; but speak nothing of cutting off all Infants from a Covenant Interest which they formerly had. All this might be said to such as were wicked and rested in birth privileges, in any times of the Old Testament, when yet Infants were undoubtedly in the Covenant, both before and after; and so it is nothing to the purpose. Jer. 7. 4. Trust ye not in lying words saying, the Temple of the Lord are these. Yet all this may be said to such persons in Gospel times, of whatever persuasion, Baptists, Congregational Men, or any other, that own Infants in Covenant; think not to say you are Church members or Baptised, whilst you do not the works of Abraham, and yet we may own Infant's Covenant interest, where the Parents are Believers.  
2. It is certain, that when that was said, Mat. 3. 9 and Joh. 8. 39 the Covenant Interest of the Infand seed was not repealed, nor they cut off from it; For this was some time before the Death of Christ; till which there was no abrogation or disannulling of any legal observations, much less of privilege by Abraham, Eph. 2. v. 14, 15, 16. Col. 2. 14. the Jews were not broken off till afterwards; and so Infants yet were of the seed of Abraham.  
Ob. 2. None but those that are Christ's visibly, and that are of the Faith, are Abraham's seed, Gal. 3. v. 16, 26, 29. Infants than are not the seed of Abraham.  
An. 1. Here is not a syllable for a repeal of any privilege, which Infants of old undoubtedly had by the Covenant with Abraham, or as his seed: here is nothing for cutting off any that were of the seed, as Infants once were, Gen. 17. Deut. 29. v. 10. to 14. rather he asserteth the sameness of the Covenant in respect of its seed, and that it could not be disannulled, see Gal. 3. 16, 17. and as God claimed Israel as his, Exod. 4. 22. Leu. 20. 26. So if Infants be still in Covenant, why may they not visibly be Christ's?  
2. The Apostle here speaketh of a seed of Abraham as to Justification and Life, and it is they which are of Faith, v. 8, 9, 10. And this not in opposition to an Infant seed, but to an adult seed, which sought Justification by works of the Law, as those verses witness, and v. 24, 26, 29. And thus it was in all Ages since Abraham, when Infants were certainly in Covenant; yet than the seed of Abraham, as to Justification, were they of the Faith, and not of Works; and only real Believers are this seed. What is this against Infants being a seed as to Ordinances, as well as unsound Professors? This is confirmed to be the meaning in the next Chapter, Gal. 4. v. 24. to the end, where they that were born from Mount Sinai, from the Law and Works are said to be born after the Flesh, they are in the Apostles sense the fleshly seed, which with Ishmael, are to be cast out; and they by Promise are those of the Faith.  
What is all this against Infants being of Abraham's seed, as of old; and the less, because they are of the Faith, as their Covenant Interest followeth Faith, viz. of the Parent to whom the Promise is given for the seed, as that Promise was directed to Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. for him to act Faith upon the Lord in it, for his seed as well as for himself; and other Believers are to do the like.  
Hence see the true meaning of Gal. 3. 16. To Abraham and his seed were the Promises made: he saith not unto seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ: i. e. Always Abraham had but one seed, Christ, and those that are Christ's, and are of the Faith as to Justification; he never had two seeds for that end; in the times of the Old Testament there was but one seed, not two seeds, one by the Law, and another by Promise, but only one in Christ by Promise: and that this is the intendment, is evident, seeing he addeth, v. 18. For if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise, but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. So that the [one seed] excludeth only a pretended seed, seeking Justification by the works of the Law; such God never owned for the seed.  
And so it is not in the least mentioned to exclude Infants, as a fleshly seed, from an ecclesiastical seed, nor to repeal any privilege or limit to cut them off from what they had before the coming of Christ, this is not in the least the meaning; for all the time wherein Infants enjoyed such privileges, yet there was but one seed in the Apostles sense: and which further cleareth it, observe this, Gal. 3. 16, 17. intendeth that Promise to Abraham, which was 430 years before the Law, which can be only that, Gen. 12. 3. as any may find by computing the time, this was when Abraham was seventy five years old, v. 4. and so they greatly mistake who would have it expounded, Gen. 17. 7, 8. where Infants Covenant Interest is asserted, it is no repeal, no restriction, or limitation thereof, no cutting them off from any privileges granted or confirmed to them there; for that was not four hundred and thirty years before the Law; but when Abraham was ninety and nine years old. v. 1. which was twenty four years less.  
4. Some Infants are visibly Christ's, and so are Abraham' s seed: as Abraham had a natural fleshly seed, and a spiritual seed, consisting only of real Believers, which are justified, and shall certainly be saved, Gal. 3. 8, 9, 11. Mark 16. 16. So also Abraham had, and hath an ecclesiastical seed, he was, and is a Father of the visible Church, and all in it are his seed in this sense, where are many foolish Virgins, Mat. 25. 1, 2. unsound Professors of Faith, which yet are duly baptised, as Simon Magus was, Act. 8. 13. Such as may be in Christ, and be taken away and cast forth, Joh. 15. 2. 6. and be broken off, Rom. 11. 20. which none of his spiritual seed of real believers can be. Either then such Hypocrites are the seed of Abraham or not. If they be, than he hath a seed which are not his Spiritual seed; If they be not, than we may Baptise some who are not the seed of Abraham, and then why not Infants? Neither need we call this a third seed of Abraham any more than of old, and especially, seeing that Church consisteth much of his Spiritual seed, as sharers in highest privileges in special and eternal blessings, though it extendeth to others as sharers in inferior blessings; both are his seed as Ishmael and Isaac were, though one had higher blessings than the other, Gen. 17. 20. 21.  
And undeniably many hundreds of years even from Abraham till the coming of Christ, an Infant seed of Jews and Proselytes were of Abraham's Church-seed, and must be so still unless any can show a repeal; and this will hardly be found, seeing Jesus Christ hath declared, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 19 14. Mark 10. 13, 14. Luk. 18. 15. And if Infants be of the Church, then are they Christ's, for that is his, Mat. 16. 18. Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 12. 27. Joh. 15. 2, 6. Neither do some Characters of the Church forbidden their being members of it, seeing they were undoubtedly such, and these Eulogiums are given to it, in respect of its better part, or what they may, aught or hopefully will be afterward; as it is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 25. 1, 2. yet some foolish Virgins there, and those are golden Candlesticks, Rev. 1. 12, 13, 20. yet some drossy and lukewarm not pure gold.  
And further consider, the visible Church was founded on the Covenant made with Abraham, not only as consisting of Jews, but Gentiles in the Nations, Gen. 17. 4, 5. behold my Covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations; and that Covenant extended to Infants, v. 10, 11, 12, 13. and is still continuing, Rom. 4. 17, 18. Gal. 3. 17. let any prove that Infants are cut out of it, else they are of his Ecclesiastical seed still. It is true, Ceremonial observations of very ancient date, and Ordinances of of the Law are abrogated, Heb. 9 and 10. but the Covenant with Abraham is another thing, and from the date of it so long before the Law, the Apostle proveth cannot be disannulled by it, Gal. 3. 17. The ceasing of Circumcision doth no more abolish the Covenant with Abraham or Infant's Interest therein, than the abolishing of Sacrifices, Passover, and other Ceremonial observations doth null the Second Commandment, which during their continuance, commanded a worshipping God by them.  
And also the Church before the Death of Christ, and after, are essentially the same, Eph. 2. 14, 15. Who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished— the Law of Commandments— So then Jesus Christ by his Death did not pull down one Church, and erect another, but equalised Jews and Gentiles, made both one; that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, Eph. 3. 6. Ordinances are altered in Worship, but the Church is in Essence the same.  
And once more, the same Olive-tree, the Covenant with Abraham, and visible Church, which the Jews were broken off from, for unbelief. Rom. 11. 20. the same the Gentiles were graffed into, v. 17. and the Jews shall again be graffed into that, as into their own Olive-tree, v. 23, 24. and there could be no such graffing into the same, if the stock the Covenant or Church were not the same. And hence Abraham hath an Ecclesiastical seed the visible Church (for there is no breaking off from the invisible Church) and Infants being of old members of it, they are so still (else it were not the same) and so they are visibly Christ's and of Abraham's seed.  
5. Some Infants are visibly of the faith, and so are Abraham's seed: I do not say, that faith seminal and habitual or actual, is in all Infant's Baptised or others, for then either all of them must be saved, which they are not; or else they might lose that special faith; but they are visibly interested in the Covenant or promise, which is the word of faith and may bear that name; and the Lord being visibly their God, Gen. 17. 7. 8. they are so under the promise of after faith and repentance, otherwise than others are. If they have not faith for the present, yet visibly they are under a promise of it, it is hopeful for the future they shall have it, which promise, Baptism may be a sign and seal of; it may seal a doctrine of faith even where a principle of it is yet wanting, and by Baptism they are obliged to seek it.  
Also by the faith of the Parents, they may be deemed of the faith with them, as all Jews (Infants and all) were the Circumcision, for there are many promises given for the faith of such Parents to act upon, which no unbelieving Parents can claim for their seed; as that he will Circumcise the heart of their seed, Deut. 30. 6. pour his spirit on them, Is. 44. 3. that the word shall not departed out of their mouth. If. 59 21. see also Ps. 25. 13. & 112. 2. Prov. 11. 21. the contrary of the seed of the wicked, Ps. 37. 28. but especially that great and comprehensive promise is to believers, that he will be the God of their seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8. and these are fulfilled absolutely to the Collective body the Church, though not te every individual, but under limitation. And Parents by rejecting the Covenant and Unbelief, may forfeit this privilege for their seed as well as for themselves, as the Infant seed of the Jews were broken off by their Parent's unbelief, Rom. 11. 20. Else it must be said that their seed remained in Covenant after in Gospel times; and if Parents forfeit, there may not be an uninterrupted Succession of the Church in some of the posterity of Believers, yet if the rejected seed do after personally believe, they obtain the promises for themselves and seed again. Act. 2. 39  
In short, Abraham was equally a Father of the Jews (called the Circumcision) by faith, as he was and is a Father of the Gentiles, the circumcision by faith. Rom. 4. v. 10, 11, 12. there is no difference of his common fatherhood to both it is by faith; so that the Jews were as much Abraham's seed of faith, even when they were the circumcision as the Gentiles are, and so the Jews Infant seed, were Abraham's seed of faith, externally when circumcised of old, and as well then may the Infant seed of believing Gentiles, be Abraham's seed of faith now; and the rather because he received circumcision, as a Seal of the righteousness of that faith, which he had being uncircumcised v. 11. that he might be a father to believing Gentiles. And observe, that the Covenant was made with him, and he circumcised as a visible Believer, circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of faith, which is common to all Believers among Jews and Gentiles, not peculiar to him.  
Also he received Circumcision, not merely by virtue of a command or institution, but as a token of the Covenant. Gen. 17. 9, 10, 11. So as the Covenant could not be kept after circumcision was Instituted without it, v. 14. whilst it continued; nor without Baptism now a token of the same Covenant, and connected with the promise, Act. 2. 38, 39 in like manner, and so Infants being in Covenant, as Abraham's seed of faith are to be Baptised.  
Obj. 3. There is no kind of Covenant holiness in the natural seed of Believers, more than in the seed of Unbelievers now under the Gospel; for no person is to be accounted common or unclean by nature more than others, and so no person to be accounted clean or holy by nature more than others. Act. 10. 28. God is no respecter of persons— Typical Ceremonial holiness is abolished of the seed as well as of Beasts, Birds, Garments, Temple, etc.  
A. The Typical ceremonial holiness abolished, is not said to be by Nature. Act. 10. 28. it was by the Law; such as of Birds, Beasts, Garments, Temple, etc. and this is at an end, nothing now unclean or holy in that sense; but that is nothing against the relative federal holiness of persons long before the Law, by the Covenant with Abraham visibly having God their God, and being his People. Gen. 17. 7, 8. otherwise then other People, being separated to the Service of God, and not afar off but nigh to him. Ezek. 16. 8, 9 Eph. 2, 3, 14, 19 and this is not merely by nature, but as in the force of God's Covenant. Galat. 2. 15.  
As to Act. 10. 28. It declares that no person is common or unclean so as to bar him from the Preaching of the Gospel; the Gentiles are as clean and holy now as the Jews in that respect; Peter might go in to Cornelius, no difference of Nation or outward state or condition to hinder it (Col. 2. 11.) all on equal terms, and alike; the means of grace may be extended to the Gentiles; the offer is larger than it was; not straiter here is no excluding or casting out of Infants from any privilege.  
Indeed the Jews of old were forbidden Marriage and Covenants with the Gentiles, Deut. 7. 3. but not keeping company with them, as Calvin saith, we find no clear prohibition of the Jews going in to the Gentiles from the Law, but from the observation of the Fathers; However, there can be no pretence for such uncleanness of Persons, as Peter meaneth till the Law, and the abolishing this by the Gospel, is nothing against the federal holiness of Infants or others, long before the Law by the Covenant with Abraham.  
As to Act. 10. 34, 35. it importeth that God is no respecter of persons, as to acceptance with him; be he Jew or Gentile of what Nation soever, he may be accepted of God, if he be a fearer of God, and a worker of righteousness else not, whatever privilege he enjoyeth, Church-membership, Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc. what is this against the federal holiness of their seed, who are fearers of God and externally in Covenant with him?  
2. In Gospel times there is a relative federal holiness, whereby some are differenced from other by a Separation from the world for God, Rom. 11. 16. 1 Pet. 2. 9 ye are a holy Nation, yea this reacheth Infants. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unholy, but now are they holy.  
It cannot be meant of legitimation, for if both the Parents be unbelievers, yet the Children are legitimate. Heb. 13. 4. the marriage bed is undefiled in all. It is not barely a being sanctified to use, for so are the unbelieving Husband or Wife to the Believer. v. 14. yet are not holy. Tit. 1. 15.  
It is not qualitative holiness, if it were to be sure they may be Baptised; it must then be relative or federal holiness.  
Obj. 4. If the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God, Rom. 9 8. then Infants are not the seed of Abraham, they may be by Election, not by Calling. Abraham hath two seeds, a fleshly seed, who had promises of the Land of Canaan; and a spiritual seed Heirs of eternal Life, the Heavenly Inheritance, this was never given to the fleshly seed.  
Ans. Children of the flesh by degeneracy and a legal Birth, are not the Children of God: Of these he speaketh, Rom. 9 v. 8, 31, 32. Gal. 4. v. 29, 30. This is nothing against Infant's Privilege.  
Also Children of the flesh, Infants or adult, are not internally and savingly the Children of God, so as to inherit the Heavenly Inheritance only by fleshly descent; but Infants of Believers are externally and visibly the Children of God as well as others, Gen. 17. 7, 10, 11. Exod. 4. 22. Rom. 9 4. To them pertaineth the Adoption, and so they are externally and visibly Children, if not by regeneration, yet by dedication and separation for God from others. This rendereth it probable and hopeful they shall afterwards share in the spiritual and eternal Blessings, until they evidence the contrary by rejecting the Covenant, as Ishmael and Esau did.  
Thus the Infant seed of Believers are not the spiritual seed of Abraham only by fleshly descent, but they are ecclesiastically and externally the seed of Abraham, with their Parents, by virtue of the Covenant.  
But to clear this Text and Matter, I shall add these things.  
1. Here is no repeal of any Covenant Interest, which Infants undoubtedly had before the coming of Jesus Christ; without which, all said is nothing▪ to the purpose: it is not said, those that of old were the seed of Abraham, now are not so any longer; but rather the contrary, for (till actually cast out) he concludeth them highly privileged, Rom. 9 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Glory of [the Covenants]— and the Promises. So that still in Gospel times, till cast out for positive Unbelief, externally they had an Interest in the Covenants and Promises, as in former days, and so their Infants shared with them.  
2. The Children of the Flesh, which here are denied to be the Children of God, are an adult, corrupt, degenerate seed, seeking Justification by a Legal Righteousness. Rom. 9 v. 8, 31, 32. Israel which followed after Righteousness, hath not attained to the Law of Righteousness. Wherefore? because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the Works of the Law. Such are a fleshly seed, Gal. 4. 29. and obstinately erring in such a Fundamental in matter of Faith, in any Age, were not the Children of God; they are adult ones that thus advance their own Righteousness, Infants do not so, and therefore are not the Children of the flesh here intended.  
Indeed the Parents may so forfeit their Covenant Interest, and consequently, their Infant seed may lose it also, because their Right was by their Parents.  
3. The Children of the Flesh, whether adult, or Infants, are not the Children of God spiritually, or are not the spiritual seed of Abraham only by a fleshly descent, so as to be Heirs of Salvation, Eternal Life, the Heavenly Inheritance; but yet may be the seed of Abraham ecclesiastically and externally, as of old, and nothing is here against it.  
Mr. Strong doth well distinguish Abraham as a Father; he is 1. a natural Father to the Jews only. 2. a spiritual Father to all true Believers. 3. an ecclesiastical, or church Father, Rom. 11. 16, 17. answerably he hath a natural fleshly seed, a spiritual seed, and an ecclesiastical seed. Paul ardently desired, that Israel might be saved, Rom. 10. 1. and Rom. 9 v. 3. mentioneth Election, calling Salvation v. 11, 24, 27. and in these respects it might be said in all ages of the Old Testament, the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God, as to Vocation and Salvation, when yet Infants were unquestionably externally in Covenant, and so then they may be still, and all this that is said is not against it. They may be a seed as to Ordinances, though all of them be not so as to Life and Salvation.  
The same may be said of Gospel Churches, all are not Israel that are of Israel— there being foolish Virgins there as well as wise, Mat. 25. 1, 2. how then can this prove, an alteration of the Covenant, or that the Infant seed is now excluded, seeing the same might have been truly said in all times?  
4. That many of the fleshly seed of Abraham might be rejected, and yet the word or promise of God not be made void; the Apostle here and Rom. 11. is asserting the rejection of the Jews, and now obviateth their objection, Rom. 9 v. 6. [Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect] i. e. Not that God doth violate his promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed, for all are not true Israelites nor of the seed of Abraham, who are his fleshly seed, v. 6, 7. only that did not render them the Children of God, and entitle them to the promises v. 8. this he proveth, because Ishmael, who was of Abraham's fleshly seed of old was cast our, and where there was no disparity or unlikeness in birth or works, yet Jacob was loved, and Esau hated, v. 8. to 14. neither doth this preferring one before the other, where there was equality in themselves, speak any unrighteousness with God, v. 14. for his own will is the determining rule of his showing mercy, v. 15. to v. 24. This is the clear and true meaning of this Scripture, these instances show that being the Children of the flesh of old, did not make them the Children of God, as to his love— when yet undeniably the Infant seed were externally within the Covenant, how then can this speak now for the excluding of them? when the same might be said in all ages since Abraham, viz. that the Children of the flesh, are not the Children of God so as to obtain spiritual Blessings, but may be rejected, when they bear upon that plea of fleshly descent, and yet highly degenerate as the Jews did. It proveth no alteration of the Covenant in respect of its ancient extent as to the seed. What is said, is intended against an adult corrupt seed, making a carnal plea or claim, not against an Infant seed. The same might be said now to a Church under a like degeneracy, and making such a carnal plea, even where there is an owning Infant's Covenant Interest and Baptism. The Question here was not whither an Infant seed were still in Covenant as they were of old? but whither the promise was void and of none effect (v. 6.) if a corrupt adult fleshly seed were rejected?  
5. The fleshly Children of Abraham, were not the Children of God exclusively, or in opposition to a Spiritual seed, even of Gentiles by faith; the Jews often cried out, we are the seed of Abraham, claiming Interest in the Covenant, and engrossing all promises and special blessings, only by being his fleshly seed, hereby excluding the Gentiles, unless joined with them turning to the Jewish Religion; on the contrary the Apostle declareth, that there is a spiritual seed, even of the Gentiles by faith, and that hereby they obtain spiritual blessings before the Jews Rom. 9, 8, 30, 31, 32 who are denied to be that spiritual seed (though they were the fle●●●y seed of 〈◊〉) being without faith and not doing the works of 〈◊〉, Rom. ●. ●. 10. 11. Gal. 3.  
What is this against those, who pretend not to be Abraham's carnal fleshly seed, nor to be actually interested in special blessings by fleshly descent, nor trust in carnal privileges? What is this for the excluding Infants out of a Covenant state▪ an the result of that promise to Abraham ● I will he the God of thy seed ● Gen. 17. 7, 8. for many 100 years an Infant seed had a Covenant Interest jointly with their Parents, and this was no Typical promise, let any prove that Infants are cut off from their share in it, else their Covenant Interest must hold still, whither Baptism may be applied, or not without an express Command of which before.  
Abraham had a spiritual seed all along by faith, whose Infants were in Covenant with their Parents for many generations, and why should not their privilege continue still to the spiritual seed, though the carnal fleshly seed were cast out, and their privilege expired with it.  
Infant's Covenant Interest was not the peculiar privilege of the fleshly seed of Abraham; for the Infant seed of Proselytes and those strangers, Gen. 17. 12, 13. Ex. 12. 48. were in the Covenant made with Abraham and under the token of it, so as that Covenant was broken if that was omitted, yet they were not of the fleshly seed of Abraham, and so these may be in still, though his fleshly seed be cast out.  
And once more, if all the Jews at the first dawning of the Gospel day, had become the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith (as many of them did) none of them then had been rejected; for it was for unbelief, that they were broken off, Rom. 11. 20. and what syllable is there to prove, that there would have been an exclusion of their Infant seed, from that Covenant Interest weh they had the day before their Parents believing. And hence it followeth.  
6. That the expiring and ceasing of some carnal privileges of old, afforded to the fleshly seed of Abraham, hindereth not the Covenant Interest of the Infants of the spiritual seed by faith; if the separation of the fleshly seed of Abraham, to the bringing forth of the Messiah ceased and expired at his coming, that was but one privilege of the Jews, that of them as concerning the flesh Christ came, Rom. 9 5. and yet Covenant Interest continued still [to them pertaineth the— Covenant, and the promises] v. 4. Act. 3. 25.  
If the aforesaid separation and the privilege thereby, as Dr. O. saith was temporary having a limited season time and end, and upon his actual exhibition in the flesh it was to cease, and if some carnal ordinances failed and be at an end, being abundantly supplied by his being come; yet what is all this to prove, that God no longer is visibly a God to the Infant seed of the Spiritual seed of Abraham? that is not temporary, but by an everlasting Covenant, and faileth not.  
Infant's Covenant Interest is no branch of those privileges which he saith are expired; but on the contrary Dr. O. mentioneth this as one promise to the Church [that God will be a God to them and their seed for ever.] Exercit. 6. on Heb. Neither doth this make three parties in the Covenant [Abraham and his seed, and their Infant seed] any more than it did before the coming of Christ, when Parents and their Infants made one joint Subject all along, as Isaac and his Children, and Jacob and his, and those Circumcised, Josh. 5. and theirs.  
The Jews ungroundedly claimed all promises, by their being the fleshly seed of Abraham, but the spiritual seed may duly claim that promise for their Children, there being nothing for the nulling of it.  
Besides, Dr. O. once and again there declareth, that the Church is one and the same, not one Church taken away and another set up in the room, the Olive-tree is the same, only some branches are broken off, etc.  
Infants were of the Church, show when they were all cast out; the same that the Jews were broken off from the Gentiles were graffed into, Rom. 11.  
Let any prove that the Church-state in the Substance of it, was any part of that which was abolished by the death of Christ.  
They were added to the Church, Act. 2. 47. i e. to the Church under its new administration. By breaking down the partition wall, the former confinement of the Church to the Natural seed of Abraham was taken off, and it hath enlargement by the access of the Gentiles, but is not straitened by excluding so vast a number as all the Infant seed. The degenerate, obstinate, unbelieving Jews were broken off for the reformation of the Church, but it was not dismembered by cutting off all the Infant seed, who had actually done neither good nor evil, nor had their Parents rejected the Covenant. Some ordinances of worship expired, and new were appointed as D. O. well observeth, but I cannot find that God cast out any who formerly were members of it (as Infants were) without a forfeiture of their privilege.  
Obj. 5. Infants are not capable of entering Covenant with God, and if they were absolutely in it, than God did not perform his promise, because many prove wicked; and if only conditionally than it is no more to them than others, and what advantage by it?  
A. 1. Infants were of old in Covenant, and so are capable, Gen. 17. v. 10, 11, 12. Deut. 29. v. 10, 11, 12. ye stand this day all of you— your little ones— that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God— So then little ones are in a capacity to be engaged by Covenant for the Lord.  
I may ask were they absolutely in it or conditionally?  
2. Some answer, the Infant seed of Believers are in Covenant absolutely in the Species, conditionally in the individuals Cobbet.  
Many promises run to a Collective body, as the Church, and are accomplished there, and yet may not be made good to every member particularly; as it is promised, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, Mat. 16. 18. and yet Satan may prevail against particular Members or Churches.  
So the Covenant of not drowning the World, doth not secure every particular Man from drowning.  
3. As to advantages, there are many, as a Covenant-state is a state of greater nearness unto God than others are in; is declared to be a privilege, Rom. 3. 1, 2. and 9, 4. and it is a misery to be strangers from the Covenants of promise, Eph. 2. 12. many advantages I could discover of being externally in Covenant, and thus Men may be in it and may so miscarry, as to be rejected, as Ishmael, Esau, the Jews, Rom. 11. and yet God not break Covenant against Infant's Baptism, it is objected thus.  
Obj. 6. Faith and Repentance are required before Baptism, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptised.— If the Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, might not be baptised without Faith and Repentance, much less others. And such affirmative Precepts have their negative; and so Infants not believing or repenting, may not be baptised.  
Ans. 1. I freely grant, that those which believe and repent are to be baptised; but I deny the consequence, that therefore Infants may not be baptised.  
Such Texts conclude affirmatively, that such may; they do not conclude negatively, that none else may: as for example, it is said, Act. 8. 37. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest, i. e. be baptised. This doth not conclude negatively, that none else may; if any will say hence, none may be baptised who do not believe with all their heart, than they can baptise none; for they cannot know that another doth believe with all his heart; and Simon Magus, who did not so, yet was duly baptised, Act. 8. 13.  
If it could be proved that it is intended exclusively, than  
2. It importeth, that none but those who believe and repent of adult ones, may be baptised, it is not to be understood in opposition to Infants: often affirmative Commands intent only capable Subjects; and the negative part extendeth no further. Thus, as believing and repenting are commanded before Baptism, so confession with the mouth is commanded before Salvation, Rom. 10. v. 9 10. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus— thou shalt be saved; and with the mouth Confession is made unto Salvation. Will any hence deny that any Infants can be saved, because they do not confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus? It is meant of adult ones only, who are capable subjects. So labour, by a general term, is commanded before eating, 2 Thes. 3. 10. We command you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. Will any conclude thence, that Infants shall not eat, because they will not labour? So some commands about eating the Passover, as with sour herbs— are intended only for capable subjects, not sick Persons or Infants. That of preaching the Gospel to every creature, Mark. 16. 15, 16. is meant not to Infants, but others. So as to Baptism, the command to believe and repent before it, concerneth capable subjects only; and the negative part only saith, that adult Believers and impenitent ones may not be baptised, it concludeth nothing against Infant Baptism.  
That new Institution of Baptism was firstly to be received by the adult, being given to a Church where many such are found, and so it was proper to preach to them, believe, repent, and be baptised; and thus, we going to Turks, Indians, or others, where Baptism hath not come, we may preach in the same language, believe, repent, and be baptised, without excluding Infants from it: Yea, of old the Proselytes and Strangers must own the Jewish Religion, make a profession of Faith and Love, as Isa. 56. v. 3. to 8. Exod. 12. and then had Circumcision for themselves and their Infant seed.  
3. Faith and Repentance were then necessary even for the Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, that they who were Parents may have right themselves unto Bapism and other Gospel Privileges, and so their Infant seed may have right also: For as in other ages of the Church, when the Lord gave forth new Revelations and Ordinances for the Tabernacle and Temple, he required the receiving of them by Faith and Obedience, else they were to be cut off, Leu. 7▪ v. 20, 21, 25, 27. and 17. 4, 9 and 19 8▪ and 23. v. 27, 29. And after great Apostasies and Backslidings, they were severely threatened, if they repent not▪ So at the dawning of the Gospel day, Jesus Christ the promised Seed being actually come, this made a great addition to that important Article of Faith; now all were obliged under the highest penalty to the Faith of this, that the Messiah was come, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Joh. 8. 24. If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. This was the Test in those times▪ and for Unbelief the Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, were broken off, Rom. 11. 20. On this account was the command in that day to them, [Believe▪ and be baptised] for by persisting in positive, obstinate unbelief, as to his being come, there was a rejection of the Covenant, and losing their own right▪ and so their children's right, which resulted from theirs must needs be lost also. If Parents be cast out of Covenant, than I plead not for their or their Infant's Baptism. That faith than was indispensibly necessary to the continuing their Covenant Interest, as well as to their Baptism, yea if circumcision on the 8th day had continued to this day, yet this faith of his being come, would have been necessary thenceforth in the Parents, in order to their children's sharing in it. But where the natural seed of Abraham by such faith, laid hold on the Covenant and continued their Interest in it, here is nothing to prove any alteration or curtailing of the Covenant, so as to cut off their Infant seed from it, or to exclude them from Baptism.  
Also the natural seed of Abraham had then exceedingly corrupted themselves, and heinously sinned; even so as to Crucify Christ the Prince of Life, on which account he commandeth to Repent and be Baptised, Act. 2. v. 36. 38. When they were under such transgressions, well might they be exhorted to repentance in order to Baptism, and to prevent their forfeiting all and utter rejection, and the Lords saying to them Loami, ye are none of my People. Certainly a Church which owneth Infant Baptism▪ having members under such a horrid offence, may require a manifestation of repentance from the Parents before they do Baptise their Infants.  
In short I have discovered, that Infant Baptism followeth Parent's Faith; and Repentance is pre-required to Baptism of a degenerate adult seed, but this is nothing against Baptising Infants of a spiritual seed by faith.  
§. 3. Of the validity of Baptism in Infancy.  
Some speak contemptuously of the Baptising of Infants and undertake to Rebaptize, but  
Pos. Baptism administered in Infancy is valid, is no nullity.  
I have proved there is Scripture warrant for Infant Baptism, some Infants are the proper Subjects of it, and so it's no nullity.  
Arg. 1. Our Baptism in Infancy hath all the Essentials of Gospel water Baptism, therefore it is valid is no nullity.  
For, if a sin in Circumstantials and accidentals of an ordinance did null it, than none were valid; no person is so Baptised, but some sin in it would render it a nullity; seeing there is not a just man upon Earth that doth good and sinneth not, Eccles. 7. 20. 1 Joh. 1. 8. and the contrary is clear, Zippora circumcised when Moses should have done it, Ex. 4. 25. and yet it was valid for the Angel of the Lord was pacified, v. 26. So the high priests were not of the right line but yearly, yet Christ owneth them, Joh. 11. 51. and 18, 13. and I ask if a person erreth in his profession of faith, and yet they Baptise him, if he after be profane, will they say it is a nullity? will they if he repent Baptise him again!  
Now our Baptism in Infancy hath all Essentials of water Baptism, for it hath right matter and form; here is right matter, ex qua constat, viz. Water without undue mixture, here is the sign, and the thing signified by it is evangelical; also the right matter circaquam, capable Subjects rational creatures, none else can be in Covenant, nor in a capacity to have the things signified, the graces and benefits of the Covenant. That Infants have right to it, I have evidenced, that they are capable is undeniable, as they were of circumcision, which had a spiritual signification as well as Baptism, what hinders their receptivity? Infants are capable of a principle of faith and repentance, antecedently and of actual believing and repenting consequently, and one end which Baptism obligeth to is after repentance, Mat. 3. 11. Act. 19 34. Also it hath the right form, an application of water in a solemn significative way, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mat. 28. 19 we use washing tho not submersion; it is such an applying of water, that is the substance of the external form of Baptism, and if there were a sinful defect (which I think there is not) in the want of sub mersion, yet it can be but an accidental one, and so it can never be proved that it renders it a nullity. In Infant Baptism there is the Internal form, consisting in the relation of the sign and thing signified, and the External form the applying water in a solemn way with the words of Institution in the name of the Father— which must needs be more of the substance of the ordinance than submersion can be, and it is a principal part the face, which is is applied to for the noting profession, as the father's n●me in the forehead, Rev. 14. v. 1, and so it is valid.  
Arg. 2. Our Baptism in Infancy answereth to the Scripture signification of the word, and to what is signified by that Ordinance, therefore it is valid and is no nullity. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered mergo, lavo, it noteth a small use of water, as Luk. 16. 24. that he may [dip] & it is not the whole finger, but only the tip of it. Also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mergo, lavo, it signifieth not necessarily to dip or plunge, but as well to wash, and this both in common and in sacred use, it cannot be confined to submersion or overwhelming in the water, and so such dipping cannot be essential to Baptism, so as the not using it should render it a nullity. see Mar. 7. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except they wash, they eat not. Will any say, except they plunged their whole bodies under water they eat not, surely no, but only washed their hands, as v. 3. yet they, the persons by that small application of water are said to Baptise or wash, and v. 8. Luk. 11. 38. so in a sacred sense. 1 Cor. 10. 2. and were all Baptised unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea.  
Who will say they were dipped in the cloud, or their whole bodies plunged in the Sea? but the cloud did sprinkle or pour water upon them.  
So our pouring water on the face of an Infant in such a manner, is truly Washing or Baptising of it. And seeing dipping or plunging is not prescribed by the Lord, only washing, yea if it were so as it were a sin to omit it, yet for any to lay so great a stress upon that modality, placing so much Religion in it as if all were hull without it, I fear cannot be excused from Superstition, which is ungroundedly charged upon others.  
We answer, the Scripture signification of the word Baptise, and Conscientiously think that Christ hath left us to a liberty, as to that mode, hath not obliged us to submersion, because whatever might be done in hot Climates, yet in cold Countries such a usage would make the service of the Gospel worse, then that of the Law, against Mat. 11. 28. it would without a Miracle hazard life; whereas God will have mercy rather than Sacrifice, let us not then be censured for the omission of it.  
Yea further, the thing signified is answered by our Baptism in Infancy, be it a sign of regeneration, or of being buried with Christ, Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. or both; for, either noteth Communion with Christ in his Death, and that is expressed even by sprinkling, ye are come to the blood of sprinkling, Heb. 10. 24. & Heb. 10. 22. sprinkling noteth the thing signified by Baptism, and so may express Baptism the sign; but we use washing by pouring water upon, and that is expressive in both, Eph. 5. 25, 26. Rev. 1. 5. hath washed from our sins in his blood, Tit. 3. 5. no necessity that Baptism should resemble his death or burial in every thing, not in his being carried into the Sepulchre, and being there till the third day, they would not willingly be so long under water; our being buried with him in Baptism is a metaphorical expression, noting Communion sharing in his death, which aptly is expressed by washing.  
Obj. 1. But the first pure way of Baptising was by dipping, they went into and came out of the water, Mark. 1. 9 Mat. 3. 15, 16. Act. 8. 38. 39 and John Baptised in Arnon because there was much water there, Joh. 3. 23.  
A. 1. If this was the mode or usage in those hot Climates, than it is lawful there, but it doth not follow that it is necessary in cold Climates, much less so as it were a nullity without it.  
2. Some usages in the first administration of ordinances, being extraessential to them may lawfully be omitted afterwards in some cases: circumstances much altar cases; as the Passover must be brought the tenth day, and kept till the 14th, and the blood of it must be struck on the door posts in Egypt, and be eaten in haste, with loins girded etc. Ex. 12. but all these things were not duty afterward, let it be proved that they were used by Christ and the Apostles. Baptism was applied to Christ at above 30 years of age, to the Jailor at midnight. Act. 16. 33. So the Lords Supper was at first administered only to Men, to the Apostles in an upper room at night; yet all these things are not necessary duties for our imitation, so as a variation is sinful.  
3. The words do not necessarily note any more, than that they went to or unto and came from the water; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendered not [into] but [to or unto] as Mat. 15. 24. I am not sent, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to or unto the lost sheep, so Act. 16. 40. Rom. 15. 16. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth [from] as Mat. 1. 17.— from Abraham— Mat. 7. 23. depart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from me ye workers of Iniquity, and 9 15. Mark. 14. 2. Mat. 27. 45.  
Thus [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Act. 8. 39 is rendered as well from as out of, Mark. 6. 14. [from] the dead, Mat. 19 20. [from] my youth, not out of my youth.  
And thus these Texts necessarily import only, that they went to or unto & from the water, and however they might go into and come out of the water without dowzing or plunging their whole bodies into the water; and it's said as much of Philip as of the Eunuch, he went into and came out of the water, Act. 8. 38, 39 and will any say, that he which Baptizeth must always plunge himself into the water?  
4. None of these Texts speak a word, that the Baptising was in the form of Submerston, Dipping, or Plunging; it might be only by pouring water on them by washing, for aught is said here.  
As to Joh. 3. 23. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many waters may note, that there were many rivulets here and there where he came, which were not usual in those parts; and however John having many hundreds perhaps thousands to Baptise, in those hot Countries where he might go many miles for a little water, to show the conveniency of that place above others, it might well be said, he Baptised in Arnon, because there was much water there, and I am informed, that Arnon is so shallow a water, that no person can be overwhelmed in it.  
And now what remaineth, that can pretend to invalidate Baptism in Infancy? if it be said, their not being professed Believers, or their wanting faith.  
I add, that God his declaring Infants visible Covenant Interest, is as good an Evidence of their right to Baptism, as the visible profession of faith can be. And if the want of faith would render the Baptism a nullity; then such as appear to be but formal professors, they lose their Baptism, and if they become real Believers afterwards, they must be Baptised again.  
If they object against the Administrator; it falleth heavy upon themselves; for according to their own principles, how is it possible for them to find a regular Administrator! If Infant Baptism be a nullity; and Baptism be that, which constituteth a Gospel Church or any person a member thereof, as they affirm; then their own Baptism is a nullity, unless they can prove a lineal succession from John Baptist or the Apostles, or that he which began their Rebaptising work had an immediate call, as John Baptist and the Apostles had. For he that first began this Baptising work in their way, had no other Baptism but that in Infancy; if that were null, then was he an unbaptized person and no Church member, neither could he make himself a Church member, wanting that which should constitute him, so viz. Baptism. I ask what Scripture is there express or by consequence for an unbaptized person (and no Church member) to Baptise himself or others without an immediate call? without that (all Baptism and Church-membership) in their way is unattainable, impossible to be attained, and so the principles have a tendency to destroy both Baptism and Churches.  
I shall from the premises, add two corollaries.  
1. That to Baptise again those that being Children of Believers were Baptised in Infancy is a great sin, seeing Baptism in Infancy is valid; there is no Scripture warrant for Rebaptising any with water, and so it is a taking the name of the Lord in vain. As to Act. 19 3, 5. To say they were Baptised in the name of Christ, therefore they were Rebaptised with water, is a plain non sequitur. If this were a second Baptism it was with the Holy Ghost and with fire, v. 6.— the Holy Ghost came on them. Or one of them may be figurative, and note the owning of the doctrine, as Mat. 21. 25. Act. 18. 25.  
2. That to admit as members, and so Baptise again such who are known owned members of a rightly constituted Church, without its knowledge or consent is highly irregular; it is without Scripture warrant, it obstructeth and disableth for those mutual duties, which the membership in the first Church required at theirhands; there are various duties omitted, which are charged in the Church where they are members, Rev. 7. and 3. it breaketh the peace by division; it violateth all Gospel order.  
Neither will it be a Salvo to say, that Churches are not rightly constituted for want of their Baptism; this is enervated already, by proving the validity of Infant Baptism. And it is built upon a great mistake, viz. That Baptism doth constitute a Church, and make one a Member of it. Whereas it is not true, for at the first Institution of Baptism, John the Baptist administered it to multitudes who were Members of the Jewish Church before, and so were not made Church Members by it, the same Church which Jesus Christ was a Member of, and Baptised in, and so of a Gospel stamp. The Baptism of John was Essentially the same with ours, being that which Jesus Christ (the head of Baptised ones) passed under, yet what Church was Christ made a member of thereby? If that did constitute, than one member may be a Church, for where the form is, there is the thing form, yea an excommunicate person an Apostate, one that renounceth the Gospel and all Churches, yet his Baptism remaining he must still be a Church member, for where the form is, there is the formatum; and if such had lost their Baptism, then if ever they be reduced they must be Rebaptised; whereas Patiented one of the Baptists saith the Ordinance of Baptism is to be received but once, as a Man is to be regenerated but once, born but once, changed from death to life but once. To conclude, where Churches are of a Gospel constitution (which must be by other means than Baptism) it is sinful to withdraw members from them under pretence of bringing them under Baptism; therefore follow after things which make for p●●ce, Rom. 14. 19 and as 1 Cor. 10. 32. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.   

AN APPENDIX.  
HAving Evidenced the Covenant Interest, not only of Believers, but of their Infant seed, I may add two other Inferences thence.  
Inf. 1. Then it is of great concernment to own the high privilege and glorious advantage of Believers and their seed above all others in their Covenant Interest.  
Some would deny this external Covenant Interest to be a privilege, directly against Rom. 3. 1, 2. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of Circumcision? much every way.  
It is then a high advantage, although internal special privileges be wanted, or be not actually enjoyed, as Justification, etc. for in that respect he expressly declereth the Jew was not better, v. 9▪ 22. all are under sin, and there is no difference. There is unspeakable condescension in it, that God will admit any of his creatures into Covenant with himself, when he might have dealt only in a way of Prerogative and Sovereignty with them.  
There are many privileges and advantages of being even externally and visibly in Covenant with God, as  
1. The Covenant-state itself is agreat privilege, above what others enjoy: for, it is a great misery (Eph. 2. 32.) to be strangers to the Covenants of promise. Being in Covenant, speaketh some nearness to God when others are at a distance afar off, v. 13. argueth relation to him, Ex. 4. 21. and having the Kingdom of God nigh, Luk. 10. 9, 11. and 11. 20. in Ordinances and influences from the fatness of the Olive. Rom. 11. 17. 24.  
2. Various Divine Promises believing Parents may act faith upon the Lord in for their seed above others: Gen. 17. 7. 8. Is. 44. 3. Is. 59 21.— whereas the seed of the wicked are under threaten, Ps. 37. 28.  
If it be said, how doth God keep Covenant▪ then, seeing many of the seed of Believers prove wicked?  
This is answered before; Abraham had an Ishmael, and Isaac an Esau— who were visibly in Covenant and under the token of it, yet God kept Covenant; but the Lord rejecteth▪ none till they cast themselves out of Covenant, as Ishmael did and others may do, who are only externally in it, thus the Jews were externally in Covenant, as their privilege, Rom. 9 4. to them pertaineth— the Covenants, and many of them were bad and broken off, Rom. 11. 20. yet God kept his Covenant; so if some of the seed of Believers be wicked, yet God may keep Covenant.  
And from these promises, Believers have a higher encouragement than others can have, to hope that their seed shall afterwards share in Spiritual and Eternal Blessings, though they be not regenerated and sanctified for the present. As Monicha the Mother of that famous Austin, mourning for his sinful courses, [be of good cheer (said a Minister) for it cannot be that a Child of so many Prayers and Tears should perish.]  
Also they may be secured and delivered from many evils and temporal judgements, which others lie open to; God remembreth his Covenant for his, Ex. 3. 6, 7. Leu. 26. 41, 42. they are sealed. Rev. 7. 2▪ 3. from hurt which others are exposed to.  
Inf. 2. Then the Covenant Interest of Believers and their seed, lay Parents and Children under powerful obligations to Duty and Caution.  
Indeed every privilege is improvable towards Duty especially such as this.  

As to Parents.  
1. Beware of degenerating or forfeiting your Interest in the Covenant: for, you forfeit not only for yourselves but for your seed also, their right resulting from yours. Thus not only the Jews were broken off, but their posterity by their unbelief; and the sin of Parents often hath dreadful consequences to their seed; saith the Lord, Is. 14. 21. prepare slaughter for their Children for the iniquity of their Fathers. Often a keeping the Covenant or Commands is required, as Deut. 4. 40. and 12. 25. 28. that it may go well with their Children after them.  
2. Be much in giving instruction and Counsel in the matters of the Covenant to your Children; leave not your posterity ignorant thereof, Deut. 6. 6. 7. these words which I command and thee— thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy Children, Deut. 11. 19 and 32. 46. Eph. 6. 4.  
3. Be much acting faith upon the Lord in the Covenant, and pleading that with him in Prayer for your seed; seeing he hath said he would be a God to them as well as to yourselves. Thus Abraham having a promise for his seed, he acteth faith and poureth out his Soul to God, Gen. 17. 18. even for Ishmael, although but externally in Covenant with him, and it was with good success, v. 20. and as for Ishmael, I have heard thee—  
4. Be in a Submission to the will of God in the distinction, which he maketh in the distribution of Covenant blessings; the Lord vouchsafeth to one, what he will not grant to another, Gen. 17. 19 My Covenant will I establish with Isaac. i e. in the special blessings of it, not with Ishmael. And afterward, when he was mocking, he was rejected, Gen. 21. 9 12. yet God is quieting Abraham there; let it not be grievous in thy sight.  
This is difficult work for Parents to acquiesce and sit down without murmuring complaints, when the Lord rejecteth some of their seed, who sin, whilst he communicateth his grace to others.  
5. Be good precedents and examples to your seed that are in Covenant; they are apt to follow your course, walk and conversation; and be good Copies or Patterns to them, for imitation in keeping the Covenant.  
6. Lay your seed as much as possible under engagements for owning the Covenant: Eli a good Man reproved his Children, 1 Sam. 2. 24▪ yet not doing his utmost to restrain them from sin, his house is severely threatened, 1 Sam. 3. 13. 14. I will judge his house for ever.  
If Parents do not what they can to restrain their Children from sin it is greatly displeasing unto God.  
And God highly commendeth Covenanting Abraham, for commanding his Children and his Household after him, to keep the way of the Lord, Gen. 18. 19 he would have us by Counsel constrain Children unto duty, as a way to mercy.   

As to Children who are growing up.  
1. Beware of trusting in your privilege, or in being externally in Covenant, neither Children nor adult ones, are to take up their rest in any outward privilege, Mat. 3. 9 say not we have Abraham to our Father—  
2. Beware of a rejection of the Covenant, as Ishmael did, lest the Lord reject you as he did him; although your first Covenant Interest is by your Parents, know this will not always last, your standing there afterwards, must be in your own right by taking hold of the Covenant.  
It is indeed a difficult question. How long are the Infant seed interested in the Covenant, upon the account of their Parent's faith?  
I think it is, till either the Parent or the seed do reject or cast themselves out of the Covenant; Ishmael was circumcised on his Father's account, when Thirteen years old, Gen. 17. 25. but a certain number of years cannot be assigned as the determining rule for all, how long they are in Covenant upon the account of their Parents. There may be a difference herein as to years.  
If early you reject the Covenant, you may early be cast out, or when you are very young. And the Covenant may be rejected various ways, not only by rejecting of Jesus Christ, through positive unbelief as the Jews did, Rom. 11. 20. but by acting contemptuously against the matters of the Covenant, as Ishmael did mocking, Gen. 21. 9 how young soever, if you come to scoff or mock at Religion or matters of the Covenant, especially if you be descended of Religious Parents, you are in eminent danger of being cast out. And so by preferring carnal sensual enjoyments before Spiritual Blessings, as Esau did, who in distress sold his birthright for a trivial matter, even the gratifying a sensual appetite, Heb. 12, 16. as a profane person, he was rejected.  
3. Set your Covenant Interest against all temptations to sin; God hath impressed something of his name upon you, calling you holy; and then departed from Iniquity, 2 Tim. 2. 19 Do not act against the name of God and Jesus Christ, which you are solemnly engaged for the owning of Mat. 28. 19  
You that are the Children of Believing Parents if you live in sin, know you sin at a higher rate than others, because against the Covenant that you are under, as well as against your Religious Education; your sin admits of higher aggravations than others, for you forsake the God of your Fathers, 2 Chron. 7. 22. and 24. 24. to aggravate the evil of Nabals' do, it is said 1 Sam. 25. 3. and he was of the house of Caleb. The excellency of the Forefather Caleb increased the Sin of Nabal, he being a degenerate Plant.  
4. Improve your Interest in the Covenant towards seeking an Interest in Jesus Christ, and the Saving Blessings of the Covenant: He urgeth attendance unto the voice of that Great Prophet Jesus Christ, Act. 3. 22. And it is from their being the Children of the Covenant, v. 25. Do not content yourselves with being externally in Covenant in Parents Right, but seek a Personal Interest in the special Blessings of the Covenant.  
5. Make your Covenant Interest a Provocation to Repantance; Act. 3. 19 Repent ye▪— Why? v. 25. ye are the Children— of the Covenant,— Act. 2. 38, 39 Repent— Why? for the Promise is to you.  
6. Walk suitable to your Interest in the Covenant, in imitation of Abraham. When they pleaded they were the seed of Abraham, Christ reflecteth on them, because they did not the Works of Abraham, Joh. 8. 39 O walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham, Rom. 4. 12. Against Hope believe in Hope, that you may be blessed with Faithful Abraham.   
FINIS.   

A POSTSCRIPT.  
TO prevent Mistakes, know that page 3. runneth not upon my Principle, but is an Argument ad hominem; and the meaning is only this, that Infant Baptism is not expressly forbidden, therefore either it is lawful, or else Scripture Consequences must be admitted, which is undeniable.   

ERRATA.  
IN the Preface, page 4. line 5. blot out that. In the Book, p. 4. l. 14. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 10. l. 5. for faederatiare r. faederati are. p. 24. l. 13. for mystery r. misery. p. 28. l. 12. r. Rom. 11. p. 34. l. 5. for yet r. yea. p. 38. l. 11. r. from being. l. 12. after limit for to r. and. p. 40. l. 16. for that r. the. p. 46. for te r. to. p. 69. l. 6. for are r. were. l. 22. 24. for may r. might. p. 78. l. 6. for in r. of. l. 22. for Arnon r. Aenon. so also p. 81. In the Catalogue, p. 1. l. 4. for Definitive r. Defensive. p. 3. l. 21. for Sadbury r. Sudbury.   

A Catalogue of Books Printed for, and are to be Sold by Edward Giles, Bookseller in Norwich, near the MARKETPLACE.  

SEveral Discourses concerning Actual Providence.  
A Word in Season.  
Definitive Armour against four of Satan's most fiery Darts.  
Sermons upon the whole first and second Chapter of the Canticles.  
Thirteen Sermons upon several useful Subjects, all Published by John Collins, D. D. of Norwich.  
The way of the Spirit in bringing Soul to Christ.  
The Glory of Christ set forth, with the necessity of Faith, in several Sermons: both by Mr. Thomas Allen, late Pastor of a Church at Norwich.  
Enoch's Walk with God and Christ, a Christian's Gain: by Mr. Timothy Armitage, late Minister at Normich.  
A Discourse of the preciousness of Christ, and of the preciousness of Faith.  
Precious Promises the Portion of Overcomers.  
Sermons on five several useful Subjects; all by Mr. John Longher, Minister in Norfolk.  
The Saints Ebenezer, by Mr. Fran●●s English, late Minister in Norwich.  
Directions to spell English right.  
The History of the Protestant Reformation, as it was begun by Luther.  
The Dead Saint speaking, being a Sermon preached upon the Death of Mr. Newcomb of Dedham in Essex.  
The English Presbyterian.  
The Miracles of Christ.  
The ordinary matter of Prayer, drawn into Questions and Answers.  
Two Treatises, the first, Rejoicing in the Lord Jesus in all Cases and Conditions: the second, Of a Christian's Hope in Heaven, and Freedom from Condemnation by Christ: both by Mr. Robert Asty, late Minister of Jesus Christ in Norwich.  
Obedience to Magistrates, recommended in a Sermon preached September the 9th. 1683▪ being the' Thanksgiving Day for his Majesty's Deliverance: by Jonathan Clapham, Rector of Wramplingham in Norfolk.  
A Present for Youth, and an Example for the Aged; Two Discourses, one of Spiritual Blessings; the other, That God hath an high account of the least Grace in the Saints: by Mr. John Cromwell, late Pastor of a Church of Christ in Norwich.  
Infant Baptism of Christ's Appointment: by Mr. Samuel Petto, Minister of the Gospel in Sadbury in Suffolk.  
Of the Conversion of Sinners to God in Christ, the necessity, nature, means, and signs of it, with a concluding Speech to the Unconverted: by Martin Pinch, a Servant of Christ in the Work of the Gospel, in the City of Norwich.  
Sincerity, or the upright Man's Walk to Heaven, delivered in several Sermons in the Parish Church of St. Michael, in Long-stratton, in Norfolk▪ by James Oldfield, late Minister there   
The End of the Catalogue.